As we have all offered our opinions' regarding the SRA etc. It is only fair groups and panels charged with scrutinizing them are allowed their say. The Legal Consumers Panel produced a report, outlined recommendation below, which analyzed the legal profession and endeavored to offer an in-depth approach as to how the legal profession should be scrutinized and monitored, Their findings seem to confirm that presented in papers delivered by eminent authorities in the legal field from renown universities such as Havard Law School, Georgetown Law Centre along with Thomson Reuters and many articles contained in LegalFutures on the subject of legal professionalism. Below are the recommendation of their findings. Bazzas, remained unconvinced of my previous proposal, that is, to initiate discussion on how IT could help the legal profession be more open and better scrutinized, and if I understood this correctly, did not believe it was possible to undertake such a quantum leap with any degree of satisfaction for either party concerned. To offer some observations, it would seem this is actually taking place today, services are being offered by numerous organization who provide this type of capability. One is a UK based company called [removed] which seems to be expanding it's offerings in many areas of the law and client satisfaction critiques/surveys etc. numerous other companies around the globe are doing the exact same thing. To move these services to scrutinize and monitor would be a very simple step with not only current IT but future technology. For those with an appreciation of IT and data analysis the logical step of using triggers, filters, data held at the cloud and many other features of these tools have the ability to provide low cost rich and passive data analysis at all levels of legal management. Just a thought, I found it very interesting.

The comments referring to 'you', me and your profession were aimed not at you but others who have commented having indicated that they are members of the legal profession, so it most certainly is not all about you. I never even suggested this was a total solution, but, a starting point to consider options as I consider the current system inappropriate, yet, all who have commented in the negative seem to want to remain with a closed mind and not consider ANY alternatives. Critiques of all natures can be both functional and informative, when looked at with a closed which is what I am sensing here no problems will ever be cured, it all right don't fix it.

As feared you are looking at the negatives not even willing to consider any form of monitoring or upgrade of the service as it stands. If you were to only read what I stated, I stated that whatever was/is to be created and formed must alleviate all of the issues that you raise, do you not think there are people out there who create these type of products all of the time with the help of psychologists, please open up. To say that this is logistically impossible is only to put barriers in the way, this facility can be actioned in the most part automatically and filtered accordingly, by your own suggestion most are vexatious claims anyway so these could be filtered out at the first pass. Do you not consider the medical arena, especially in the USA, use this approach, certainly every hospital or GP that I have visited in our local has this facility in one form or another now. When you say solicitors operate to a strict code of practice now, I agree, but it obviously is not working hence the number of complaints etc. raised, the regulators and their cohorts are not providing a service which is acceptable to the general public, even if it is acceptable by you and your profession.

Bazzas, many apologize for the delay, I did previously indicate that an APP of some kind could be used. This would ensure that every person that receives or commissions legal services can complete a critique regarding the service they have received, obviously and I cannot stress this enough before someone indicates the scenario of clients losing cases etc. If managed and drawn up correctly this can be made to form part of the code of practice, centrally managed and analyzed this would prevent in most cases long drawn out complaint procedures, reduced cost and continual monitoring of ALL legal services. Whilst this would I know feel alien to the profession currently this is only one offering which could avoid the decline in trust of the profession and lead in some small way to enhanced and better scrutiny of services offered. Firms could be actively monitored and where appropriate contacted passively to discuss any major points of issue, this would be less costly, more efficient and certainly take the emotion out of the whole affair. Giving the general public critical access to formed data would again open the industry up and certainly give the general public some access to what is currently deemed a closed shop.

Bazzas, please excuse me the full thread did not get loaded for some reason, I did infact offer some alternatives earlier. I feel it would need the will and involvement of people from you organization to achieve this with an open mind. It is conducted in many other professions, medicine, utilities providers etc. all are different and must be looked at with selective knowledge but to achieve an appropriate scrutinization monitoring body I feel is not beyond the realms of you clever people. After all the SRA and LO cost hundreds of millions of pounds a year to support, and that is without the Law Society groups etc. surely a better organization can be found.

Thank you for clarifying that point, perhaps I can once again offer my calculated view on these organisations in support of my initial post:- The LO - is only interested in covering the grounds of processes and procedures, i.e. have solictors followed the correct documented tasks if so, dismiss complaint. Not interested in contributing facts or truths. Their annual report makes interesting reading, 20000 issues raised, 2500 investigated, this does not mean resolved to the complainants satisfaction but 'resolved'. SRA - Data provided in my first post outlines the miniscule impact this organisation has on any complaint made. Digging deeper, in most proven cases the solicitor in question will only receive a letter of 'up your game', as reported in my initial post. Max financial fines, which never seem to be implemented, are no more than a days pay for a solicitor. Solicitors have no fear of the SRA whatsover so disregard any threat of complaint to them as hot air. The SRA's own charter states - We are here to protect the public whilst regulating Solicitors to ensure that professional and ethical standards are maintained at all times. One question which legal professional seem to want to answer is, how on earth can you ensure professional standards are maintained if no proactive monitoring takes place, which IT DOES NOT. So the following statement I feel hold an even stronger point now that those contributing here have commented, The legal ombudsman has very low or even nill impact on the conduct and scrutinization of the legal profession.

Please excuse me if this is a little confusing, but all I wish to understand is the question raised, to reiterate : are solicitors and the legal profession scrutinized, monitored and regulated by the SRA and the LO or are there other bodies that undertake this function?

Could I please clarify the points above, solicitors and the legal profession are scrutinized, monitored and regulated by the SRA and LO.

Steampowered, thanks for the reply, could you please expand on how exactly 'they' are monitored and scrutinized for my own clarity. All businesses rely on reputation so that is a given I feel, but exactly how and when is data collected and utilised within your profession for the purpose of examining professional performance and adherance to professional code of practise, and is this available for general consumption?.

Points understood, perhaps you can answer me a question: How are solicitors and members of the legal profession scrutinized and monitored?

Whilst I consider my previous points indicate I do understand the points raised, your own comments support my original premise, that of lack or no accountability. To take the consultation conducted by the SRA, which you quote, apparently out of 10000 solicitors contacted to discuss and comment on matters of professionalism and public impression only 600, not even 10%, of your colleagues and fellow members saw fit to respond, what does that say of a profession supposedly trying to put it's house in order. After all the findings you find so offensive weren't even reported in the daily media, as far as I am aware, but in your 'trade magazine' so the exposure was rather limited don't you think. Many solicitors do a fine job I am sure, but, it does seem that none are open to selective scrutiny, I would hate for you to go shouting on the streets to promote your good work, but, why is not every client who receives legal services offered access to a critique 'app' on completion of work undertaken. Many professions I have been involved with do this as a matter of course to better their service offering and ensure high standards are continually maintained. The results of these responses could be made public if managed correctly and hence would negate the need for biased or inappropriate analysis of you and your colleagues. Obviously this would need to be arranged in such a way as to remove any bias or vexatious action but this happens in many other professions without problems and really does get to the nub of any problems. I fear there is a need for your profession to open up more in terms of service offering by putting the client first at all times, after all they are your life blood.

Supervillain, having read your response along with the items outlined in the Law Gazette, does this not highlight the very points I raised in my original thread. Your response seems to suggest that you do not wish anyone to monitor or regulate your profession, that you consider you and your colleagues always do the correct and honest thing, unfortunately this is not true I am afraid. Having dealt with numerous 'law professionals' in my business and personal life I can honestly say that some do act as reported by the SRA, that is, to consider their 'general public' joe clients to be less intelligent or less able than themselves exasperating this image by using terminology and legal jargon which most folks are unfamiliar with and when dissected is not really required, I suppose this to them keeps their pedestal high. How do you suggest checks and balances are placed on your profession then, every other professional body is regulated why shouldn't yours be?. The public do not trust 'most' solicitors that is true, but surely it is both yours and every one of your colleagues obligation to negate this image by your actions and deeds.

Ganymede, whilst my case was only a preface to my looking at this organization, there are many aspects which I am not able to discuss in an open forum, but, here are a few of the points I raised with the SRA. Inappropriate/wrong evidence offered in court, never seen or ratified by me, failed to call pertinent witnesses 'could not get hold of them' - I got hold of them in one phone call, Information/Evidence created by firm was not factually based so refused by courts to be submitted at trial, failed to act in my best interest at all times, firm driven by recovering their fees not truth/evidence based and firm did not adhere to my instructions throughout case management. As stated these are a subset, I should add all points I raised were/are COMPLETELY supported by correspondence between myself and the firm in question, even a lay person cannot fail to arrive at they same conclusions as I did, this firm acted in breach of the SRA code of conduct. Throughout our discussion here you have offered support for the SRA, whether vested or not, on the basis of your opinion, yet no hard data to back this up. I have attempted honestly to offer an OPINION as to what I have experienced and the information I have obtained in support of the reasoning on which this opinion is based. After all it is just my opinion I am not insisting that anyone must follow my lead, but, offering a calculated opinion from my point of view, others will obviously make their own minds up in these situations. Do I want to see 'more solicitors and barristers struck off', well to answer this honestly - YES, if it means the rogue elements are jettisoned I most certainly do. Without adequate policing I fear we the general public are left vulnerable to so called professionals who misuse their position to massage their ego and bank balance. Obviously you are aware that 'every action has a consequence' if we are to let the SRA continue in the mode you seem to suggest then surely this will continue to provide lip service to complaints or fears of the general public. Solicitors currently know that if they are reported to the SRA or LO nothing serious will happen even if they are found to have breached the code of practice, organizations such as the SRA and LO do not stand as a deterrent to any rogue organization. Surely it is time for a truly independent monitoring group to take up this mantle for the sake of all concerned .

In response to Steampowered and Bazzas, as you will appreciate I am very well aware of what areas the SRA are deemed responsible for so to contradict your claim, I did not raise an issue relating to poor service, although that was obviously an outcome of the firms actions. The firm involved, and the senior partner particularly, violated their own contract of engagement along with the SRA principles of professionalism. I would ask respectfully that when offering support for this organization's conduct one forensically looks at the data provided. Do you really consider 50 complaints out of 10000 raised to be a proportional and realistic figure for those found to have guilty of violating the SRA code of practice, in all honesty. Whilst some logged may be wrongly attributed and others vexatious the 'conviction' figure is paltry and really does not seem at all convincing in line with other consumer facing organizations which undertake a similar or complementary service. Most individuals who engage a solicitor or legal professional put complete trust in them to act on their behalf and in their best interest, when this fails many, I would say most, do not have the willingness or energy after a court case to even look at the solicitors performance and just revert back to their lives having lost at great personal cost. It is only those that still have energy enough who will pursue this at the SRA. Therefore, it may well be that the 10000 figure I quote is just a portion of the actual number that have suffered at the hands of solicitors violating the SRA principles. Why don't the SRA carry out random case reviews on every firm, this would ensure all firms continue to adhere to the principles on which they sign up, but then there would be a cost I hear you say, what cost honesty and integrity. The SRA unfortunately in my view are not worth a light, having had to deal with blatant lies, data that cannot be verified or questioned this all removed from an individual the major thrust of natural justice whilst enabling the SRA to make decisions without you as an individual having access to all the facts From a personal point of view I will again reiterate, using the SRA or Ombudsman will get you nowhere, utilize other more appropriate methods to gain recourse should you have been compromised by the legal profession.

Please excuse my having not got back sooner I was called away. I will attempt to answer all the points raised by Silverfox1961, Steampowered and Ganymede in an honest and precise a manner as I can, obviously any personal data I will refrain from using at this stage. 1. The statistical data provided was obtained from the SRA themselves via a FOI request, so that provided was to all intents and purposes correct as far as we, the public, and they, the SRA are concerned. 2. Yes, I have been involved personally and have spoken to many others who have had the exact same experience. 3. Just to expand the point, the case I was involved in I WON, so, there was no argument with the decision made by the court ultimately. Although, in was in spit of the solicitor and Barrister involved and not because of their professional conduct. Without the case dossier I created, along with evidence offered by myself and my witnesses in court I would certainly have lost this case if I had to rely on these so called professionals to fight my corner as pertinent evidence was sidelined at critical points. The cost of this exercise induced by their incompetence cost me three times more than it should of, as outlined in the initial contract of engagement. To supplement this they undertook settlement negotiations, what a joke that was, until I stepped in and stated what was going to be appropriate otherwise I would have lost financially throughout. Their basis of negotiation was to get their fees first after which I came very low down the pecking order of resolution. To suggest that the amount of complaints raised were 'mostly' vexatious is stretching the believable I fear. All these complaints had progressed through the 'firms' own complaints procedure otherwise they would not be heard by the SRA. Therefore using very simple analysis all these folks felt aggrieved and would I suggest have looked at other forms of redress such as the Citizens Advise, Trading Standards etc. before pursuing this path. Even when reporting to the Ombudsman, I think this needs clear understanding. The ombudsman deals generically with processes and procedures, they are not interested in truth, disputed actions or morals of professionalism. To put it more plainly, they look at whether all the processes and procedures followed by the firm are in line with their own documents of engagement etc. they do not consider the facts of truth and lies. So if a solicitor has failed in their processes and procedure the Ombudsman MAY act, I stress MAY. Regarding the penalties mentioned previously, NO SOLICITOR was struck off, a number were sent a letter with an 'up your game' sentiment but no punitive measures were taken that I was made aware of. Out of 10000 complaints these figures are unbelievable, I have experience of statistics raised with regard to customer facing organizations and I have NEVER encountered such a large disparity as I have witnessed here. Whilst I do concede that the contributors may have a differing view to myself, unless you have experienced this service first hand in a personal or analytical manner I fear it is only to easy to expect these organizations to provide the form of support you would hope for, unfortunately they do not. One point made above is that solicitors have a hard enough job anyway. Well these are professional people who are highly rewarded, all we the general public expect is honesty, integrity and for them to work in our best interest. Unfortunately many, not all, solicitors are motivated by money, their first call in any settlement is to get their fees, obviously they are in business so deserve remuneration, but the presentation of truth, honesty and moral a code of natural justice I have personally seen wavered so they get paid their fees. To support this how many civil cases have you seen were the complainant gets back ALL of the costs incurred in a case, I would suggest very few. For every complaint that wins they never recover all the costs incurred in bringing the case before the courts. It would be very easy for Joe Bloggs to conclude that all of these solicitors etc. are in collusion with each other so that all get their rewards, or, that so gentleman's agreement or 'bricklayers' shake is going on, but I for one am hopeful that none of this conspiracy theories are taking place within the British Judicial system. To this end I stand by every word I raised in my initial thread the SRA are not fit for purpose in my opinion. Thank you for your time and patience in review this thread.