Lead
Law firms disagree on what counts as a client complaint, according to a new survey by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). The findings show a split in how firms interpret client feedback, from offhand remarks to formal letters, and whether they should log and treat these as complaints. The divide matters because it drives how teams respond, when they start the clock on resolution, and how they signpost the Legal Ombudsman. Consumer groups have long warned that unclear rules can block fair redress. The SRA survey now highlights that confusion remains inside firms too. Lawyers and managers say they want clarity that fits everyday practice. Clients expect quick, fair answers. The sector now faces pressure to align definitions and protect rights, while keeping complaint data meaningful and useful.
Context and timing
The SRA survey, published this week, examined how law firms in England and Wales classify and handle client complaints. Legal Futures reported the findings on Thursday. The results matter across the jurisdiction because the SRA sets conduct standards for solicitors and firms, while the Legal Ombudsman handles service complaints.
The definition question: rules, reality, and grey areas
The SRA requires firms to keep a clear, written complaints process and to tell clients how to use it. Firms must explain, at the start and at the end if needed, how clients can take unresolved service complaints to the Legal Ombudsman. The Ombudsman expects firms to try to resolve complaints within eight weeks. After a final response, clients generally have six months to refer the issue to the Ombudsman. Since 2023, the Ombudsman also applies a one?year limit from the problem or from when the client first became aware of it.
Many lawyers accept that a complaint can start with a simple “expression of dissatisfaction.” That approach matches how other sectors treat complaints. But firms often disagree over examples that feel borderline in daily work. Does a sharp email about a delay count? What about a request for a fee reduction, or a poor online review? Some partners want a formal, written grievance before they open the complaints procedure. Others take a wider view and log anything that suggests the client feels unhappy with service.
Why definitions matter for clients and for compliance
When firms use a narrow definition, they risk missing the point where the complaint process should start. That delay can leave clients without a clear path to resolution, or without the information they need to go to the Legal Ombudsman. It can also confuse time limits. If a firm only treats a complaint as “official” late in the exchange, the eight?week window may not line up with the client’s expectations or the Ombudsman’s guidance.
A broad definition can bring order and transparency. It helps front?line staff capture early signs of dissatisfaction, route issues to the right person, and fix problems before they escalate. It also improves data. Firms can analyse themes—such as communication, costs, or delay—which the Legal Ombudsman often identifies as common drivers of complaints. That insight supports training and process changes. It also shows the regulator that the firm monitors risk and acts on it.
Service versus conduct: signposting the right route
Confusion often arises because clients do not draw a line between service and conduct. Service issues, such as delay, poor communication, or unclear fees, sit with the Legal Ombudsman. Conduct issues, such as dishonesty or breaches of professional duties, sit with the SRA. The SRA expects firms to signpost both paths and to act when they spot conduct concerns. Clear signposting protects clients and helps firms meet their obligations.
Firms need to explain the difference in plain language. They should include the Ombudsman’s contact details and time limits in client care information. They should also explain when and how a client can raise concerns with the SRA about conduct. This clarity helps clients pick the right route and reduces the chance of confusion, duplicate effort, or missed deadlines.
Front?line triage: from first contact to fair outcome
Most complaints start with front?line staff. Receptionists, legal assistants, and junior lawyers receive the first email or call that signals dissatisfaction. Firms that train these teams to recognise and log that signal reduce risk. A simple rule helps: if a client expresses dissatisfaction with service and seeks a response or remedy, treat it as a complaint and follow the process.
Quick acknowledgement, a single point of contact, and a clear timetable often resolve matters before they escalate. Firms that track every step—from initial contact to resolution—can show the SRA and the Ombudsman that they act promptly and fairly. They can also spot bottlenecks, such as slow file transfers or unclear costs updates, and fix them.
Data, culture, and the business case for clarity
Complaint logs do more than satisfy regulators. They offer hard data that supports better management decisions. Trends can point to pressure points in high?volume areas like conveyancing or immigration. They can also highlight where better client onboarding or clearer costs information would cut complaints. Regular reports to the board keep leaders close to client sentiment and regulatory risk.
Culture plays a central role. If senior lawyers view complaints as “admissions of failure,” staff will avoid logging them. If leaders set a different tone—“complaints are feedback we can learn from”—staff will record and resolve them. Firms that count and learn from complaints often reduce future complaints, protect margin, and build trust. Those gains offer a clear business case for consistent definitions and processes.
What the SRA survey signals for the market
The survey confirms that firms do not apply a single, shared view of what counts as a complaint. That divergence makes outcomes less predictable for clients and raises regulatory risk. It also complicates sector?wide data, which the SRA and the Ombudsman rely on to spot systemic issues and shape guidance. Consistency will help clients understand their rights and help firms measure and improve service.
The findings will likely focus attention on clear, practical definitions that work at the coalface. Firms can act now by reviewing their complaints policy, training staff on early triage, and updating client care letters to reflect current Ombudsman time limits. Industry bodies and compliance advisers can support with templates and plain?English checklists that turn policy into practice.
Wrap?up
The SRA’s survey brings a simple truth into sharp focus: clients need clarity, and firms need consistency. When teams recognise and log early expressions of dissatisfaction, they protect client rights and reduce the risk of missed deadlines. Clear signposting between the Legal Ombudsman for service issues and the SRA for conduct issues helps clients find the right route. Strong triage, accurate records, and a learning culture then turn complaints into improvements that cut future risk. With the survey highlighting disagreement across the market, firms now have a prompt to tighten definitions, refresh training, and update client information. Those steps should lead to fairer outcomes, better data, and fewer disputes, while strengthening trust in legal services across England and Wales.
