header-logo header-logo

07 January 2010
Issue: 7399 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Legal Services Board highlights consumer knowledge gap

Research suggests consumers lack basic information regarding legal services

The majority of the public have no idea what lawyers do, and only 14% “shop around” for the right lawyer.

Research commissioned by the Legal Services Board reveals a knowledge gap among consumers—less than a third of more than 2,000 adults surveyed in December last year felt they knew at least a “fair” amount of what it is lawyers do.

The figures suggest the public feels disempowered when it comes to comparing services and choosing their lawyer.

More than 60% of those taking part in the survey had personally used legal services, with 53% having used them at least once in the last five years. Three-quarters of them were satisfied or very satisfied with the legal advice they received.

The findings coincide with a new era of consumer-focused reform within the legal profession.

History was made on 1 January 2010 as a new regulatory regime affecting all lawyers came into effect.

A single body, the Legal Services Board, will now oversee the entire legal services sector, working with eight separate bodies named as approved regulators in the Legal Services Act 2007. David Edmonds, Legal Services Board chairman, says: “This research shows that consumers do not have the information or, sometimes, the skills to choose a lawyer based on their own assessment of quality or cost.

“The reforms to be brought about by the new regulatory framework have the potential to change the relationship between lawyers and the public.Our goal is to enhance the interests of consumers through effective competition and more innovative ways of delivering legal services.”

The organisation has appointed a panel of specialist advisers: Philip Havers QC, of 1 Crown Office Row; Helga Breen of Lawrence Graham; Stephanie Grundy; Louise Jones of 1 Temple Gardens; and Trading Terms Ltd.

Its general advisers are 39 Essex Street and Lovells (main contacts are partner Paul Dacam and associate Charles Brasted).

Bruce Macmillan, general counsel of the Legal Services Board, says: “We are pleased to announce this panel, which brings together some very authoritative figures and teams from across the legal landscape. The services they provide, both as individuals and as a panel, will provide valuable support to the lawyers working within the Legal Service Board.”
 

Issue: 7399 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll