Teaching lawyers soft skills such as empathy could solve the problem of so-called ‘silent sufferer’ clients, new research has suggested. The Legal Services Board, the oversight regulator, carried out the study in response to what it says is evidence that some law firms are not meeting clients’ needs when handling complaints. 

A survey of 45 people who had a complaint with the legal service they received in the past two years (some of who chose not to bring that complaint) found that many providers could appear dismissive of a complaint. They felt the language and tone of firms was ‘formal to the point of being cold’ and that the process of raising a complaint stressful.

A lack of empathy was picked out as a particular weakness of the current process, as was the fairness of the process. Respondents felt responses to complaints should be personalised and clearly communicate that the complaint had been heard, avoiding language deemed as patronising, defensive or ‘legal speak'.

Discussions even touched upon the possibility of including soft skills/empathy as a component of continuing professional development for legal professionals and whether or not such training should be required for entities that receive a high number of complaints.

Alan Kershaw, LSB chair, urged legal services providers and everyone involved in the complaints process to consider how systems are transparent, fair and easy to access.

‘As the research makes clear, empathy is central to effective resolution of complaints,’ said Kershaw. ‘When people seek legal advice, they may well be in a vulnerable situation. Perhaps they are a victim of fraud, undergoing a stressful transaction like a house sale, or dealing with an employment dispute. If their relationship with their lawyer then breaks down, it can compound the problem.

‘So, it is vital to put yourself in the shoes of a complainant. Empathy helps manage consumer expectations and improves the design of services.’

In terms of fairness, the research found that consumers believed their complaint needed to be investigated by someone independent of the service in question. In a small organisation, it was suggested this could be someone with an administrative role or a senior person not involved in the case.

Clients felt it was not their role to seek out information on how to make a complaint, or to distinguish between whether they were providing feedback or making a complaint. They also wanted reassurances that making a complaint would not affect the progress or outcome of their case.

Providers were urged to issue a ‘welcome pack’ at the start of the client-lawyer relationship, with information on the timelines involved, minimum standards, role of the provider (what is in and out of scope), glossary of terms, key contacts within the organisation including one for complaints, and how to change representation if it was not working.

 

This article is now closed for comment.