PODCAST: Episode two - How to handle complaints effectively?

Gemma: Welcome to our podcast! Today, we’re talking about how to handle complaints more effectively. We get it, complaints aren’t exactly a favourite topic.

But most practitioners would probably agree on two things:

First, complaints are a normal business risk in any service industry, including legal practice, so it’s important to know how to manage them. Second, CPD is a requirement every year.

This podcast is here to help with both! So, let’s get started. Susan, our best practice adviser, when and how should practitioners start improving the way they handle complaints?

Susan: Hello, Gemma! That’s a really interesting first question. You know you're absolutely right, complaints are a standard risk, which means every business needs to include them in its risk management plan and work out how to handle them. And I guess the best approach is to have a clear policy in place, but of course, the risk doesn’t just start and stop at a single point. It can arise at any stage where there’s interaction between a practitioner and a service user.

The more practitioners can help clients understand what they’re doing, what they're writing, what they're saying, the better they’ll be at managing that risk right from the very start.

Gemma: In our last podcast, you mentioned that practitioners must include in their terms of business that they will accept complaints and also refer to the SLCC.

Susan: Yes, that’s right.

Gemma: You also mentioned that the purpose of the terms of business is to manage expectations about how the firm will handle the work. Do they also have to explain how they’ll handle complaints? Because that almost seems like it’s encouraging complaints?

Susan: You know we have heard that criticism before and some people do feel there’s too much on our website that does encourage complaints about legal work. But it’s important to remember that all consumers, and that includes those using legal services, do of course have the right to raise a complaint.

Even if nobody mentioned it, all legal consumers would still have the right to take their complaint to the SLCC. The Law Society of Scotland’s Rule B5 also says that firms must have a written procedure for handling complaints, and that clients are entitled to see it.

But firms don’t have to include all the details of that in their terms of business; it’s enough simply to say that the firm will deal with complaints, and then to say how they should be raised.

Gemma: What should be included in this written procedure for handling complaints?

Susan: Although the rules call it a “procedure”, I think it’s more of a broad, outward-facing policy or roadmap to help the complainer understand what happens next. So the whole point of it is really about managing expectations.

And for that reason it doesn’t need to be complicated and in fact, we recommend that it should be very brief and of course written in plain language.

The key points that you might like to include are: Who will handle the complaint, and that's if different people are involved at various stages, just include their names and their contact details.

Gemma: When the firm is going to begin investigating. How long the process will take. How the firm is going to communicate with the complainer.

Susan: So discussions can take any format, but it’s always good practice to confirm any ultimate decisions in writing.

And finally, what happens if the client is unhappy with the decision. Now, some firms do offer an internal review process, although this isn’t actually required. But all firms must signpost the SLCC again.

And since the firm is managing expectations, it’s useful to have maybe a couple of sentences to clarify what a complaint can and can’t achieve. For instance, you might include this either in the policy or a separate note, something like: The complaint cannot change a court decision, a complaint can't force a third party to act, or result in the release of confidential information.

Gemma: Should every complainer be given this policy?

Susan: Well a complainer who asks for it is certainly entitled to see it, for free, although there’s no general requirement to send it otherwise.

But sending it out, when a firm does acknowledges a complaint, can help to reinforce the firm’s commitment to taking complaints seriously and handling them properly – which they’ve probably said in their terms of business already. We do often receive complaints that firms didn’t acknowledge or respond to concerns or left a complaint unresolved for months, and that’s pretty much guaranteed to make a complainer frustrated and then less open to resolving the complaint amicably.

Gemma: So that’s fairly simple because I was thinking that a complainer wouldn’t need to know the internal strategy or administrative procedures, like who supports the CRM, and if there’s a standard approach to offering compensation?

Susan: You’re quite right. That is something internal. But you know to support the policy, it's useful for firms to have some sort of internal process, and ideally they'd want to document that in a process manual or guidance for their staff.

The whole process of drafting something like this actually forces a firm into asking the kind of “what if" or "what next" questions that will help them to identify and manage the risks more effectively. And when they are looking at how best to deal with complaints, firms should also refer to the SLCC statutory guidance on improving a complaints process. This is based on six widely accepted principles of good complaint handling, and those are used by many other ombuds and regulatory bodies. In brief, those principles say that a complaints process should be accessible, timely, objective, user-oriented, and focused on resolution. And that last principle stresses that it’s essential to learn from every complaint too - not just to reduce the risk of similar issues in future, but also to improve your overall services for other consumers. That document is one of those ones available on the “Guidance for Practitioners” page of the SLCC website. Can you just clarify what “statutory guidance” means in practice? Yes sure, it’s called “statutory” because Section 40 of the current legislation that governs the SLCC requires us to issue guidance. Now the guidance isn't legally binding in the sense that a practitioner would necessarily be disciplined for not following it. But it’s in their best interest to do so. The whole idea behind the guidance is to improve practice, to strengthen client relationships, and streamline the complaints process.

And if a practitioner can show they’ve made reasonable efforts to follow it, this could be a factor taken into account to reduce any compulsory complaints levy that is imposed – although it must be remembered this levy applies to far less than 10% of cases we handle each year.

Gemma: So, firms need to tell complainers that they can go to the SLCC from the start. They should also have a policy they can share with complainers and an internal process for handling complaints. Do we have any suggestions on how to actually answer a complaint?

Susan: Like any other part of legal practice, good communication really is the key. That means being clear and making sure the complainer understands what you're saying. And although this isn’t a strict formula, we’ve identified three helpful steps that practitioners can try and adapt as needed and these are Engage, Explore and Respond.

Gemma: Can you take me through what you mean by those?

Susan: Sure! Let’s start with Engage. So, when someone raises concerns, they want to be heard and understood (even if you don’t necessarily agree with them). Engagement is about acknowledging the complainer’s right to express their views, and reinforcing that commitment that you've made in your terms of business  - and possibly your website - to dealing with the complaint by actively listening.

And here timing is key - because the sooner that practitioners can recognise and address dissatisfaction, the much better their chances of resolving things early.

Gemma: Can I interrupt you there and ask if there are any requirements around the timing?

Susan: Complainers need to give a practitioner “a reasonable period” to deal with the complaint internally, before they can approach the SLCC. Our rules have set that as 28 days. So, it really does makes sense for a firm to try to finish their internal investigation before then.

Gemma: But what if the practitioner or firm hasn’t finished looking into the complaint within that time frame?

Susan: Well if a practitioner realises their investigation is going to take longer than expected, they should tell the complainer as soon as possible and then provide a new deadline. But even if the complainer still decides to come to us on day 29, the internal investigation doesn’t have to stop - a practitioner can continue their process even after we have opened a file, and they can continue to deal with the complainer either directly, or through us.

Gemma: Are there any tips that you have about how to acknowledge and engage with a complainer?

Susan: Both sides - complainer and practitioner, are likely to feel emotional when a complaint is made but complainers more likely to be receptive to resolving, if they feel heard and respected. So that engagement could be a phone conversation, could be a face-to-face meeting or an exchange by email – it’s really just about finding the most effective way for the particular circumstances. If there’s verbal communication, complainers will probably want to vent – so let them do that, don’t interrupt, don’t take reams of notes, just show them that you are engaged, that you are listening.

Gemma: When does the practitioner get to have their say?

Susan: Again, no set rules – it’s all about gauging the moment and the mood. Sometimes, early in the conversation, a practitioner might be able to gently steer the complainer towards thinking about what outcome they’re hoping for. Other times, they might see that they’re just not ready to engage or hear your side just yet – and if that’s the case, it’s often best to simply thank them for sharing their views, and let them know you will be looking into it and what your next steps will be.

Gemma: So the next step is about “exploring”?

Susan: Yes, but again, there’s no rigid formula. Exploring, as I said, might even begin in the first conversation, after the complainer has been allowed to vent. But you can ask questions that help to understand why the complainer feels a certain way and how they see the situation. And this in turn can help create a more productive discussion about how they’d like to move forward. Now sometimes it's true, a practitioner might want to check the file or speak to colleagues before even going into any more detail or they might already have some specific questions for the complainer.

Now, I've heard this stage described as “using judo, not boxing”, that really just means finding a way forward by picking up on what the complainer has said.

Let’s take an example of a complainer who’s unhappy about three letters you wrote. They’re particularly indignant about the third letter. They say that they think it didn't made the point strongly enough, and so the complainer had to spend another £20 in getting and posting photocopies of supporting documents, to make sure there could be no come-back from the other side. So, the CRM looks at the file, and notices that a signed guarantee was already in place and all the third letter really did was confirm this, so it was in fact completely unnecessary for the complainer to send any photocopies. However, the CRM thinks maybe in hindsight, your first two letters to the complainer explaining what the firm was doing could have been clearer. So the question is, is it worth spending unbillable time drafting a six page defence of every paragraph in every one of those letters, or is it more effective to acknowledge their frustration, accept that your communication could have been better, and write off the fee of £25 they still owe for your work? Sure you can stand firm on principle, but you can also decide to take a more pragmatic approach on what will cost you the least in time and stress.

Now this sort of approach may not work in every case and sometimes earlier engagement has shown that the complainer has unrealistic expectations, or isn't open to anything other than “a full and honest investigation”, and in those cases then it makes better sense to not put more effort into trying to resolve what's essentially unresolvable, and moving straight to the investigation and the response stages of the firm’s process instead.

Gemma: That makes sense. What tips can we offer on responding?

Susan: There are a few handy tips in the statutory guidance that I mentioned earlier.

Firstly, stick to the timeframe you gave to the complainer or if you need more time, that's fine just set a clear new deadline. Show that you've used the time well by addressing each point clearly. Keep your language neutral and easy to understand.

Summarise the key facts and explain how these do (or don’t) support the complainer’s view.

Now a lot of the complaints we see at the SLCC are simply misunderstandings, so if you need to explain something again, it can really help to reword it, to explain it from a different standpoint, and certainly it helps to break down or clarify any legal jargon that might have been used and here. I don’t just mean Latin terms, I mean things like the process too, people don't understand what “avizandum” or “disponing” necessary mean.

They don't understand what the purpose of a “debate” is. So it helps to put that in simpler form. A fresh look at a file often highlights something you could have done differently, even if that's just responding earlier or explaining things more clearly.

In terms of responding it helps also to keep a record of everything that you have done, including any settlement discussions and agreements. Whether or not you’ve made a proposal, the tone of any letter should be respectful and neutral, and you should again let the complainer know that they can approach the SLCC if needed.

Gemma: How do practitioners feel about doing that?

Susan: I already mentioned that we do see firms spending perhaps too much time trying to resolve some unresolvable complaints, rather than referring complainers to the SLCC more quickly. And that's because when a complaint comes to us, we also start by managing expectations. We help complainers to understand what a complaint can realistically achieve. Often, getting an independent and second opinion from the SLCC will make them rethink their demands, or even drop the complaint. Now although we are independent, we do work in conjunction with practitioners in the sense that we will suggest resolution opportunities and can help them communicate with complainers. And if the complaint is about service, of course there’s the option of free, independent mediation through the SLCC, and that has around a 70% success rate.

Gemma: And do you have any tips on how practitioners can deal better with us?

Susan: Yes, it’s really the same approach, engage and consider our suggestions, and respond. Remember also that a good response to the complainer, that confirms what you investigated in the firm and why you came to your conclusion, can simply be shared with us. Now, the threshold for us to pass on a complaint for investigation from the initial sift we do is quite low, so it’s not unusual that quite a number of complaints that get to the investigation stage may not be upheld there, after the investigator has all the facts, and the file. Now we know that complaints can be stressful, and that's part of why letting us have the information we request promptly, helps us to move things more quickly into giving a view on how it might be resolved, and into managing the expectations of complainers. And the added benefit of that, is that in our experience, the more quickly we can be in a position to deal with a complaint, the more likely it is that a complainer will be willing to resolve it amicably. Also remember that the more work and time that goes into handling complaints, the more that costs at the SLCC in terms of our resources. And since the SLCC is entirely funded by levies from the profession. It's in everyone's interest to keep the system as efficient as possible. And for that we have a complaints analysis tool on our website to help firms identify patterns and to avoid repeated issues.

Gemma: That’s been a helpful discussion! And I think the key messages to take away are that handling complaints effectively isn’t about ticking boxes. It’s all about good communication, setting expectations, and finding practical resolutions. Engage with the complainer, explore the issues fully, and respond clearly and professionally. A well handled complaint can actually strengthen client relationships and improve your firm’s processes. And if a resolution isn’t possible, knowing when to refer a complaint to the SLCC can save time and resources in the long run.

For more tips and tools, including our complaints analysis tool, visit our website. Thanks for listening!