At what point does a compromise become a fudge?

Without doubt, the Legal Ombudsman had a difficult task on its hands deciding how to publish details of complaints.

The status quo of printing anonymised case studies was generally accepted to be counter-productive for all concerned. For consumer groups, the case studies had all the authority of a fairytale; for law firms, they simply tarred everyone with the same brush.

But there’s every chance that both sides of the debate will be equally unhappy with the compromise.

As we report today, the plan is for simple tables, in alphabetical order, listing the firm’s name, the number of complaints investigated, the number of times action had to be taken and what area of law the complaint covered. There will have to be some idea of the scale of the firm, perhaps through partner numbers or caseloads, but that is yet to be decided.

If a complaint was made about you last week, you’re in luck: figures will be collated only from 1 April and published some time in July.

It is possible that LeO has found the one solution guaranteed to upset everyone involved.

The legal profession, it’s fair to say, has never been too enamoured with the idea of naming and shaming. The LeO may balk at those words, but if lawyers are being named, and by implication shamed, how else can you describe it?

The danger with simplifying these complaints is you lose all sense of context.

As already mentioned, there will have to be some information about the firm – a giant such as Irwin Mitchell, for example, is likely to have more complaints than a two-partner firm, simply because of the volume of work it takes on.

LeO will have to ensure that a cursory look at the tables cannot be misleading – if consumers, journalists and indemnity insurers get the wrong idea, that is toxic for the firm in question.

On a similar note, the table will simply list in how many of the complaints the firm had to ‘make amends’. This basically means that action was taken and/or a complaint upheld – and explaining this in lay terms is another challenge. There is, of course, the fear that consumers will rely more heavily on complaint numbers rather than their outcome – the ‘no smoke without fire’ scenario.

If the legal profession will be collectively dreading the July publication date, it will hardly be cause for celebration for consumer groups.

The tables will offer no clues as to the scale or nature of each complaint. It’s like watching only the scores section of the Eurovision Song Contest – simply a lot of numbers with no feel for how or why they were created.

If anything, consumers looking at these tables will be left with more questions than answers. Is that real transparency?

A resulting lack of information creates a vacuum filled with innuendo and rumour. One upheld complaint against a local firm, and speculation will be rife as to the cause.

LeO had a near-impossible task in appeasing the profession, satisfying consumers and, lest we forget, protecting the anonymity of complainants.

Publication of firm names had three aims: consumer confidence, improved standards and lawyers not feeling like the victims of a witch-hunt. Does this compromise tick any of those boxes?