John,

Thanks so much for your post :-)

I was toying with the idea of doing something with Richards statistics (because SfH was VERY conservative) but you've done a MUCH better job than I possibly could've on that point.

I would love to "play" but have to go out and the girlfriend has tomorrow off... so I might not get back to this til late Sun eve. Er.... "I'll be BACK"

Regards
Spenser

PS - and I'll take a look at your link too - may have read it already as SfH is long-standing and I LIKE the nicknames and the slightly satyrical approach :-)

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

Richard,

"Your argument is complete garbage of the worst kind"

All John did was to take your ridiculous suggestion that the complaint level is only 0.2%... a figure YOU arrived at by glibly saying "each of which conducts up to 300 cases per year" and then using the figure of 300 * 100,000. It would seem that YOU deliberately inflated the figures to arrive at 0.2% - this is not EVEN "statistics"... merely a poor attempt at misleading. I think you deserved it.

I don't think you or anyone believes that 0.2% figure... if we did... why Clementi and the Legal Services Bill?

I think SfH's figures are extremely conservative but FAR nearer the mark than your own 0.2%. Oh well...

You know I was asking for the Solicitors Act 1974... well, I STILL AM... but...

....my daughter has managed to find a couple of pamphlets entitled "Solicitors Act 1974 - First Annual Report of the Lay Observer 1975 - 1976" and "Fourth Annual Report of the Lay Observer 1978" - Original prices 28p and 40p respectively. NOT what I was after but interesting, nonetheless....

Many of the observations of Rear Admiral Godfrey Place, the Lay Observer, with respect to solicitors costs and complaints were the SAME then as they are TODAY - despite 30 years, Willing Blindness and Clementi.

Think what has happened in 30 years. The Internet, Microsoft, Virgin... BS5750 has become ISO 9000 and has been adopted world-wide etc etc.... and yet this ONE "profession" STILL seems unable to provide reliable complaints handling - either internally or through the so-called "regulator". Are we to believe thay are so completely incompetent that they can't do what everybody else HAS? Many REAL business these days work on such small margins that even a 1% returns rate would bankrupt them. The legal profession is simply the WORST there is... too damn greedy and arrogant to change in 30 years.

Spenser.

In message , Spenser Poultney
writes

Richard,

-"Your argument is complete garbage of the worst kind"-

All John did was to take your ridiculous suggestion that the complaint
level is only 0.2%... a figure YOU arrived at by glibly saying "each of
which conducts up to 300 cases per year" and then using the figure of
300 * 100,000. It would seem that YOU deliberately inflated the
figures to arrive at 0.2% - *this is not EVEN "statistics"... merely a
poor attempt at misleading.* I think you deserved it.

Sorry, I can't understand a word of what you are trying to say here, and
I don't think I would agree with it if I could.

I highlighted the fact that the number of complaints you mentioned, plus
your own claimed under-reporting of complaints - your figures, or those
you quoted - still amounted to only around 0.2% of all solicitor-client
transactions. The follow-up posting brought in invented numbers and
bogus extrapolation and multiples to claim that the complaints rate was
50 per solicitor per year. It was and is garbage.



I don't think you or anyone believes that 0.2% figure...

Of course I do. I don't for one second believe your claim of 50
complaints per solicitor per year. I didn't get more than about five in
total in eight years of practice, and as a young, newly-qualified
solicitor I very much doubt that I was at the bottom end of the scale
for complaints.

if we did...
why Clementi and the Legal Services Bill?

Because it suits the Government to take away the independence of the
legal profession. Do you really think this is about consumers? If so,
you are more naive about the Government than I would expect given your
attitude towards solicitors.


I think SfH's figures are extremely conservative but FAR nearer the
mark than your own 0.2%. Oh well...

We ain't going to agree!


*You know I was asking for the Solicitors Act 1974*... well, I STILL
AM... but...

...my daughter has managed to find a couple of pamphlets entitled
"Solicitors Act 1974 - First Annual Report of the Lay Observer 1975 -
1976" and "Fourth Annual Report of the Lay Observer 1978" - Original
prices 28p and 40p respectively. NOT what I was after but interesting,
nonetheless....

Many of the observations of Rear Admiral Godfrey Place, the Lay
Observer, with respect to solicitors costs and complaints were the SAME
then as they are TODAY - despite 30 years, -Willing Blindness- and
Clementi.

Think what has happened in 30 years. The Internet, Microsoft, Virgin...
BS5750 has become ISO 9000 and has been adopted world-wide etc etc....
and yet this ONE "profession" STILL seems unable to provide reliable
complaints handling - either internally or through the so-called
"regulator". Are we to believe thay are so completely incompetent that
they can't do what everybody else HAS? Many REAL business these days
work on such small margins that even a 1% returns rate would bankrupt
them. The legal profession is simply the WORST there is... too damn
greedy and arrogant to change in 30 years.


The profession does have much to learn about complaints handling, but
just as the profession does itself no favours by denying it, you do your
cause no favours by so grossly overstating the case for the prosecution.
--
Richard Miller

Hi,

The Todal ... if you're still listening?

An update here
http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/uk-lega...ct-anyone.html
about your posts on 30th Nov. (think they're on page 5). Sorry about the delay.

Kind Regards,
Spenser

Hi Richard,

Thanks again for posting in your lively style.

"Sorry, I can't understand a word of what you are trying to say here, and
I don't think I would agree with it if I could.

I agree 100% with the last part. And a 50% agreement should not be sneezed at :-)

The next few paragraphs...

Well, do you at least believe the Legal Services Ombudsman when she said 1/3 remained dissatisfied? Do you agree that is a LOT of people? Do you also agree that she only gets to see the ones with very "Persistant Genes" (her words)?

This next part REALLY intrigues me...


Because it suits the Government to take away the independence of the
legal profession. Do you really think this is about consumers? If so,
you are more naive about the Government than I would expect given your
attitude towards solicitors.

Why does it suit the Government? They have been under severe public pressure to DO something for YEARS... resisted always by the corrupt... I doubt they WANT to. The Law Society is probably close to bankruptcy anyway... is CERTAINLY making BIG losses... I doubt the Government WANTS to pick up the tab for this any sooner than necessary. I expect they'd much rather spend, Spend, SPEND before the next election, don't you? Umm... "consumers" ... you MAY have a point ... not the same as "Public Interest" and I think the Government Response is currently (still) "embargoed" - been waiting nearly a week for the DCA to respond on this one ;-)


I think SfH's figures are extremely conservative but FAR nearer the
mark than your own 0.2%. Oh well...

We ain't going to agree!
Agreed!


The profession does have much to learn about complaints handling, but
just as the profession does itself no favours by denying it, you do your
cause no favours by so grossly overstating the case for the prosecution.

But it seems they have learnt NOTHING in 30 years. Why is that? I think we all know the REAL answer to THAT... no matter how many "fibs" are told.

Regards,
Spenser.

[quote=Richard Miller]In message , John Carey
writes

Richard

Thank you for your kind words, I suppose that short sentence: -

Something with an appalling newsreader that seems incapable of
attributing quotes.[color=blue][i]

just about chewed me up and spat me out.

I’m sorry Richard that I’m not too bright and at 70 not up to today’s super fast technology like the super intelligent younger beings of today.

My previous posting was my first ever, I notice your count is well over 5,000 making you super intelligent in/on every subject. I suppose it could be said Tony Blair and George Bush would come into the ‘super’ intelligent league but then look at the state of the world we got into with those two. They say ‘you can’t put an old head on young shoulders’ George Senior was wise enough to stop short of taking out Saddam Hussein. What did Tony and George Junior do? They went in guns blazing and fists flying, may be there is something to be learnt from us ‘fuddy duddies’ who are trying to become intelligent.

What did Kofi Annan say, Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussain than Clair and Bush?

You state: -

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

All the “statistics” I used were put forward by you, Zahida Manoor the LSO/LSCC, and the Which Magazine who I believe carry out surveys and are independent.

You say

See above. Your argument is complete garbage of the worst kind.[color=blue][i]

Zahida Manzoor state in Parliament that she was going to ‘enforce’ rule 15 and give training to solicitors firms who do not have a Complaints Procedure http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/Soley_MP.htm
Now the point here is if solicitors are forced to have a Complaints Procedure and your opinion is that none of the 12,000,000 (Which’s estimate) dissatisfied clients use it why would ZM want to enforce it on solicitor firms who don’t need it? Remember all complainants in the first instance must or should take up their grievance with their solicitors Senior Partner before progressing to the CCS. What you are say there are only on average 17,000 complaints in total (0.2%) every year all referred direct to the CCS and none taken up and settle at local level, where have ZM’s ‘one third’ and Which’s 40% of 30,000,000 dissatisfied clients gone, did none of this 10/12 million ask questions concerning their ‘dissatisfaction’ at local level??

Let us just look at the figures put forward by ZM, the ‘Bees Knees’ of the complaints world and yourself one of the ‘Super Intelligent’ of which I did not say were ‘complaints’ but ‘dissatisfied clients’ (ZM’s words) that you imply none complain at local level. There are 30 million transactions of which one third (ZM’s quote) are ‘dissatisfied clients’ and I said their are 300 working days, that was wrong. Taking weekends, holidays say 6 weeks (30 days) and Bank Holidays the ‘working, days count would be around 223. We know by your estimate of 300 transactions per solicitor per year and ZM’s, one third of ‘dissatisfied clients’ that would mean each solicitor on average has 100 ‘dissatisfied clients’ per year, now 1in6 solicitors are the culprits that = 600 each per year. OK that would mean this 1in6 are over worked so lets, as you say’ be conservative and go for 50%, that means that 1in6 have 300 ‘dissatisfied clients’ per year (all failures no passes) 100% ‘dissatisfied clients’ rate which averages 1.35 clients per day.

Question, are any of these 1in6 solicitors ever sacked for ‘incompetence’?

You also say: -

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.

If all clients were/are happy with their solicitors there would be no ‘complainants’. But obviously by the number of websites springing up it is clear the LS are not carrying out ‘transparent’ and ‘unbiased’ investigation, for instance, if you access an e-mail Spenser sent to SfH, which was one amongst many: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/e-mail4.htm he refers to and gives the web address that clearly would be ‘deformation of character’ and/or ‘inflammatory’ if it wasn’t true, why does Zahida Manzoor and the LS refuse to act?

You further say: -

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.[color=blue][i]

It appears to me you have set yourself up as Judge and Jury!

Instead of trying to ‘belittle’ people you should possible try to help them and not be self opinionated.

OK I’ve have possibly wandered a bit off line probable a touch of ‘Old Timers’ sorry should that be ‘Alzheimer’s’

Regards

John Carey

"Spenser Poultney" wrote in
message ...

Hi Again,

It sort of feels like I'm talking to myself here... but here's a minor
update which may help someone else when Google and his mates index
this.

Also... I'm not REALLY talking to myself as have had replies in my
other thread.

Firstly,

THE TODAL

You offer of 30/11/2006...
http://tinyurl.com/yygwhl

I'm still interested if you do have a copy to lend.

I'm afraid I don't. I can only offer to put a photocopy in the post to you
if you supply an address. If of course you have found a library where you
can read it, you could make photocopies there but I suppose it would cost a
bit.

Hi,

Firstly...

The Todal
Many thanks anyway... AND for the reply.

In time I expect I will track down a local copy. The thing is, to get a decent OCR copy (which would be infinitely better than just an image) I really need the best possible quality I can get.

.................

Any better offers anyone? I live near Bath (Somerset) and would only need it for a day or so.
Does anyone know how much a copy is to buy?
Can you order on-line?

Thanks

.................

John Carey (Sir),

Nice one! Many thanks. You certainly don't TYPE 70 :-)

Er... and may I also say ...

NOT "a bit off line" at ALL (though some might use the phrase "off topic"). This thread is about the OSS/CCS/OLSO complaints which are at the ROOT of the Human Rights issues. Your points are well made and if there is any distortion of figures I would think it lies in Richard's assertion of 30M cases a year. This seems too high given that most of us only use a solicitor a few times in a lifetime...

Thanks very much for your post.

Kind Regards,
Spenser

PS Does anyone have a reliable figure / source for the number of cases per year? Actually, in fairness we should probably exclude cases brought by large companies. I doubt very much that these receive anything LIKE the same level of complaints. Businesses would simply cease to use the offending firms / solicitors (or else have control over their own in-house ones). I'm sure there ARE problems in this area but I would expect it to be far more "self-regulating" on Darwin principles ;-)

In message , Spenser Poultney
writes
PS Does anyone have a reliable figure / source for the number of
cases per year? Actually, in fairness we should probably exclude cases
brought by large companies. I doubt very much that these receive
anything LIKE the same level of complaints. Businesses would simply
cease to use the offending firms / solicitors (or else have control
over their own in-house ones). I'm sure there ARE problems in this
area but I would expect it to be far more "self-regulating" on Darwin
principles ;-)


That's true.

It is also one of the reasons why I get worried about alternative
business structures. They are fine for companies that can
"self-regulate", but they stand to be a disaster for ordinary personal
clients.
--
Richard Miller