Perhaps I may look at the other side of the situation. I totally understand what lies behind the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, but, if the Committee were to approve it, it is important that the second part of what he said should be taken into account also. There are unscrupulous lawyers, but there are also unscrupulous complainants. It is important that the concept lying behind the clause is recognised and, at the very least, if people put forward utterly unreasonable complaints, the ombudsman should have a power to deal with them. There may be a need to strengthen subsections (1) and (2), either by using the word ““vexatious”” or a similar word. However, not giving the ombudsman any power to deal with an utterly unreasonable complainant who has, no doubt, caused the lawyer to spend a lot of money, when that lawyer has been reasonable in dealing with that litigant, would be going to the other extreme. Consequently, one should balance the importance of protecting the consumer with protection against the unreasonable complaint.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Butler-Sloss
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 21 February 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Legal Services Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c1112 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:38:05 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378874
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378874
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378874