The Solicitors Regulation Authority

[Ganymede]

I was merely pointing out that the SRA do take action other than just letters telling solicitors to up their game, which the OP said was all the SRA is good for.

[TWMCADY]

As we have all offered our opinions' regarding the SRA etc.

It is only fair groups and panels charged with scrutinizing them are allowed their say.

 

The Legal Consumers Panel produced a report, outlined recommendation below, which analyzed the legal profession and endeavored to offer an in-depth approach as to how the legal profession should be scrutinized and monitored,

 

Their findings seem to confirm that presented in papers delivered by eminent authorities in the legal field from renown universities such as Havard Law School, Georgetown Law Centre along with Thomson Reuters and many articles contained in LegalFutures on the subject of legal professionalism.

 

Below are the recommendation of their findings.

 

Recommendations

The Panel’s advice to the LSB is as follows:

 

The quality of legal advice needs to be better understood and actively

monitored. This should involve academic research and build on existing good practice techniques such as file review and peer review.

 

Approved Regulators should harness consumer power to exert reputational pressure on lawyers to maintain quality standards. They should publish, in an accessible form, appropriate information about the quality of legal advice.

 

Quality schemes must be robust and deliver what they promise. The LSB

should ask the Legal Services Consumer Panel to identify the characteristics of robust quality schemes and measure existing schemes against these criteria.

 

Consumers need to be able to distinguish between regulated and unregulated lawyers.

The LSB should examine how best to achieve this as part of its work on reserved legal activities including the feasibility of a single regulatory badge.

 

Continuing professional development requirements need strengthening –

the LSB should review these arrangements across the sector as soon as possible.

 

The LSB should lead a debate on more far reaching ways of ensuring competence across the sector, including licensing by activity and periodic reaccreditation. This should take lessons from other sectors that have faced similar issues.

 

 

Bazzas, remained unconvinced of my previous proposal, that is, to initiate discussion on how IT could help the legal profession be more open and better scrutinized, and if I understood this correctly, did not believe it was possible to undertake such a quantum leap with any degree of satisfaction for either party concerned.

 

To offer some observations, it would seem this is actually taking place today, services are being offered by numerous organization who provide this type of capability.

 

 

One is a UK based company called [removed] which seems to be expanding it's offerings in many areas of the law and client satisfaction critiques/surveys etc. numerous other companies around the globe are doing the exact same thing.

 

To move these services to scrutinize and monitor would be a very simple step with not only current IT but future technology.

 

 

For those with an appreciation of IT and data analysis the logical step of using triggers, filters, data held at the cloud and many other features of these tools have the ability to provide low cost rich and passive data analysis at all levels of legal management.

Just a thought, I found it very interesting.

Edited November 27, 2016 by dx100uk
website removed - dx

[BazzaS]

As we have all offered our opinions' regarding the SRA etc.

It is only fair groups and panels charged with scrutinizing them are allowed their say.

 

The Legal Consumers Panel produced a report, outlined recommendation below, which analyzed the legal profession and endeavored to offer an in-depth approach as to how the legal profession should be scrutinized and monitored,

 

Their findings seem to confirm that presented in papers delivered by eminent authorities in the legal field from renown universities such as Havard Law School, Georgetown Law Centre along with Thomson Reuters and many articles contained in LegalFutures on the subject of legal professionalism.

 

Below are the recommendation of their findings.

 

 

 

 

Bazzas, remained unconvinced of my previous proposal, that is, to initiate discussion on how IT could help the legal profession be more open and better scrutinized, and if I understood this correctly, did not believe it was possible to undertake such a quantum leap with any degree of satisfaction for either party concerned.

 

To offer some observations, it would seem this is actually taking place today, services are being offered by numerous organization who provide this type of capability.

 

 

One is a UK based company called [removed] which seems to be expanding it's offerings in many areas of the law and client satisfaction critiques/surveys etc. numerous other companies around the globe are doing the exact same thing.

 

To move these services to scrutinize and monitor would be a very simple step with not only current IT but future technology.

 

 

For those with an appreciation of IT and data analysis the logical step of using triggers, filters, data held at the cloud and many other features of these tools have the ability to provide low cost rich and passive data analysis at all levels of legal management.

Just a thought, I found it very interesting.

 

All very interesting, but what is your concrete proposal that addresses the challenges I've raised regarding feedback?

 

What of the risk that solicitors will refuse to take cases that are more likely to generate poor feedback?

 

(The same issue arose with league tables for surgeons, where some had much worse outcomes but merely because they'd take the higher risk cases others would turn down for fear their figures would look bad)