Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 21 February 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Legal Services Bill [HL].


Legal Services Bill [HL]

I am not entirely sure that I agree with the noble Lords who have last spoken. It seems to me that what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is saying could be rephrased to meet their objections. There is much to be said for identifying, in certain circumstances, habitual offenders. As we were told by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, only 7 per cent of solicitors out of the whole profession tend to come before the disciplinary bodies and I can see that, ““A report under subsection (1)””, might in certain circumstances identify the respondent. But you would have to identify those circumstances, and I have in mind ““where a complaint is justified””. That might meet the public interest, because there are members of the public who go to solicitors—or, indeed, to barristers—without knowing whether they can trust them. I think that, in certain circumstances, and at the discretion of the organisers of the OLC, that information should be given, but given only if the complaint has been clearly upheld.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c1159 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Disclosure of information Consumers Legal profession Misconduct Patents Ombudsman Regulation Trade marks Legal Services Board Office for Legal Complaints
Legislation
Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk