The Gazette 1994

G A Z E T TE

_

J UNE 1994

P R E S I D E N T ' S

M E S S A G E

E v e r y p r a c t i ce s h o u l d c o n s i d er a c omp l a i n t s - h a n d l i ng p r o c e d u re

In my address to the half-yearly general meeting of the Society on 12 May last, at the commencement of the Society's annual conference in the Connemara Coast Hotel, I suggested that in the context of the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill, 1994, which provides for greater transparency in the manner in which the Society conducts its regulatory duties and the manner in which solicitors conduct their dealings with clients, that the time has come for all firms to consider an "in-house" complaints procedure. In the course of my address I said that: "One of the essential hallmarks of a profession is that it is able and willing to regulate itself by setting rules and standards of conduct and by disciplining those who transgress. The powers and duties of self-regulation may be enshrined variously in legislation or in professional or ethical rules or regulations accepted as binding by that profession's membership. Whatever the origins of a profession's self-regulation, there must be a common objective to promote effective self-discipline for the good of the profession and in the public interest. "The emphasis should be on the external 'raison d'etre' of service of the public and the interests of justice, rather than on any internal 'raison d'etre' of the self-interest of the profession itself. If that emphasis is seen by the public to exist, the public in turn will have more confidence in the legal profession and will distinguish it from other organisations which are sometimes perceived as putting their members first. "As befits a self-regulating profession I would suggest that it is essential that each solicitor's practice should operate its own complaints-handling procedure. Some practices already have such a procedure in place. Such a procedure would ensure that, from the

(c) ensure that clients are at all relevant times given any

appropriate information as to the issues raised and the progress of the matter. "The adoption here, by similar regulation, of such a 'client care' requirement would, I believe, reduce significantly the number of client complaints made to the Law Society. Such a requirement would more expeditiously address the main causes of complaint - delay and failure to communicate adequately - and at the same time would more likely ensure that the problem at issue did not fester and result in an irretrievable breakdown in the particular solicitor/client relationship. Once it is accepted that even in the best-run offices problems can arise which cause upset and annoyance to the reasonable client, it makes good sense to provide a procedure for resolving such problems by conciliation at an early stage, if and when they do arise. "In engaging in this critical self- analysis of our self-regulatory profession, it is important to remind ourselves and the wider public that the vast majority of practising solicitors are honest and provide a good and efficient service to their clients. The Society receives in the order of 1300 complaints per year from dissatisfied clients of solicitors. With some 4,000 practising solicitors in the country, it is reasonable to assume that the level of complaints represents far less than 1% of legal matters actually being handled at any one time throughout the country. But while bad news will make headlines, good news tends not to do so. The solicitor should thus see himself or herself as a custodian of the good name of all solicitors. "In concluding, let me summarise by observing that the best form of self- interest is in demonstrating an interest (Continued on page 178) 171

Michael V. O 'Mahony

outset, the client would know that if any problem arose in relation to the legal services being provided, there would be in place a means of resolving the problem without the outside involvement of the Society. "The Law Society of England and Wales has had, since May 1991, a statutory 'client care' regulation (the so-called 'Rule 15'). The English regulation provides that every principal in private practice must operate a complaints-handling procedure which, inter alia, ensures that clients are informed whom to approach in the event of any problem with the service provided. This 'Rule 15' further provides that every solicitor in practice must, unless it is inappropriate in the circumstances -

(a) ensure that clients know the name and status of the person

responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the matter and the principal responsible for its overall supervision;

(b) ensure that clients know whom to approach in the event of any problem with the service provided; and