Client Relations Office
 Clive Franks - Committee A |
|
| Committee A membership | |
| Clive Franks | (Convener) |
 |
|
| Martin Burns | |
|
|
| Peter Cross | |
|
|
| Ian Cruickshank | |
|
|
| Russell Douglas | |
|
|
| James Gordon | |
|
|
| Anne Hastie | |
|
|
| Valerie O’Neil | |
|
|
| Iain Smith | |
|
|
| Gerard Whitten | |
|
|
| Fay Shortt | (Secretary) |
|
|
 Robert Frazer - Committee B |
|
| Committee B membership | |
| Robert Frazer | (Convener) |
|
|
| Chris Fraser | |
|
|
| Alison Henderson | |
|
|
| Pauline McGoldrick | |
|
|
| Jennifer McIntyre | |
|
|
| Peter Matthews | |
|
|
| Francis Redman | |
|
|
| Bruce Rollo | |
|
|
| William Stewart | |
|
|
| Robert Wood | |
|
|
| Susan McBay | (Secretary) |
|
|
 David McClements - Committee C |
|
| Committee C membership | |
| David McClements | (Convener) |
|
|
| Alan Burgess | |
|
|
| Fiona Clunie | |
|
|
| Olive Douglas | |
|
|
| Alastair Durie | |
|
|
| Grant Knight | |
|
|
| Kim Leslie | |
|
|
| Frank McAuley | |
|
|
| David Newton | |
|
|
| John Smith | |
|
|
| Gillian Martin | (Secretary) |
|
|
 Ian Angus - Committee D |
|
| Committee D membership | |
| Ian Angus | (Convener) |
|
|
| William Braes | |
|
|
| Carolann Buchanan | |
|
|
| David Buchanan-Cook | |
|
|
| Margaret Christie | |
|
|
| Alison Harvie | |
|
|
| Norman McIntosh | |
|
|
| Gillian Maclean | |
|
|
| Maurice Miller | |
|
|
| Professor Alan Paterson | |
|
|
| Stella McCraw | (Secretary) |
|
|
 Jane MacEachran - Committee F |
|
| Committee F membership | |
| Jane MacEachran | (Convener) |
|
|
| Michael Ford | |
|
|
| Ivor Klayman | |
|
|
| Denise Loney | |
|
|
| Om Maini | |
|
|
| Paul Matthews | |
|
|
| Valerie Palmer | |
|
|
| Russel Pugh | |
|
|
| Isabel Walkingshaw | |
|
|
| John Webster | |
|
|
| Ian Ritchie | (Secretary) |
|
|
 James Millar - Committee G |
|
| Committee G membership | |
| James Millar | (Convener) |
|
|
| Robert Forman | |
|
|
| Bryan Johnston | |
|
|
| David King | |
|
|
| Fiona MacDonald | |
|
|
| Robert McIntyre | |
|
|
| Suzanne Lyons | |
|
|
| Marlyn Minto | |
|
|
| Michael Pain | |
|
|
| George Way | |
|
|
| Michael Greenfield | (Secretary) |
|
|
 Andrew Glencross - Committee H |
|
| Committee H membership | |
| Andrew Glencross | (Convener) |
|
|
| Mike Cowen | |
|
|
| Colin Dunipace | |
|
|
| Elizabeth Dunlop | |
|
|
| Derek Edmonds | |
|
|
| Michael Graham | |
|
|
| Mike Meston | |
|
|
| Scott Miller | |
|
|
| Elizabeth Snaddon | |
|
|
| Geoff Worrell | |
|
|
| Ruth Ross-Davie | (Secretary) |
|
|
 Alan Davies - Client Care |
|
| Client Care membership | |
| Alan Davies | (Convener) |
|
|
| Ian Angus | |
|
|
| Elizabeth Dunlop | |
|
|
| Andrew Glencross | |
|
|
| James Gordon | |
|
|
| Jenny McIntyre | |
|
|
| Robert McIntyre | |
|
|
| Alan Paterson | |
|
|
| Philip Yelland | (Secretary) |
|
|
 Martin McAllister - Professional Conduct |
|
| Professional Conduct Committee membership | |
| Martin McAllister | (Convener) |
|
|
| Fiona Alderson | |
|
|
| Alison Atack | |
|
|
| Alistair Christie | |
|
|
| John Clarke | |
|
|
| Steven Gleeson | |
|
|
| John MacKinnon | |
|
|
| Eileen Masterman | |
|
|
| Hugh Raymond | |
|
|
| Ian Stubbs | |
|
|
| Kay Telfer | |
|
|
| Janette Wilson | |
|
|
| Fiona Robb | (Secretary) |
|
|
| Elaine McGlone | (Secretary) |
|
|
Modernising and Improving
A Year of Achievement
2004 has been a record-breaking year for the Client Relations Office (“CRO”).
In September 2003 the Society commenced the operation of the new complaints system with the publicly stated intention of completing 90% of complaints investigations within nine months. That target was reached in December 2004.
This achievement has been made possible by the hard work of all involved in the CRO – the staff, reporters and Committee members. The profession has also helped to increase the speed of the process by successfully using conciliation to handle complaints and increase client satisfaction as well as improving their response times to the Society.
The successful implementation of the new system was only possible because Council allocated increased resources to the CRO. This ensured that the targets for speeding up complaints handling were met. 2005 will see new objectives for further changes to modernise the system for everyone concerned.
Reaching the Target
In planning to reach the 90% target, the CRO identified a number of stages of the process. The aim of the new scheme, which began on 1st September 2003, was to ensure that each stage of the process was completed as quickly as possible. Initially four stages of the process were identified with a fifth being added in the summer of 2004 because the marked increase in speed of handling had led to unexpected delays at the report allocation stage.
1. The Pre-intimation Stage
This is the first stage of any complaint where there may an attempted conciliation or where the issues need to be agreed with the complainer before the matter is formally intimated to a solicitor. Over the course of the year the time taken to deal with this stage of the process has reduced.
For the cases passing through this stage in December 2003 the time taken was 100 days. For the cases passing through this stage in December 2004 the time taken was 78 days.
2. Stages 2 & 3 – Written Investigation and Allocation of Report
The new complaints system aims to of reduce the investigation time by cutting out unnecessary reminders and focusing on adding value to the investigation. The case managers were encouraged to drive forward individual cases This has led to faster case handling. In cases passing through this stage in December 2003 the combined time was 113 days. For cases closed in December 2004 it was 72 days.
3. The Report Stage
The guideline period for a reporter to produce a report is 30 days. Some reports can take longer to produce because of the complexity of the case and the volume
of paperwork to review. For cases passing through this stage in December 2003 the average time taken by a reporter was 36 days; for cases passing through this stage in December 2004 the average time take by a reporter was 22 days. Reducing the average report time to below the 30-day guideline period is a tribute to the hard work and commitment of the reporters – solicitors and non-solicitors.
4. The Committee Stage
The final stage of the process takes account of comments from clients and solicitors on the report.
The reporter is given the opportunity to produce a supplementary report, where appropriate, and the case
is then decided by a Committee. Throughout 2004, Committees have met once a month. The number of Committees was increased from five to seven in July 2004. The average time taken for cases passing through this stage in December 2003 was 76 days; the equivalent time for cases passing through this stage in December 2004 was 65 days.
Aims For 2005
The Client Relations Office objectives for 2005 are:
1. Pre-intimation Stage
To continue to reduce the time taken at the
pre-intimation stage and analyse those cases which take longer at this stage so that specific reasons for any delay can be identified and addressed.
2. Investigation Stage
The CRO aims to provide a fast service which delivers to the high standards of the Society. These standards demand fair and thorough written investigations with decisions made as quickly as possible once the necessary information has been gathered.
3. Report Stage
The Society has recruited 60 new reporters over the past year to reduce the pressure on existing reporters and ensure that a reporter can look at a case as soon as it reaches the report stage. The Society now has around 200 reporters - both solicitors and non-solicitors. The recruitment and training of reporters is a continuing process and the staff of the CRO assist with guidance and advice on the complaints process for reporters whenever necessary.
4. Committee Stage
In February 2005 significant changes will be made to the Committee structure which aim to speed the process further, and increase the number of Committee members involved in the decision-making process.
From February the CRO will operate ten Committees of eight members – four solicitors and four non-solicitors. Five of the Committees meet on the first Thursday of the month while five meet on the third Tuesday of the month. This should cut out the delays caused when Committees only met once per month and could speed up the process by two to three weeks in many cases. The changes will also spread the Committee workload which has more than doubled in the past year because of the increased speed of complaints handling and the increase in the number of complaints.
Improvements in 2004 in the Process.
The changes which have led to the greatest improvements over the past year are:
a) Sifting Panel
Introduced in September 2003, the Sifting Panel double-checks the rejection of complaints at the first stage. One solicitor and one non-solicitor Committee member review every case manager’s decision not to investigate complaints in whole or part or not to reopen closed files.
The Sifting Panel quickly became an important quality assurance tool in identifying cases where an investigation should proceed. In most cases, however, the Panel has confirmed that the case manager’s decision was correct. The Panel has provided valuable information and feedback for the CRO, which is used in the ongoing training of case managers to ensure that cases which should be investigated are investigated. There have been a few changes to the working of the Panel which has now settled into a productive work pattern.
b) Reporters
Reporters are key to the operation of the CRO and complaints handling process. Without reporters who give their time and commitment to looking through often complex and difficult cases the system could not be as effective as it is. The involvement of non-solicitors is vital to the success of the CRO and those individuals and their work should be recognised for the value they bring to the CRO where all too often the perception is of a process involving only solicitors. A successful training event aimed at all non-solicitor reporters was held
in November.
The increased number of new reporters has reduced the delay at the report stage. At the same time quality of the reports is reviewed to ensure that the standards of reports are uniformly high and that any training needs are met.
c) Volume of Work
The statistics show that the CRO Committees considered over twice the number of cases in 2004 as in 2003. This increase was the result of the new system speeding up the handling process which included cases working through the old system and also from the increase in the number of complaints being brought to the Society.
Increasing the number of Committees from February 2005 should assist the Committees to consider more cases over the next 12 months. There is an annual increase in the number of complaints brought to the Society. In 2004 that increase was 26%. This is partly due to the increased awareness of the CRO and the Society hopes it also shows increased faith in the CRO. The percentage of complaints upheld annually remains fairly steady so there is no indication that standards in the profession are changing. It is clear that more people are willing to bring a complaint to the Society. The Professional Conduct Committee, which considers reports recommending a finding of misconduct and disciplinary action (such as referral to the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal), has also been a successful innovation since September 2003. It has had a busy year dealing with recommendations from both the CRO and the Guarantee Fund.
d) Resourcing
The office bearers and Council allocated significant funding to the CRO and the Society’s regulatory functions last year and in the budget for next year. The amount allocated has increased annually as the demands on the office increase. The CRO make’s sure that every penny of funding works hard to provide value for money to its members while providing a fast and fair service for the public.
The cost of the regulatory operation in 2005 will be twice the CRO spend in 2002 but the average cost for handling a complaint remains at a reasonable level.
Looking Ahead
2005 is a year where the benefits of the Society’s investment in the CRO will continue to show as the new systems settle and further changes to modernise the CRO are introduced.
One of the goals will be to ensure that the 90% within nine months’ target set in September 2003 and achieved in December 2004 continues to be met and if possible improved on but the main focus will be in allowing the changes to produce the improvements they promise and to take the time to check the quality of the new system and the product produced.
The constant regulatory review as well as detailed scrutiny of the regulation of solicitors, particularly concerning complaints against solicitors, continues. The changes the reviews have brought, especially delegated powers, have been vital to the improvements to the CRO. The reviews to date have brought endorsements of the Society’s regulatory systems from the Scottish Executive and the Justice 1 Committee and the Society agree with both those organisations that more change is needed. The Law Society of Scotland is used and copied as a model of regulation by other jurisdictions across the world, something that could be better recognised in Scotland.
1. Justice 1 Consultation
The first regulatory consultation of 2005 is a consultation which follows the report on the Justice 1 Committee Inquiry into the Regulation of the Legal Profession in Scotland, which reported in 2002. The Society has made many changes since the original report. The consultation will focus on the complaints system and the CRO will be looking for more opportunities for change and for legislation to allow further modernisation of the CRO. The legislative change requested by the Society in June 2004 includes the power for Council to make findings of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory conduct and also the power for Council to suspend a solicitor in the rare case where a solicitor fails or refuses to cooperate with a complaints investigation.
2. Inadequate Professional Service
In December 2004 the Scottish Parliament announced that the inadequate professional service compensation level was to increase from £1,000 to £5,000 with effect from 1st April 2004. The Society will review the current guidance available to reporters and Committees before providing updated guidance which will also be made available to the profession and the public.
3. Leaflets
The CRO leaflets are currently being revised and updated. More information will be available on different types of complaint and how to make a complaint. There will be a new leaflet to assist anyone who wants to raise a complaint about a solicitor who is not his solicitor. There will also be more guidance for solicitors on working with dissatisfied clients and what happens if a client complains to the Society.
4. Client Relations Partner Rules
Possibly the most important change in 2005, if approved at the AGM, will be a new set of rules requiring all firms to have a Client Relations Partner and a written internal complaints handling procedure which can be given to a client upon request. Many firms already meet the requirements of the draft rules and are now better at handling complaints within the firm and improving client relations as well as service to the client.
Council has recognised the achievements of the Client Relations Office in the course of the last 12 months and remains committed to continuing the improvement and modernisation of complaints handling. The CRO aims to have another positive and constructive year and to reporting on further improvements to the system as they happen in 2005.
