16. Our targets for referring complaints to the Professional Conduct Panel are 80% within six months and 100% within nine months. Our targets for the final hearing in cases referred to the Disciplinary Tribunal are 65% completed within six months and 100% within nine months of referral. How satisfied are you with these timescales?
Very dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Acceptable
Fairly satisfied Very satisfied No Response
2014 0 0 0
2(66.6%)
2013 0 0
2 (50%)
2012 0 0 0
1(33.3%) 1 (25%) 3 (100%) 0
0
2011 0 0
1 (25%) 0
1 (25%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%) 0
0
17. How satisfied were you with the overall time we took to deal with your complaint?
Very dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Acceptable
Fairly satisfied Very satisfied No Response
2014 0 0 0
1(33.3%)
2013 0
1 (25%)
2012 0 0
2(66.6%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%) 0
0
2011 0 0
1 (25%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%) 0
1 (25%) 2 (50%) 3 (75%) 0
0
18. Did we summarise your complaint to your satisfaction? 2014
2013
YES NO
N/A No Response 0
0 0
2012
1(33.3%) 1 (25%) 2 (50%) 1(33.3%) 1(33.3%)
0 0
2011
3 (75%) 2 (50%) 4 (100%) 0 0 0
Comments: 1. Did not get that far. IPS comments/learning points: This complaint was withdrawn after an apology was received.
19. Did you feel that we fully understood your complaint? 2014
2013
YES NO
No response Comments:
2012 0 0 2011
1(33.3%) 3 (75%) 4 (100%) 4 (100%) 1(33.3%) 1 (25%) 1(33.3%)
1. I did have to repeat my intentions a couple of times, but I am sure that was for thoroughness and I appreciate mine was not the only case being dealt with by my contact.
2. A fundamental error appeared in the report which went uncorrected even after it had been pointed out.
Professional standards for specialist lawyers 37
IPS comments/learning points:
In all cases we aim to ensure that the complaints are summarised appropriately. This particular complainant was seeking an apology as a result of the manner in which the member had communicated with them. They were unable to achieve this after complaining to the legal practice directly. It was important for the investigator to be certain that this was all that was being sought.
In this particular case the Professional Conduct Panel had before them the comments made about the error by the complainant. The error was in regard to the definition of Legal Professional Privilege. We corrected the error by way of an addendum. The complainant was provided details of how we would deal with the error and the complainant agreed with this course of action.
20. Did our report provide a satisfactory summary of your complaint?
YES NO
N/A No Response
2014 0
2013 0 2012
1(33.3%) 1 (25%) 2 (50%) 1(33.3%) 1(33.3%)
0
Comments: 1. Did not need a report. 2. The report although erroneous went uncorrected IPS comments/learning points:
We prepare a report in order to present the case to the Professional Conduct Panel
The report that is prepared by the investigating officer is not our opinion it is therefore not changed when comments are made about it. However any comments received are placed before the Professional Conduct Panel so they are fully aware of any objections to it and can take into account those comments along with any other responses when they make their decision.
SECTION 4: OUTCOME
21. Did we let you know about the decision in your case promptly (we normally have 5 working days to inform you of the decision)?
2014
YES NO
No Response 2(66.6%) 2013
0 0
2012
0 0
2011
1(33.3%) 4(100%) 4 (100%) 4 (100%) 0
0 0
2011
3 (75%) 2 (50%) 4 (100%) 0 0
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42