Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2058214
 


 



Willing Blindness? OSS Complaints Handling Procedures, Research Study 37


Richard Moorhead


Centre for Ethics and Law, Faculty of Laws, UCL London

Avrom Sherr


University of London - Institute of Advanced Legal Studies

Sarah Rogers


affiliation not provided to SSRN

May 14, 2012


Abstract:     
The following summary dates from the report's original publication in 2000. It forms part of the history of concer about professional self regulation which led to the Law Society being stripped of its powers to adjudicate onnconsumer compliants.

This report was submitted to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) in May 1999. Since then there has been a change in leadership of the OSS, an increase in resources and a recruitment campaign aimed at increasing the staffing levels in the Office. It is not known how far the changes made will address the problems recorded in this report. These problems largely relate to management and quality of work within the OSS. Past experience of change in the OSS and its predecessors suggest the need for wariness in accepting that change has secured improvement.

Two strong findings set the tone for much of the other evidence on the OSS’s performance in complaints handling. Firstly, the Office is overwhelmed by substantial delay. This seriously undermines the entire performance of the organisation. The second finding is poor management. The guardian of standards for client care cannot command much respect where delay and poor management are two of its own strongest failings. The whole management structure and approach is geared towards tackling as many cases as quickly as possible and yet it is a structure and approach that is failing.

Speed and volume are the only performance indicators consistently and meaningfully employed throughout the organisation. Other quality controls within the organisation are at best diffuse and uncoordinated: they risk being significantly compromised by the dominant ethos of speed and volume. At worst, maintenance of quality is either willfully ignored, or subjected to a ‘willing blindness’ whereby talk of client-focus and quality service is simply window dressing or rendered meaningless by the pressure to close cases. To paraphrase one of the caseworkers, it is a case of targets first, second and third.

In spite of this, the Office was, by its own confession, failing to meet its own performance criteria. The stated reason was an overwhelming increase in the number of complaints and a need for a substantial increase in resources. This research has found a number of problems in casework procedure and performance which are, in part, symptomatic of problems of lack of resources, delay and overburdened caseworkers. The OSS’s problems are not, however, attributable solely to lack of resources. Indeed, some of these issues, if sensibly addressed, might increase efficiency and would certainly increase case quality.

These findings call into question the capacity of the Office as currently structured and managed to investigate complaints adequately. There are significant causes for concern with the mode of management within the organisation and the way that casework is conducted.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 116

working papers series


Download This Paper

Date posted: May 15, 2012 ; Last revised: May 16, 2012

Suggested Citation

Moorhead, Richard and Sherr, Avrom and Rogers, Sarah, Willing Blindness? OSS Complaints Handling Procedures, Research Study 37 (May 14, 2012). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2058214 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2058214

Contact Information

Richard Lewis Moorhead (Contact Author)
Centre for Ethics and Law, Faculty of Laws, UCL London ( email )
London WC1E OEG
United Kingdom
Avrom H. Sherr
University of London - Institute of Advanced Legal Studies ( email )
Charles Clore House
17 Russell Square Room 505
London WC1B 5DR
United Kingdom
+44 (0)20 7862 5800 (Phone)
+44 (0)20 7862 5850 (Fax)
Sarah Rogers
affiliation not provided to SSRN
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 199
Downloads: 30

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.312 seconds