Focus on core functions, Society tells SLCC

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) should focus on the better performance of its core complains handling functions in its new strategy plan, according to the Law Society of Scotland.

In its response to the SLCC's consultation on its draft four year plan, the Society argues that the SLCC has failed to set out the basis or assumptions on which the strategy has been created, despite its now eight years' experience of complaints handling. The Society also challenges the premise of the aim of improving trust and confidence in legal services, when its own research shows a very high level of satisfaction among members of the public with solicitors' services. 

It contrasts the SLCC's approach with that of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, whose vision to enhance public confidence is rooted in providing an effective and efficient complaint handling service and improving its own performance. It mantains that the proposed strategy "risks giving the impression that the SLCC is increasingly motivated to spend time and resources on discretionary activity outwith its formal remit".

In the Society's view, the SLCC should focus on complaint handling standards rather than service standards; that it would be going beyond its remit for the SLCC to move into audit of and recommendations for individual firms; that it would not be appropriate to create another fund or insurance scheme to cover orders for client compensation that remain unpaid; and that it is not for the SLCC to "lead the debate on the overall regulation of legal services".

Lorna Jack, chief executive of the Society, commented: “We are pleased to see that the SLCC’s draft strategy and its 2016-17 annual plan set out its commitment to bringing about operational improvements and the resolution of cases at an earlier stage.

“The core statutory functions of the SLCC are to act as a gateway for all legal complaints, deal with service complaints and carry out its statutory oversight duties. It is essential that the organisation focuses on these.

“However looking at the overall picture in both the strategy and the plan for the next year, we are concerned at the seeming lack of the underlying context for the new strategy. We are not clear why the SLCC has prioritised certain areas of work and while we welcome the mention of delivering early resolution of cases, there is little on how it intends to improve its performance in its core complaints handling role.

“We appreciate the need for the SLCC to work in the interests of consumers, as we must also do, but it has to pay equal attention to the legal profession. It is not sufficient to solely focus on building trust among the public, particularly when there is research to show high levels of trust in the legal profession overall and satisfaction in the work they carry out for clients. For the system to work effectively, there must also be a building of trust among the legal profession in the SLCC’s ability to address matters fairly with no bias towards any one side.”

The Society is also critical of the SLCC's proposed budget for the next 12 months, which was laid before the Parliament yesterday, and has concerns about the future sustainability of SLCC funding levels.

Ms Jack said: “We don’t support the 5.9% budget increase, although it is a marginal decrease from the initial proposal for a 6.8% rise. It seems excessive given the current drive to reduce costs and increase efficiency by many organisations, including ourselves.

“We are concerned that the proposed budget does not appear to be specifically focused on delivering core operational improvements, but is instead being used to fund discretionary areas of work which sit outwith the principal duties of the SLCC.

“The majority of the SLCC’s funding comes from a levy on solicitors. While the budget for this year will use some of the SLCC’s reserves, we question the long term sustainability of the SLCC’s approach. It seems inevitable that solicitors will be expected to fund voluntary and non-core work at the SLCC in future years through further annual increases in the levy.”

Click here to access the Society's responses.