Society said LeO’s proposed complaints framework will need clearer guidance, stronger safeguards and a credible adoption strategy
The Law Society of England and Wales has warned that the Legal Ombudsman’s proposed Model Complaints Resolution Procedure (MCRP) will require further refinement and a clearer implementation strategy if it is to improve complaints handling across the legal sector.
Responding to the Legal Ombudsman’s call for input on the draft model, the Society said the framework broadly reflects practices already used by many well-run firms, but questioned how the Ombudsman intends to drive adoption among providers where complaints handling standards are weakest.
The proposed MCRP is designed to create greater consistency in first-tier complaints handling and support earlier resolution of complaints before matters escalate to the Legal Ombudsman. The Law Society said it supports efforts to improve transparency and consumer confidence, but stressed that implementation would depend heavily on practical guidance and operational support rather than the model itself.
In its consultation response, the Society said the Ombudsman must provide reassurance about how adoption of the model aligns with existing regulatory requirements, alongside high-quality guidance and templates to encourage firms to engage with the process. It also called for a clear strategy to ensure widespread uptake and consumer-facing guidance distinguishing service complaints handled by the Legal Ombudsman from conduct complaints that fall under the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s remit.
The Society also raised concerns about the limited level of consumer feedback obtained during the pilot phase. It said that, given the lack of consumer feedback during the pilot, “testing and iterative refinement of consumer guidance will be important post-launch”, adding that it was “unfortunate that the proposed consumer templates were not available for review”.
Law Society president Mark Evans said: “We support LeO’s efforts to improve complaints handling and enhance consumer confidence. A more transparent framework has the potential to promote earlier and proportionate resolution of complaints.
“However, effective implementation will depend less on the articulation of the model itself and more on the guidance and templates around it.
“Safeguards are needed to ensure early resolution is correctly applied and does not prioritise speed or commerciality over fairness. This is particularly important in complex, sensitive or vulnerable client cases.”
Evans added that complaints procedures must adapt to changing patterns in how complaints are raised, particularly with increasing use of artificial intelligence by consumers.
“It is imperative that complaints’ processes adapt to how complaints are raised today. More consumers are using AI, which is increasing the number, complexity and the likelihood of escalation,” he said.
“Regulators and redress schemes must carefully consider the practical implications of this to ensure complaints processes remain fair, workable and effective.
“We encourage LeO to engage with professional indemnity insurers, representative bodies and regulators to ensure that the MCRP is sufficiently refined to enable it to operate well within the wider regulatory framework and works for all legal service providers under LeO’s remit.
“The Law Society remains willing to support LeO in refining and promoting a model that’s proportionate, workable and capable of delivering genuine improvements in complaints handling across the sector.”