In message , John Carey
writes

Something with an appalling newsreader that seems incapable of
attributing quotes.


Spenser Poultney Wrote:
Hi Richard,

Thanks. Sorry, have been up to my eyes today. The link you have
given
provides a LOT of reading material (and more links). It's probably
BETTER if I work through before asking/answering you... unless you
think a more specific/direct link would be useful?

It may be a day or two before I can find time.

One thing you did say...

-I don't have too much problem with peer review ratings being
published.
That is a straight assessment of quality. That is, of course, dependent

on the peer review system being shown to work properly - as the letter

says, it is fairly new and is still bedding in.-

In that same email the District Manager went on ....

-Our mutual acquaintances in Somerset have not been through this
process yet but as the preferred supplier scheme starts they will
have
to in the next two or three years if they want to join. *Though by
that
time the process will most lightly have transferred to our friends
at
the law society.* - (i guess he meant "likely" not "lightly" - spell
check error?)

Good thing or bad thing? i.e. the Law Society being in control of
this
process?

Any thoughts on this one below...

http://tinyurl.com/y6pmsm

Seems a simple thing to find. Makes me wonder if I'm looking for the
wrong thing (year/Act)?

Kind Regards,
Spenser

(quote=John Carey)Spenser states to Richard: -

You clearly know your stuff and I actually think we agree on a number
of the most important points. I am quite happy to take up every little
point and to quote some of my own "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics" (or
someone else's see here http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/ZM4.htm for
eg.) but I wonder if we might be more productive if we pursue something
we appear to share a common interest in?... even though it may be "off
topic" (There 'Aint Nobody Here But Us Chickens, anyhow)
Also: -
Para 8:
- no other industry is as bad - source Which? who also say that over
40%
don't EVEN complain to the firm, let alone the Law Society.

Richard replies: -

There are 100,000 solicitors, each of whom conducts up to 300 cases
per
year. So let's take Which at face value, and put a figure of 30,000 on
complaints. That is 30,000 complaints out of, let us say being
conservative 15,000,000 transactions, or a complaints rate of 0.2%.
That
really isn't particularly shocking.

Zahida Manzoor states: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/zm4.htm

..particularly when over a third of consumers continue to be
dissatisfied with the level of service provided by the Law Society.

Everything that follows this represents an appalling abuse of statistics
by you.

Those who express such a view on the Law Society are by definition those
that have already lodged a complaint *and* are still dissatisfied. There
is no connection whatsoever between the figure for complainants who are
unhappy with the Law Society handling of their complaint, and the number
of clients who are unhappy with their solicitor.

Moreover, as postings on this newsgroup show, by no means all of those
who are unhappy with the handling of their complaint have any legitimate
grievance. In fact, this group is likely to include 100% of clients who
could never be satisfied because they are unreasonable, in addition to
some who do have genuine cause to be dissatisfied.


40% of 30,000,000 transactions = 12,000,000 “don't EVEN complain”
(Which)
33% of 30,000,000 transactions = 10,000,000 “continue to be
dissatisfied”. (Zahida Manzoor, LSO/LSC the biggest name in the LS
complaints business)
Add to these sums the actual complaints submitted to the LSCCS ‘quoted’
as 17,000 - most of these complainants are ‘disillusioned’ with the
outcome which is clearly a sign of serious problems and distrust by
members of the public
SfH http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/zm4.htm quoted “440,000
disillusioned solicitors clients” (under estimated by some 10 million)
which = 1.5% of 30,000,000 transactions (very, very conservative?)
Richard states: - ...or a complaints rate of 0.2%. That really isn't
particularly shocking.

Lets be "conservative" and say 5,000,000 solicitors’ clients (50% of
ZM's estimate) complain to their firm of solicitors, as these don't
show-up on the "statistics", and ask to see a Senior Partner and that
firm of solicitors honours the 'Client Care Agreement' (Solicitors
Practice Rule 15), unlike Thos Boyd Whyte did in the case of SfH. Now
we have a "statistic" by ZM's reckoning that means each solicitor
(100,000) would average 50 internal complaints each, or as Richard
states 1in6 solicitors are the culprits is he saying every sixth
solicitor would have a total of 300 complaints against them each year
(one for every 'working day')??

I don’t know where you have got your head Richard but in the far
distant past you must have been a member of the LS and if anybody is
talking about "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics" it is not SfH.

See above. Your argument is complete garbage of the worst kind.
--
Richard Miller