In a significant move towards transparency, the Legal Ombudsman is gearing up to publish its decisions in full, following a pause in these efforts due to operational challenges.
Chief Ombudsman Paul McFadden has announced that the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) is poised to reconsider its approach to decision publication. This development follows a strategic pause since early 2022, attributed to operational difficulties. However, improvements since then have enabled LeO to explore options for enhancing transparency by publishing decisions.
Currently, the LeO provides basic decision data, updated quarterly on a rolling 12-month basis. This system was found wanting, prompting demands from stakeholders including the Legal Services Board and Legal Services Consumer Panel to chart a course towards full decision publication.
Despite significant strides in service quality, operational performance still requires refinement to mitigate the risk of destabilisation during implementation. McFadden stressed the importance of carefully managing timeframes to minimise any adverse operational impact.
There is an ongoing debate on the effectiveness of full decision publication. McFadden cautioned that merely publishing decisions might not effectively communicate key insights to legal professionals or consumers. While larger legal firms can glean learnings from these decisions, smaller practices lack resources to do so effectively. Consequently, published decisions are frequently utilised by media rather than consumers.
On the other hand, publication could potentially offer a more balanced view of complaints reaching the final ombudsman decision stage. This potential influence on standards, behaviour, and culture in legal services cannot be overlooked.
The undertaking faces significant challenges, including resource demands that might reach nearly £1 million, considerations of legal professional privilege, and the possibility of judicial reviews. Historically, such publication initiatives have attracted numerous legal objections.
Although full publication is a plausible pathway, it would require a minimum of 18 months. Meanwhile, publishing summaries could serve as an interim measure, albeit at a higher resource cost since LeO handles approximately 1,300 decisions annually.
If the initiative to publish full decisions proves unfeasible, alternative transparency measures remain a priority. The notion of publishing decisions has long been on the agenda, yet has historically met with resistance, especially from legal professionals.
As the Legal Ombudsman navigates these challenges, its commitment to transparency through full decision publication signifies a pivotal moment for legal accountability.
