An online survey of 1,010 premature complainants was undertaken. The sample came from contact details held by the Legal Ombudsman of all who had made a premature complaint since October 2010 and for whom an email address was collected.
This report was commissioned in order to investigate the attitudes and experiences of first-tier complainants within the legal services domain, and to understand what typifies both good and bad complaints processes.
83% satisfied with the service they received
Review undertook assessments of the quality of advocacy by type of advocate – results reported – Page 5
Range of quality of advocacy in Crown Court ratings table:
In non-contested hearings, for example sentencing or PCMHs, a greater majority of crown advocates were fully competent in comparison to counsel and for the most part they are delivering a sound quality of service. In contrast counsel performed better in trial hearings and across all individual aspects of trial advocacy apart from the closing speech. – Page 25
Further analysis of quality of advocacy in non contested hearings and trial advocacy – pages 26-28
Range of quality of advocacy in Magistrates Court ratings table – page 37
Quality of non-trial advocacy and quality of trial advocacy – pages 42 – 45
93% of consumers of conveyancing services were satisfied
Some information on satisfaction with quality
Analysis of quality of delivery in legal aid
Canadian studies show that there are no significant quality differences between private practice and salaried services. (pg2)
covers survey that found that NfP advisors were more expensive than solicitors but generally provided a higher quality service (page 14).
Discussion of overconfidence in ability leading to too much litigation
Measuring the quality of legal services – techniques.
Our qualitative data suggested that unrepresented litigants achieved poorer outcomes on their cases, and that this was essentially for two reasons. Firstly, lack of representation frequently meant they were unable to present their cases in the best light (if they were able to present them at all). Secondly, a proportion of them brought cases that were inherently weak, either because they had not had the benefit of lawyers discouraging them from bringing cases in the first place, or because they were motivated to bring poor cases because of other grievances against their opponents or a broader disregard for the relevance of law to their disputes – Page 221
Summary discussion of LIPs – Pages 245 -265
Peer review of advice given by specialists who weren’t focused on mystery shop issue. Advice they gave was generally poor quality (page 36). More data on page 37. And again on page 45 in relation to education advice. Debt advice analysed for failings (page 50). Overall summary of mystery shop experience on pages 59 – 61
65% of consumers were satisfied with their service, 19% said they were dissatisfied
Report suggests that advice given by specialists is more high quality than generalists (page 15).
82% of BME users are satisfied with their service
Review of research into the effectiveness of having a lawyer represent you found that -
Lawyers promote accuracy because they understand the proper procedure
Study got feedback from tribunal heads about the quality of representation they witness – some of it not very complementary about the people who appeared before them (page 173). Other feedback extends over the following few pages.
Study indicated that 30% of solicitors in a quality pilot study were of inadequate quality (page 6).
Survey does not just include lawyers: but, within study, specialists were more likely to offer comprehensive advice (page 42) than generalist equivalents.