Legal Services Bill [HL]

I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. He seems to base his proposition on the unstated assumption that all complaints brought to the complaints body will be brought by rational and fair-minded consumers with a strong case. I have had some experience in dealing with legal complaints as a head of chambers. I assure him that, if he believes that about complaining consumers, he is widely mistaken. Many complaints—and I do not wish to defame complaining consumers as a class—have no basis whatever in fact or in law. The complainants have simply lost a case. The nature of the legal profession is that one side tends to lose. It is a common experience that the losing side is embittered and looks around for a target. It is difficult to get at or criticise a judge or tribunal, but sitting before them is an easy target: the professional representative for their day or month in court. He missed point after point, he did not call the witness they wanted him to call; I could elaborate, but noble Lords’ imaginations will provide what I spare them from listening to. It is therefore extremely important that some of the objectives stated in Clause 1(1) should have their play, such as, "““the constitutional principle of the rule of law””," and, in particular, "““(g) promoting and maintaining adherence to the professional principles””." Those principles are in Clause 1(3). A few are, "““(a) that authorised persons should act with independence and integrity,""(b) that authorised persons should maintain proper standards of work,""(c) that authorised persons should act in the best interests of their clients””." All those are entirely relevant considerations to be taken into account by the complaints body when it considers a complaint. I therefore disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, although I do not often do that on what I have heard of the Bill.