Example scenarios

In developing this policy, the SLCC has identified a number of examples of potential uses of the policy and we have compiled a range of real and imagined scenarios to test against the policy. This has been helpful to guide development of the policy and may be useful indicative examples to share with stakeholders. However, these examples would not form part of the policy and would not restrict the application of the policy to other circumstances.

Disclosing information that exposes very serious or systemic service failure

A firm collapses, and the SLCC receives more than twenty complaints from former clients in less than a month. The complaints indicate that consumers may have lost access to client funds, missed critical deadlines, or suffered substantial financial or legal prejudice as a result of the firm's failure. In these circumstances, the public interest in preventing further exceptional harm to consumers may justify the disclosure of information that would otherwise remain confidential.

Disclosing information that reveals exceptional or severe harm on consumers

The SLCC receives a significant number of complaints from cancer patients and their family members about a firm that has been recommended by a national cancer charity. The complaints contain similar allegations, raising concerns about a potential pattern of poor service affecting a particularly vulnerable group of consumers. Despite these concerns, the charity continues to promote the firm's services through its website and external communications. Disclosure of relevant information may be necessary to prevent further consumer harm and ensure prospective clients are not misled about the quality of the firm's services. Any disclosure would be limited to what is necessary and proportionate in the circumstances.

Disclosing information to correct serious misinformation that could undermine public confidence in legal services and legal regulation

A member of the public publicly alleges on national news that the SLCC and other legal services regulators have failed to act in relation to a complaint against a solicitor who has recently been convicted of a criminal offence. In fact, the SLCC has assessed the complaint and referred it to the Law Society of Scotland, which is undertaking its own regulatory and complaints processes.

Following a public interest disclosure assessment and risk assessment, the SLCC may decide to disclose limited information about the existence or status of the complaint where this is necessary and proportionate to correct serious misinformation and reassure the public that the matter is being addressed through the appropriate statutory and regulatory processes.

Disclosing information that clarifies facts where silence would cause serious harm or unfairness to the public

A firm publicly advertises on its website that it has not received any complaints from recent clients. The statement is used to promote the firm's services to prospective clients. However, over the period of twelve months, the SLCC has received dozens of complaints concerning solicitors employed by the firm, alleging varying levels of poor service and professional misconduct. In these circumstances, there may be a public interest in disclosing relevant information to prevent consumers from being misled about the firm's complaints history.

Disclosing information that protects the public from misleading statements

A firm has collapsed, resulting in a significant increase in complaints to the SLCC. A support group established by former clients of the firm publicly criticises the SLCC on social media, alleging that it has failed to uphold any complaints or award any financial compensation. However, SLCC records show that dozens of complaints have been upheld and that thousands of pounds in compensation have been awarded to former clients of the firm. Disclosure of relevant information may be justified where doing so is necessary to correct misleading statements and ensure that consumers have accurate information about both regulated legal services and the SLCC's handling of complaints.

Disclosing information that reveals a severe or sustained lack of cooperation with the SLCC which risks undermining public confidence in legal services

The SLCC identifies a number of firms that have repeatedly failed or refused to comply with statutory obligations, including compliance with section 17 requests, awards made to consumers relating to upheld complaints and payment of the complaints levy. Despite numerous attempts to secure compliance, the firms have not responded to correspondence or acknowledged formal requests from the SLCC. This ongoing failure to engage frustrates the complaints process and delays redress for consumers. Disclosure of relevant information about a firm's lack of engagement may be necessary to protect consumers of legal services and maintain public confidence in the complaints system.

Disclosing information that highlights systemic issues, emerging risks or recurring themes identified through complaints

The SLCC identifies a sharp increase in service complaints against a firm over a short period. The complaints contain similar allegations of excessive delays, poor communication, and errors in legal documents. In addition, publicly available Companies House records show that the firm's accounts are more than 16 months overdue, raising concerns about the firm's financial position and ability to continue operating. Based on the volume and nature of the complaints, together with other available information, the SLCC considers there to be a credible risk that the firm may shortly cease trading. Disclosure of relevant information may be necessary to prevent further individuals from instructing the firm without awareness of the potential risks.

In this section