The Gazette 1967/71

profession is to be improved, a solution to the problem must be found." If their recommendations regarding the preliminary investigation of complaints (infra) were implemented the committee believe most complainants would be satisfied; to deal with cases where complainants were still seriously dissatisfied, even after having had their complaints investigated by the Bar Council or by the Law Society, there would have to be a review body consisting of lawyers and laymen. THE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE FOR COMPLAINTS The Garrett Justice committee propose a system of preliminary investigation of complaints at local level, operated by local law societies (either individually or in groups) with the participation of laymen. Each local law society or grouped societies would appoint and maintain (i) a small standing committee who would be responsible for the conduct of the scheme, and (ii) three panels : panel A to consist of lawyers (not necessarily in practice) to investigate complaints against members of the profession; panel B consisting of practising solicitors to act in civil pro ceedings against other members of the profession; panel C from whose members ad hoc complaints committees would be appointed. Each complaints committee would consist of a lay chairman and two lawyers (one a barris ter where the complaint involved a barrister). On receipt of a complaint, the secretary of the standing committee would refer it to a member of panel A ("the investigator") to classify it as (a) capable of being dis- ••(•' .!•• i-'formal intervention and explanation; (b) apparently involving an allegation likely to lead to a civil claim for damages; (c) a prima facie case of professional misconduct; or (d) a case too difficult for local treatment. For a complaint in category (a) the investigator, having first referred it to the solicitor concerned, to ascertain any necessary further facts, would then endeavour to satisfy the complainant either bv expounding the true position or by persuading the solicitor to take some necessarv action : "the role of the investigator should emphatically not be to pass 'udgment." If the complainant remained dissatisfied, he would be informed that he could have his complaint referred either to a complaints committee or to the Law Society. The primary role of the complaints committee would be that of conciliator assisted by an unbiased summary of the case prepared bv the investigator. No complaint should be rejected without a full explanation of the reasons. Where a complaint fell within category (b) the investigator would refer the complainant to the next available member in rotation of oanel B and. if the complainant agreed, the member of panel B would then be obliged to accept instructions on a normal pro fessional basis. On a complaint within category (c) the investigator would prepare an unbiased summary of the case and pass it. with the complaint and any other paper, to the Law Society. Where a comnlaint fell within category (d) the com plainant would be informed that he might refer the complaint to the Law Society, either direct or through the standing committee who would provide such

comments of their own as they thought appropriate. For the purposes of complaints involving members of the Bar, the standing committee would maintain contact with the Bar Council and local Bar circuits so as to be able to call upon the assistance of a barrister to sit on a complaints committee in such cases. On complaints dealt with by the Bar Council or by the Law Society, the committee recom mend (a) a greater willingness by those bodies to interview complainants personally so that the precise nature of the complaint may be properly understood; 'hi that n complainant should be kept fully informed at all stages of the action taken on his complaint, and (c) that a full explanation capable of being understood without further legal advice must always be given when any complaints rejected. The Bar Society and the Law Society should jointly make arrangements for establishing a review body to hear complainants who remain dissatisfied after their complaint have been dealt with by either of those bodies. A complainant in such circumstances will, in effect, be appealing from a tribunal consisting exclusively of lawyers, so the review body should include a lay element. Generally, the committee emphasise "the apparent possibility of an allegation of negligence should not be treated either by the Bar Council or by the Law Society as a reason for terminating or suspending enquiries into a comDlant." They believe that "there is no compelling reason" for the present contrary practice in such cases; the complainant should of course, be told of his common law riehts '-> all cases, "but in a manner which . . . has regard to the realities of his position rather than the mere theoretical possibilities." COMPLAINTS A Statement by the English Law Society "The Council of The Law Society have reviewed the present system for dealing with complaints against solicitors. Their review has included the role of the Disciplinary Committee. They recognise that because the work which solicitors have to do affects so many people in their everyday lives, it is imperative that a cocmplaint that a solicitor has fallen short of the pro fession's hisrh standards of conduct must be dealt with in a manner which is not only fair, but also is seen to be so. Every vear matters are brounrht to the Society's attention for investigation man 1' of which prove to be unfounded or to be outside he Society's Jurisdiction. The Society on behalf of the profession pnd in the interests of the public, devote a considerable amount of time and number of staff and a high proportion of the revenue received from the profession to this investigation. The Council believe that the investigation is carried out well and efficiently; they recognise that this is probably inevitable in this tvpe of situation. The Council believe that despite the high and increasing cost of this important part of their work, they must do all in their power to maintain and. where necessary, im prove the efficiency of the department responsible. The Disciplinary Committee was created over 50 years ago by Parliament which provided for its members to 41