Consumers are generally in favour of ‘naming and shaming’ law firms that are subject to complaints, but would only expect information to be published when a firm has had three complaints upheld against it in 12 months, according to research released today.

The findings of a series of focus groups involving 58 consumers, commissioned jointly by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) and the Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP), also indicated that consumers are in ‘awe’ of solicitors, and reluctant to complain about them.

LeO is currently gathering evidence to decide whether it should publish its findings against law firms, and will set out its preferred approach in a consultation in April.

The focus group report said: ‘Solicitors are held in a degree of respect bordering on awe, that is awarded to few professionals other than perhaps doctors.’

It found ‘a strong degree of reluctance to complain’ about solicitors, due to a ‘fear [by consumers] that the solicitor will be able to outsmart them’.

Consumers felt that a system whereby findings against a firm were only published if three complaints had been upheld within a year would ‘avoid penalising the occasional lapse and be relatively less onerous on small firms’.

A separate focus group of 15 high-street solicitors found that they were ‘generally hostile’ towards publication of complaints, with concerns that this could affect their position on lender panels and expose them to purposeful damage to their reputation by ‘problem clients’.

LSCP chair Dianne Hayler called on LeO to adopt the approach of publishing complaints when three had been upheld in 12 months, which it said would be a ‘fair publication scheme’.