The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has highlighted the critical importance of robust, first-tier complaint handling by legal service providers in its latest Spotlight on Early Resolution guidance published on 19 January. With the central aim of resolving disputes before they escalate to formal Ombudsman involvement, LeO has shared practical advice, in the form of the Spotlight article and an accompanying factsheet entitled “Most Common Approaches at Early Resolution” to support firms in addressing complaints promptly, comprehensively and proportionately. This strategic focus underscores both good client care and regulatory compliance, serving the interests of consumers and legal practitioners alike.
At the core of LeO’s early resolution approach is the recognition that many complaints stem not from fundamental errors in professional service but from breakdowns in communication, inadequate responses to concerns, or insufficient explanation of outcomes. The Ombudsman’s insight, drawn from the 2024/25 financial year, reveals that a significant number of complainants who escalated issues to LeO (28 per cent) reported that they had not received a final response from their service provider. Clients who do not receive such responses are far more likely to refer matters to LeO, leading to avoidable escalation and greater resource use for all parties involved.
Why Early Resolution Matters
Early resolution is not merely a matter of professional courtesy. It is closely linked to compliance requirements and regulatory expectations.
Lexcel and CQS both expect firms to resolve complaints promptly and “at source”, but expressed through requirements for accessible, responsive complaints procedures, effective communication and learning from complaints. SQM model policies and guidance typically require acknowledgement of a complaint promptly and a formal written response with the outcome of the investigation within a defined period (commonly 14 working days), “with a view to resolving the complaint”.
When complaints are handled effectively at first tier, there is a substantial likelihood that they will be resolved without further escalation, reducing distress for complainants and the administrative burden on firms. Importantly, LeO’s data shows that nearly half (49 per cent) of complaints that do reach the Ombudsman can now be resolved through its own early resolution processes, often without a full investigation or the imposition of a case fee.
Resolving complaints early benefits both clients and practitioners. Clients receive more timely outcomes, with LeO’s early resolution team typically resolving matters in an average of 53 days. For providers, effective early handling mitigates the risk of formal findings against them, reduces the likelihood of case fees, and enhances client satisfaction and confidence in the firm’s service standards. Early resolution aligns with broader expectations of professionalism and consumer protection, emphasising transparency, accountability and fairness.
LeO’s Seven-Point Early Resolution Checklist
To support legal service providers in achieving early resolution, LeO has published a seven-point reference list summarising key practices that promote swift, satisfactory complaint outcomes. These practical steps are intended to strengthen first-tier complaint handling and increase the likelihood of complaints being resolved without unnecessary referral to the Ombudsman.
First, providers should always issue a timely final response to complaints. Delays in responding — or failures to respond at all — are among the principal reasons matters are escalated unnecessarily. Responding promptly signals respect for the client’s concerns and reduces uncertainty. Secondly, responses should address all issues raised in the complaint. Omitting elements of the grievance can leave clients feeling unheard and more inclined to seek resolution through LeO. Thirdly, the final response must clearly identify a conclusion in relation to the service provided. A conclusion that summarises the provider’s position on each complaint issue contributes to clarity and helps clients understand the firm’s perspective.
Fourthly, where service failings are identified, the provider should explain the nature of the failing and consider the impact on the client. Accepting responsibility where appropriate demonstrates professionalism and can defuse client dissatisfaction. Crucially, firms are advised as the fifth point to make use of LeO’s remedies guidance when offering a remedy. Remedies should be reasonable and tailored to address the effect of the failing, thereby reducing the likelihood that the client will pursue further action.
Sixth, in calculating financial remedies, providers are encouraged to take into account the emotional impact of any service failing, recognising that distress and inconvenience, even when not quantifiable as financial loss, are legitimate factors in achieving fair resolution. Finally, where no service failing is found, providers should explain clearly why the service was reasonable, supported by evidence where appropriate, such as correspondence or case chronologies.
These principles serve not only as a checklist but as a framework for building trust and transparency in client engagement and complaint resolution. A thoughtful, thorough final response often precludes unnecessary escalation and fosters confidence in the UK legal complaints system.
Case Examples: What Works and What Doesn’t
LeO’s early resolution guidance also highlights illustrative case studies demonstrating the practical application of these principles. In one instance, a client complained about delays in a personal injury matter and poor communication from their provider. The firm issued a detailed final response, acknowledged identified service failings, and offered a financial remedy that reflected the emotional impact on the complainant. Although the complainant ultimately rejected the offer, LeO’s early resolution team confirmed that the remedy was reasonable and aligned with Ombudsman expectations, closing the matter without a full investigation or case fee. This example illustrates how comprehensive complaint handling, including the use of LeO’s remedies guidance, can expedite resolution even amid disagreement on quantum.
By contrast, another case involving a conveyancing matter demonstrates the consequences of poor complaint handling. A client experienced a 12-month delay in registering a property purchase and escalated their complaint to LeO. The provider’s response lacked clarity and did not adequately explain the causes of delay or provide supporting chronology or evidence. On investigation, the Ombudsman found that the provider had failed to respond to a Land Registry requisition and had not kept the client informed, resulting in a finding of poor service and a financial remedy that included compensation and a case fee. This outcome underscores the importance of evidence-based responses and clear communication in the final response stage.
Embedding Early Resolution in Firm Processes
For legal firms seeking to embed early resolution into their complaint handling practice, LeO’s guidance highlights the value of internal policies and training. Firms should ensure their complaints procedures are accessible and that staff understand the regulatory expectations, including the importance of issuing final responses within a reasonable timeframe. Providers are also encouraged to use tools such as chronologies to map case histories, which can aid in constructing clear, evidence-based responses where delays or complexities arise. Although chronologies are not compulsory, they can help demonstrate that service was reasonable or identify gaps that warrant remediation.
Embedding good complaints handling into everyday practice not only supports regulatory compliance but can enhance client relationships and reduce the burden on dispute resolution bodies like LeO. Ultimately, the early resolution guidance reflects a broader shift in the legal complaints landscape towards constructive engagement and problem-solving at the earliest possible stage.