I am sorry that our current Legal Ombudsman, Kathryn Stone is leaving her office to take up a new role as Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Parliament’s gain is the legal profession’s loss. She is a class act and her clear sighted view of what is good and what is not will serve our democracy well. Some politicians, like some lawyers, think that they live in a very important bubble where their value to society excuses some pretty bad behaviour. I was pleased to attend the Westminster Policy Forum on standards in the Legal Profession to hear her say that she leaves office with a generally good view of the way the majority of solicitors deal with the public in relation to complaints.

It’s not that everything is well. Lawyers are still lawyerlike. Some still believe that obfuscation of the obvious is a good ploy. Try this for size, recently published in a report entitled ‘The Language of Complaints’ by the Legal Ombudsman;

‘For the inconvenience caused we would like to award you £250. Please note that the offer is made on an entirely prejudicial basis without making any formal admission and made purely and simply to deal with the complaint.’

What kind of offer is that? Has the lawyer any empathy with the plight of their client? Evidently not.

The use of legal jargon is another problem: ‘In the circumstances our client is considered that her lawyer was negligent, failing to advise about the implementation of CMS. Namely once the detriment was made, there was no enforcement of the maintenance, against the maintenance continued to do so’ etc.

I haven’t a clue what this means and I am a lawyer. What on earth a client was meant to make of it is anyone’s guess. Perhaps the lawyer thought that blinding the client with science was good enough to hide the fact that they made a mess of the job.

Being a good lawyer is about three things. Communication, communication and communication. ‘You have not communicated unless you have been understood’ said Kathryn in one of the most insightful comments I have ever heard about legal services. We are here to advise and provide solutions to problems through the medium of the law. How can we provide that solution if clients do not understand what we are on about in the first place?

It’s not just about the words we use but the way we say it. Do we really care about what the client is telling us or do we think they are just another unwelcome interruption to our busy day? My wife knows instantly whether I am taking in what she says or I am actually looking at my phone or thinking about the latest woes of Everton. Clients are equally savvy. Are we with them in their problems or do we see them as out there, just another abstract legal case in which we have little emotional interest?

I believe that at Jackson Lees, we generally communicate well and are understood by clients. Use of jargon is banned. It’s unhelpful and gets in the way of a client relationship. I also hope we communicate our investment of time and energy in the legal problems we deal with. That’s not to say we always agree with the client’s initial view. Often we need to change the way a client looks at things. That is what being a good adviser is about. We use our knowledge and experience to get to the heart of the issues. And when the client understands why we have advised as we have, we have done our job, especially if we have shown that we really do care about a solution which is right for the client.