"Bonkers" complaints law needs complete overhaul: SLCC chair

The legislation setting out how complaints against legal professionals have to be dealt with was labelled "bonkers" last night by the new chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

Speaking at an event focusing on improving the consumer experience of the system, Jim Martin said there was no point tinkering with the system, which should be replaced with one that was "modern, agile and fair".

With a background as having been Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland, his view was that he "had never seen anything more complex, rigid and legalistic" than the scheme in the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 which set up the SLCC.

Having spent his first five months as chair "taking stock", Mr Martin said the Act failed to focus on any of the internationally recognised consumer principles, or to meet the Scottish Government's "better regulation principles" (proportionate, transparent, accountable, consistent, targeted and agile), and did not do the professions any good, while presenting a "huge complex maze" to complainers. Amendments made when the bill was before the Parliament had only added to the complexity and rigidity.

Among other points of criticism was that a complaint had to go through the same process whether it was worth £200 or £2m; the imposition of court standards on the complaints process, "which restricts our ability to take commomsense decisions"; the setting down of administrative arrangements in primary legislation, limiting the ability to amend them ("Who does it help?"); the fact that rule changes had to be approved by the Lord President ("Why, if the SLCC is an independent, arms' length body?"), which prevented it piloting different models; and the £20,000 cap on compensation, irrespective of the value of the complaint ("not the real world").

He was also astonished how much burden was placed on the individual practitioner as compared with firms or organisations – and expressed surprise that the consumer voice had not been heard more strongly since the Act was introduced.

Mr Martin, who is a member of the panel assisting Esther Roberton in the current review of the regulation of legal services in Scotland, said he was willing to work with anyone who would collaborate with the SLCC in making improvements happen.

He concluded: "While we welcome the current collaborative work with the Law Society to identify what can be changed by regulation, we need to move away from tinkering with a system which is simply not fit for purpose. Lessons need to be learned from the mistakes made in the past. To achieve a complaints process which is fit for the 21st century we must be prepared to embrace far more radical change."

Held at Queen Margaret University’s Consumer Dispute Resolution Centre, the event was attended by complaints experts, consumer bodies and sector representatives including the Law Society of Scotland's office bearers. Other speakers described experiences giving rise to complaints against the NHS in Scotland and changes in process there, and of consumer ADR (alternative dispute resolution) processes.