Legal Ombudsman urges regulators to act over CFA concerns


Sampson: lack of clear information

The profession’s regulators have failed to respond to a Legal Ombudsman report outlining its concerns about the way lawyers are operating conditional fee agreements (CFAs), the chief ombudsman has complained.

Adam Sampson has now written to the regulators to ask directly about their plans to address the issues it raised in the report published in January.

Back then, the ombudsman asked the regulators to review and monitor the issues in the report and propose ways to ensure there is greater consistency in the standards in this area.

The report said the use of CFAs should be monitored and reviewed by regulators to ensure that they do not lead to consumer detriment; that lawyers take care to explain the conditions attached to CFAs and make clear the circumstances where the customer may end up incurring legal costs; and that lawyers should exercise due care before agreeing to take on a case to ensure that the cases are well founded, minimising risk to themselves and their customer.

In the letter to regulators, published yesterday, Mr Sampson said: “Since publishing the report the number of cases we have investigated relating to CFA’s continues to account for just over 8% of our complaints. While this is not a widespread problem, when something does go wrong the impact on consumers is substantial.

“The ‘no win, no fee’ report looks at several case studies where lawyers broke the terms of their CFA and left consumers with huge and unexpected bills to pay, in one case as much as £30,000. But the impact is not limited to consumers; if we find poor service a lawyer can find themselves having to refund or waive a substantial amount of their costs.

“We also asked whether it is appropriate to continue to use the term ‘no win, no fee’ as it is clearly a term which has the potential to lead to confusion and misunderstanding with consumers.”

Mr Sampson said that nearly a third of complaints are about the transparency of costs information more broadly, “so it is clear that this continues to be an area where consumers feel they are not receiving clear information from their legal provider. As the legal market continues to evolve we need to be confident that consumers can access services with confidence and understand the financial risks that are involved, however the work is funded”.

Tags:




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog

18 October 2018
Claire Stockford

An analogue decision? Google defeats attempt at consumer ‘class action’

In an eagerly awaited judgment, the High Court handed down its ruling in Richard Lloyd v Google LLC on 8 October. It seems clear that there is a degree of reluctance to permit group litigation which will not materially benefit consumers. That being said, it is hard to ignore the increased possibilities of group litigation in the context of corporate data breaches, particularly following the implementation of GDPR earlier this year.

Read More