Ken Dalling

A majority of respondents either ‘mostly’ or ‘strongly’ disagreed with the majority of the proposals that stem from 2018’s Roberton Review. A majority, however, agreed with the proposal of providing greater transparency and information on complaints.

A significant number of responses submitted by individuals highlight frustration with the current complaints system in its entirety, and support nothing less than wide-ranging and comprehensive reform to the complaints system. 

The government said that it appears that those respondents disagree with the majority of the proposals in the consultation on that basis.

The proposals on which views were sought fell into three packages:

1. Changes to the process of complaint categorisation (to introduce a category of hybrid issue complaints);
2. Changes to the process of complaint investigation, reporting, determination and conclusion of cases (comprised of six separate amendments with the aim of creating a more efficient and proportionate complaints process); and
3. Changes to the rules for fee rebates (where a rebate of fees cannot be paid by the practitioner because they are unable to pay due to death, insolvency or cessation, the equivalent amount can be treated as an actual loss for the client/complainer, and so instead be paid out by the professional indemnity insurance scheme).

Ken Dalling, president of the Law Society of Scotland, said: “We will continue to work with the Scottish government and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in taking forward proposals to improve and speed up the process, while looking ahead to further consultation on more substantial reform to the regulation of legal services.

“We have pressed for regulatory reform for a number of years. This led to the independent legal services review in 2018. Much of the current patchwork of legislation governing the legal profession is over 40 years old and does not meet the needs of modern consumers of legal services or the profession.

“The recommendations made following the review include many of our own proposals for reform. Importantly, however, we remain strongly opposed to the primary recommendation to create a new regulatory body. Such a step is unnecessary and although it would do nothing to improve the regulatory system, would inevitably increase costs for those who pay for legal services. 

“The review itself described Scotland as being home to a well-educated, well-respected legal profession which enjoyed a high degree of public trust. Despite having an effective regulatory system, we know there can and should be further improvement to it. Future reforms need to be directed at areas where change will mean improvement and should be evidence based.”

A further Scottish government consultation on reforming legal services regulation is expected to take place later this year.