Abstract
This chapter considers the term in office of the first Ombudsman, Michael Barnes. It shows how the LSO during this period exercised primarily a democratic accountability function by reviewing the handling of complaints by the professional bodies rather than investigating consumer complaints brought against the profession. In this way, the LSO enabled a significant shift in the mentality of the Bar Council. By protracted and deliberative dialogue, the LSO “nudged” the Bar to introduce a system of consumer redress. Simultaneously, the LSO pushed the Law Society to refine its existing consumer redress system and tighten the enforcement of its disciplinary code of good practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Section 21 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, provided for the Ombudsman to be appointed for not more than 3 years, and be eligible for reappointment.
- 2.
For example, in 1997 there were 71,637 solicitors in practice, 11,819 barristers and 691 licensed conveyancers (LSO 1998:11).
- 3.
- 4.
Section 24 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 provided that the Ombudsman may make recommendations to the professional bodies about their complaint-handling arrangements.
- 5.
The PCC of the Bar Council at this time nominated one of its members as “sponsoring member”, whose task was to investigate the complaint on behalf of the PCC and report back in due course.
- 6.
The LSO recommended that barristers pay compensation as follows: 1 in 1992, 2 in 1993, 5 in 1994, 4 in 1995, 5 in 1996 and 5 in 1997.
- 7.
For discussion of the Citizens’ Charter and New Public Management as aspects of administrative justice policy, see Buck et al. (2011: 76–77).
Bibliography
Bar Council. (1994). Report of the Bar Council’s standards review body.
Buck, T., Kirkham, R. and Thompson, B. (2011). The ombudsman enterprise and administrative justice. Oxford: Taylor & Francis.
LSO. (1992). First annual report of the Legal Services Ombudsman 1991. 36. London: HMSO.
LSO. (1993). Second annual report of the Legal Services Ombudsman 1992. 696. London: HMSO.
LSO. (1994). Third annual report of the Legal Services Ombudsman 1993. HC448. London: HMSO.
LSO. (1995). Fourth annual report of the Legal Services Ombudsman 1994. 459. London: HMSO.
LSO. (1996). Fifth annual report of the Legal Services Ombudsman 1995. 426. London: HMSO.
LSO. (1997). Sixth annual report of the Legal Services Ombudsman 1996. 24. London: HMSO.
LSO. (1998). 7th annual report of the Legal Services Ombudsman 1997. HC 793. London: HMSO.
NCC. (1994). The Solicitors Complaints Bureau: A consumer view. London: National Consumer Council.
Seneviratne, M. (1999). The legal profession: Regulation and the consumer. London: Sweet and Maxwell.
Seneviratne, M. (2001). The rise and fall of advocates’ immunity. Legal Studies, 21(4), 644–662.
Susskind, R. (1996). The future of law: Facing the challenge of information technology. Oxford: OUP.
Susskind, R. (2000). Transfiguring the law: Essays on technology, justice and the legal marketplace. Oxford: OUP.
Woolf, Lord. (1996). Access to justice: The final report.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
O’Brien, N., Seneviratne, M. (2017). The LSO in Practice 1991–1997: Democratic Accountability and the “Creaking System”. In: Ombudsmen at the Crossroads. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58446-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58446-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-58445-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-58446-5
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)