The Legal Ombudsman had a difficult job deciding how to publish complaints details. The status quo of printing anonymised case studies is generally considered counter-productive. For consumer groups, the case studies have little authority; for law firms, they bring everyone into disrepute. But it is possible both sides of the debate will be unhappy with the compromise.

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.

The legal profession has never liked the idea of ‘naming and shaming’. And while the LeO may balk at those words, if lawyers are being named, how else would one describe it?

If the legal profession is awaiting the July publication date with apprehension, 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, raising the danger of creating a vacuum filled with innuendo and rumour.

LeO had a near-impossible task in appeasing the profession, satisfying consumers and 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 these boxes?