Is the client always right?

It was once said that as a nation we are very reserved in our ways and are reluctant to complain when something goes wrong. This may be down to a sense of reasonableness, a desire to give people the benefit of doubt and to realise that in life mistakes do from time to time occur.

I have in recent times however noticed a major shift in attitude, people in general I find are less tolerant when it comes to mistakes and are less likely to be forgiving when things do not go their way.  This may be to do with the lack of money; the scramble to make savings and even the hope that by complaining a financial gain may follow.

Working in the service industry I work hard putting into place procedures and training sessions for staff to ensure that customer relations is given the priority it deserves.  I work tirelessly to do all I can to ensure mistakes do not happen but as with most aspects of life it is inevitable that there will be times when oversights or mistakes are made.  

I always like to think that if you admit the mistake as soon as it happens and do not fall into the trap of trying to defend the indefensible that the client will understand and a swift resolution should then follow.  

In the majority of cases this is often the outcome, though speaking to others it seems there is of late an increasing trend for complainants to seize the opportunity to make life difficult for the person or company responsible for the mistake.  More often than not this particular stance in money motivated  - the hope is that by taking the offensive it will result in a financial reward.

The difficulty this causes is that however hard one works to find a satisfactory resolution if the agenda of the complainant is different the chances of preserving a congenial relationship with the client/customer is almost bound to be lost.  You find yourself in a ‘no win’ situation and one that leaves even the most conscientious practitioner feeling extremely deflated. 

Much emphasis is given to the use of complaints procedures and of the need to follow these at all times.    There is no doubt that a process of this type is essential but I do question the effectiveness of such procedures in dealing with the hard nosed complainant who is determined to get his or her ounce of flesh irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the complaint.

The problem service providers face is that with increased access to consumer redress schemes, and the fear of adverse publicity on Google and other sites where the client/customer can rate the supplier, the complainant will always have the upper hand.    How many of us would risk finding ourselves on the end of a negative rating and one that could be set in stone even where there is no justification. 

So what can one do to avoid this?  Well in short very little as even with the best will in the world one can not avoid the serial complainer or the complainant who complains for no reason other than to seek a reduction in your fee or some other financial gain.  All one can do is to operate a robust complaints procedure and to be firm and fair in its application. 

Undertaking high volume of work particularly as low cost increases the risk of complaint not only statistically but in terms of clients/customers seem to expect more for their money and are more likely to complain if the service does not live up to their expectation.

The upshot of all of this is that complaints are an occupational hazard and one that in addition to operating a complaints procedure we should make provision for both financially and in the setting aside of management time.

Morgan Jones and Pett are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

Have you heard the one about the lawyer, accountant, banker and of course the Legal Services Act?

Put a group of lawyers, accountants and bankers together mix in some good food and drink and with a bit of luck you will generate an evening of lively debate. 

This is exactly what happened when I was invited along to a dinner hosted by a high street bank and a nationally known firm of accountants.   The purpose of the informal gathering was to debate the future of the legal profession in the light of the never-ending changes and challenges that lie ahead.

Putting to one side the countless opportunity seized by many to self congratulate, and ignoring in the main the sales pitch by the hosts, I was intrigued, and indeed surprised, by the differing views around the table on the changes that will occur once the Legal Services Act is fully implemented in October.

By way of background, many of the lawyer participants were from medium sized firms leaving my firm as the only three-partner firm in attendance.  The majority of these firms have in recent times become LLPs and much of the discussion (the dull part) centred on how these firms have put in place corporate structures to provide management. One firm was smitten about its decision a couple of years ago to bring in some high flyer from London to take on the role of Chief Executive.

Listening to these firms it occurred to me that many were so embroiled in trying to emanate the larger City firms they had to a large extent become oblivious to the bigger picture.  It may have been professional pride getting in the way but not one of these firms seemed in any way perturb by the inevitable challenges that will arise with the full implementation of the Legal Services Act.  One of the representatives actually popped up and announced that there was nothing to worry about! He expanded on this by saying like many of these ‘things’ it will all blow over!

I am not sure whether this reflects arrogance or a reckless disregard of the threats.  Perhaps it’s a bit of both.   The most worrying aspect was that the view expressed had the support of the majority of the legal attendees.  It was clear however that the banks and accountants are not so confident. There was much discussion around the table on how banks are beginning to tighten the screw on legal practices.   Firms with working capital deficiencies and succession issues now seem to be regarded as ‘high risk’.

The sudden change of fortune for  a certain large Manchester based practice that was forced into liquidation and the ramifications for its bankers, has clearly made banks look more closely at the balance sheets of law firms.  Add to this the uncertain future many high street firms face with increased competition and Jackson and the future does not look too good, particularly for the smaller firms.

The time to take ones head out of the sand and to give recognition to the threats posed by national brands with deep pockets to fund marketing is now. It is a sad indictment, and a very worrying one, that there are still a large number of lawyers out there who have yet to take any steps to protect those services that will inevitably become post Legal Services Act commoditised. These will include conveyancing, wills and personal injury.  We already know that SAGA, AA and the Co-Operative have plans to market services direct to the public, and more recently Quality Solicitors has agreed a deal with WH Smith to allow representatives to be in store to provide legal advice.

However wonderful we may believe we are, the fact is that those with legal problems who once would come through our doors, will without doubt be lured away with the power of national advertising and the attraction of low fees and perhaps even ‘club points’.  We live in a world where money is sparse, where people are looking to make cut backs in spending, to believe as some do that a good quality service will always ensure a client’s return, is, delusional.  Client loyalty is about to face its biggest ever test.

So you might ask what are we doing to prepare.  We are looking to establish a local co-operative to produce resources to run a campaign to keep work local and to look at ways of sharing services to reduce overheads.   The scheme has the backing of local banks and accountants have designed the financial model.  I am sure it will work and prove successful, however if it does not at least I can say that we have tried to do something.  Doing nothing cannot be an option.

Back to the dinner…. Great food and a fantastic insight into how divided our profession has become.

Morgan Jones and Pett are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

Can outsourcing work for small and medium sized legal firms?

The buzz word within the legal profession is “outsourcing”.

A lot of the larger legal practices are already beginning to save vast expense through outsourcing backend and administrative tasks. They are handing this work to legal support services either from an outside law firm or a legal support company. If the work is outsourced to an entity based in another country this practice is sometimes called “offshoring”. The outsourcing industry is increasing each year and as of April 2010 there were around 5,200 professionals working within that sector. These were mainly based in India and the Philippines.

The question is whether a small sized legal practice should particularly in an age of austerity be looking at some form of outsourcing. The area in which there seems to be some growth is in the area of typing support.

Many of the providers of transcription outsourcing are based in the UK and work not only with legal firms but also other sectors such as the NHS.

The majority of these services operate on a “pay as you go” basis with no joining or monthly subscription fees. The dictation is digitally recorded and is transcribed by a nationwide panel of secretaries normally secretaries with legal experience.

There are a number of advantages to be gained by outsourcing transcription apart from the obvious one which is cost.

These include:

1.     The ability to get work out on the same day or within 24 hours of the work coming into the office which intern helps to speed up transactions and advance cases meaning that costs come in much quicker with the resulting benefit for cash flow.

2.      There is no sickness or holiday issues to worry about.

3.      The service can be provided 24 hours and is not limited to 9-5pm.

The downside is that those working on the typing of letters and memoranda etc are not aware as a secretary would of the background to the case and this lack of case knowledge can sometimes be found to be inhibiting.

There are also the SRA requirements to be addressed.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority issued its first public statement on the ethics of outsourcing back in July 2010. In general the SRA considers legal outsourcing to be perfectly acceptable as long as contingent ethical obligations are satisfied that include client disclosure.

In the statement issued the SRA notes “in accepting work from a client, the firm must always consider whether the work should be outsourced at all as they should have the necessary resources and competency to undertake the task. In summary a firm must act in the best interests of their client.."  

In November of 2010 the SRA announced that it is set to launch what is refers to as a “thematic review” of outsourcing. This is likely to take place sometime this year. The review is to identify whether there are any particular issues or risks that require changes to the current regulatory requirements or whether certain outsourcing arrangements need particular attention in a supervision process.

So coming back to where we started and the question of whether outsourcing can be an option for small to medium sized legal firms the answer must be yes although one must not underestimate the cost and management that will need to be invested in overseeing the outsourcing and making sure that the conduct rule requirements is met.

How much money would the outsourcing of transcription service save is really down to the individual firm to assess. The cost of a good legal secretary can range between £18,000 - £26,000 depending on the region. In comparison the cost of outsourcing is around £1 per minute of dictation and on the basis a fee earner will probably do around 60 minutes of dictation each day the annual cost is likely to be around £14,400.

Outsourcing will not be every firm's cup of tea but in an age where there is more and more pressure on resources this should be an option  to be considered sooner rather than later.

Morgan Jones and Pett are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

Senior Judge calls for change in law to benefit cohabitees

Sir Nicholas Wall, the president of the Family Division, has today said that Unmarried couples who split up after living together should have legal rights to a possible share of property and money. He added courts would be more sympathetic to a claim where the couple had been living together for a significant amount of time.

Currently apart from when children are involved a judge has no discretion to make financial provision or adjustment in the same way as is possible when dealing with married couples.  A sixth of couples in Britain live together with the number expected to rise.

Sir Nicholas told the Times: "I am in favour of cohabitees having rights because of the injustice of the present situation. Women cohabitees, in particular, are severely disadvantaged by being unable to claim maintenance and having their property rights determined by the conventional laws of trusts."

He added: "If cohabitation has been short and the contribution minimal, judges would not be sympathetic to a claim."

Morgan Jones and Pett are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk