The latest episode of the Today’s Family Lawyer podcast welcomes Senior Ombudsman at the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) Clair Daniel to explore the current landscape of legal complaints handling, the challenges facing firms, and the strategic work underway to improve first‑tier resolution across the legal sector.
The backdrop to the discussion is the increase in the number of cases in which LeO identify poor complaints handling, up from 46% in 2023/24 to 49% in 2024/25; and efforts to stop complaints at source by equipping firms to better deal with issues before they become complaints.
Daniel says demand for LeO’s services has risen sharply, across all areas of law, with several likely drivers: rising customer expectations shaped by instantaneous digital communication, cost‑of‑living pressures increasing the inclination to complain, and sheer volume of transactions. Communication and delay remain the two most common causes of complaint—together accounting for around 47% of complaints. Often, complaints arise from mismanaged expectations, such as unclear service‑level agreements or clients misunderstanding the steps and timeframes in transactions.
There is the increasing role AI plays in complaints to consider. LeO is increasingly seeing (as are firms) consumers rely on tools such as ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot to produce lengthy, formalised, and at times overly legalistic complaints, complete with copied‑and‑pasted case law. While understandable, this can hinder early, informal resolution. She encourages firms to avoid mirroring an escalated tone, instead refocusing on the core issue and maintaining a professional, calm approach.
Keen to dispel misconceptions about LeO Daniel reiterates the ombudsman is strictly impartial and supports firms as much as consumers, including dismissing complaints where service has clearly been reasonable. To help firms get matters right at first tier, LeO provides resources such as the technical advice desk, sector insights, and forthcoming Model Complaints Resolution Procedure, complete with templates and toolkits. A new learning platform with training and webinars is scheduled for 2026.
Listen in to hear more about LeO’s attitude to setting and managing client expectations early, strategies to handle AI‑generated complaints effectively, and internal communication and processes that reduce escalation risk and improve client trust.
The Today’s Family Lawyer podcast is available on your preferred podcast provider and at www.todaysfamilylawyer.co.uk.
Subscribe to Today’s Family Lawyer to receive our FREE weekly newsletter, out every Thursday and listen in to the podcast to hear all the latest news and views from across the family law sector. Thank you to our Podcast Sponsors LEAP and Moneypenny.
2 responses
In essence what Ms Daniels really means is that the Legal Ombudsman will look at every way possible to either not investigate a complaint or to dismiss at the earliest possible opportunity. It is consistent with the reported failures of the LO to deal in a timely manner wtih complaints and the massive backlog of complaints that the LO has allowed to happen and they now have to try and get rid of.
Ms Daniels sent me an e mail on the 16 February 2026 stating I could complain to the LO but that I would need to complain to the solicitor first.
However it was left to me to subsequently send an e mail to Ms Daniels on the 16 February 2026 and point out that her statement that I first had to complain to the solicitors was not correct.
In particular I then suggested to Ms Daniels that she look at the judgement in the recent case of Law Lane Solicitors, R (on the application of) v The Legal Ombudsman Neutral Citation Number[2026] EWHC 199 (Admin) and where permission to proceed with a JR claim against the LO had been granted.
It is apparent that the Administrative Court made it clear that the LO Scheme provided that a complaint did not first have to be made to a solicitor if exceptional circumstances exist and I have quoted the relevant paragraph from that judgement below:
“9. (b) The 2019 scheme rules applied to Mr Gram’s complaint. Two provisions are relevant: first, r. 4.1 stated the general rule that ordinarily a complainant cannot use the Legal Ombudsman’s scheme unless the complainant has first used the respondent’s complaints procedure; secondly, r. 4.2 provided that the scheme may be used where the Legal Ombudsman considered that there were exceptional reasons to consider the complaint without it having been made first to the respondent.”
What also concerns me is that it appears from the recording that not once does Ms Daniels refer to the numerous complaints made about the service provided by the LO. One has only got to look at the Trustpilot reviews of the LO to see that there are hundreds of complainants to the LO who complain about the service and lack of logic and transparency and competence on the part of the LO and its staff.