header-logo header-logo

04 June 2025
Issue: 8119 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

All complaints to be recorded under SRA & BSB proposals

The regulators of both barristers and solicitors have launched consultations on the way lawyers handle complaints

Barristers would have a professional duty to inform their chambers or the Bar Standards Board (BSB) of any complaints they receive, under proposed changes to the Bar Handbook.

In a consultation published last week, the BSB said it would analyse the data on complaints ‘on a regular basis’ to identify any trends or risks that might emerge. Failure to report complaints could be sanctioned by ‘regulatory action, including supervision and enforcement action’.

The BSB would provide guidance or even supervision to ‘barristers with disproportionately high levels of first-tier complaints, premature complaints to the Legal Ombudsman, or more generally identified weaknesses in complaints handling’.

The consultation, ‘New arrangements and rules for first-tier complaints handling’, closes on 6 August.

Mark Neale, director general of the BSB, said: ‘Consumers must have confidence that their complaints will be fairly assessed and dealt with efficiently, effectively and fairly at the first available opportunity.’

Under changes proposed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) last week, solicitors would be obliged to give clients information on how to complain once their legal matter is concluded as well as on request or on receipt of a complaint.

Currently, solicitors must publish details of their complaints handling procedure on their website or make this information available on request if they don’t have a website. According to the SRA, only about 68% of firms with websites do this.

The SRA proposes changing the requirement to ensure complaints information is treated in the same way as costs—displayed in a place that is easy for the public to locate, clearly signposted and easy to understand.

Paul Philip, SRA chief executive, said: ‘Solicitors shouldn't be afraid of encouraging complaints.’

The SRA consultation, ‘Changing our requirements on first-tier complaints’, began last week and closes on 25 July.

Issue: 8119 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Regulatory
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll