The latest figures from the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) should prompt law firms across England and Wales to look hard at how they handle client complaints.

According to its 2025/26 annual complaints data, LeO received 14,259 new complaints, 37% more than the 10,447 received the year before. Complaints accepted for resolution rose by a smaller but still significant 16%, to 8,412.

For Compliance Officers for Legal Practice (COLPs), managing partners and those responsible for risk, the question is whether your complaints handling procedure resolves client concerns in practice, or simply satisfies a regulatory requirement on paper.

Effective complaints handling is about more than meeting prescribed timescales. It needs appropriate supervision, clear communication, management oversight and a willingness to learn from mistakes before they become recurring compliance problems.

Where to start

• Check that your procedure can be completed within eight weeks of a complaint first being made.
• Make sure every member of staff can recognise and escalate an expression of dissatisfaction.
• Review whether your final response letters give LeO signposting and time limits correctly.
• Use your complaints register to identify patterns, not just to record outcomes.

What do the latest Legal Ombudsman complaints figures show?

14,259
New complaints received, up 37% on 2024/25 (10,447)

8,412
Complaints accepted for resolution, up 16% on 2024/25 (7,203)

46%
Of complaint types related to communication (24%) or delay (22%)

46%
Of complaints with an investigative outcome showed unreasonable handling by the firm, down from 49% in 2024/25

Source: Legal Ombudsman, 2025/26 annual complaints data and insight. The figures use different bases: “received” includes complaints awaiting assessment, and the last two figures are shares of complaint types and of investigated cases respectively.

LeO also found evidence of poor service in 72% of the complaints it assessed, and awarded £3.7m in remedies. In more than four in five investigated complaints it awarded compensation for the emotional effects of poor service, averaging £429. Fee refunds, reductions or waivers were recommended in 29% of them, averaging £3,520. A complaint that escalates to LeO has a direct financial cost, on top of the regulatory and reputational ones.

A quarter of consumers told LeO they had not received a final response from their legal service provider.

Residential conveyancing accounted for 36% of accepted complaints (3,039) and was responsible for almost three-quarters of the year-on-year increase. The findings are relevant across practice areas, though. Complaints about immigration and asylum rose by 49% and employment by 37%.

A recurring theme is that clients are often dissatisfied less with the legal outcome than with feeling uninformed about progress, costs, delays or the reasons behind decisions. Some complaints are unavoidable, particularly where litigation outcomes or third-party delays are outside the firm’s control. How the firm communicates, and how it responds when concerns arise, is within its control.

Complaints handling is a compliance and governance issue

Under paragraph 7.1(c) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms, paragraphs 8.2 to 8.5 of the Code for Solicitors apply to firms. Firms must therefore have an effective complaints procedure, tell clients about it and about their right to go to the Legal Ombudsman, and ensure complaints are dealt with promptly, fairly and free of charge.

A written policy does not meet that standard on its own, and for COLPs complaints belong within wider compliance monitoring.

A complaint about a delayed response may look like an isolated client service issue. Repeated complaints of the same kind can point to deeper weaknesses: excessive workloads, inadequate supervision, poor file management or insufficient training. Recurring complaints about unexpected costs may suggest that client care letters, costs estimates or procedures for communicating fee changes need attention.

The concern is whether the firm has identified and addressed the circumstances that allowed the problem to arise, as well as whether the individual complaint was resolved.

The SRA is looking at first-tier complaints too

The pressure is not coming from LeO alone. The SRA reported that firms received more than 41,000 first-tier complaints in 2025, an 11% rise on 2024, with the proportion resolved at first tier slipping from 82% to 80%.

Between 3 July and 1 September 2026 the SRA consulted on proposed rules that would require firms to give clients a timeline for resolution when a complaint is first notified, and to provide regular updates on progress. It is also consulting on a Complaints Handling Requirements Statement. The SRA has said it intends to submit its final proposals to the Legal Services Board for approval, so these requirements are not yet in force. Firms can still test their current procedures against them. If your process does not already tell clients what will happen and when, it is worth fixing now.

Are complaints being recognised and escalated early enough?

One of the most important questions for managing partners and COLPs is whether staff understand what counts as a complaint. LeO’s Scheme Rules define a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, and it does not need to be in writing or use the word “complaint”.

Concerns often first surface in a telephone call, a frustrated email or a query about a bill. If staff treat these as routine enquiries, the chance to intervene early is lost.

Firms should consider whether:

• All staff, including reception and administrative teams, can recognise and escalate expressions of dissatisfaction.
• Fee earners know when a concern should be recorded under the complaints procedure.
• A named person is responsible for overseeing complaints.
• Complaints involving senior staff or potential conflicts can be reviewed independently and fairly.
• Records are kept of the complaint, the investigation, the outcome and any remedial action.

The aim is not to formalise every minor concern. It is to make sure dissatisfaction is recognised, dealt with proportionately and not left to escalate through inaction.

The eight-week rule: do your procedures work in practice?

Under Scheme Rule 4.2, a client can take a complaint to LeO if it has not been resolved to their satisfaction within eight weeks of being made to the firm. LeO’s best practice guidance is explicit that the eight weeks run from when the complaint is first made. They do not run from when the firm acknowledges it or decides to investigate.

A procedure with an initial investigation, a departmental review and a final partner decision can look thorough. If it routinely takes longer than eight weeks, it gives the firm no effective chance to resolve the complaint before LeO becomes involved.

Signposting needs the same care. A complaint generally has to reach LeO within six months of the firm’s final response (Rule 4.4) and within one year of the act or omission, or of when the client should reasonably have known there was cause for complaint (Rule 4.5). The six-month limit depends on the final response prominently telling the client about LeO, its contact details and the deadline. LeO has said it can use its discretion to accept complaints that would otherwise be out of time where signposting is wrong. Incorrect time limits in a final response letter can therefore remove the protection the limit is meant to give.

COLPs and managing partners should check whether stated response times are realistic, whether deadlines are monitored centrally, whether stalled complaints can be escalated, and whether final response letters carry the correct signposting.

Supervision and client communication: tackling the underlying causes

Paragraph 4.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms requires an effective system for supervising client matters. That obligation matters for preventing complaints as well as for the quality of legal work.

A junior fee earner who regularly fails to update clients may need closer supervision, training or a review of their caseload. If similar concerns appear across a department, the cause may be resourcing, management expectations or the firm’s systems.

Supervisors should watch for early warning signs: repeated missed deadlines, unanswered correspondence, unclear advice and unexpected cost increases. Clients are usually more forgiving of delay when they receive timely explanations and realistic expectations. Supervision arrangements should therefore cover the quality of client communication, as well as technical work and file progress.

Using complaints data to identify recurring compliance risks

A complaints register should record more than whether a complaint is open or closed. Kept properly, it lets COLPs and senior management spot trends and act early. Useful fields are the nature of the complaint, the department, the underlying cause, time to resolve, outcome and corrective action.

Review these patterns periodically and, where appropriate, feed them into the risk register, training programme and supervision arrangements. The SRA’s thematic review of first-tier complaints handling found variation in how firms identify, define and handle complaints, which is a reason to define these terms clearly in your own procedure.

COLPs should be able to show that the firm has learned from complaints and made changes as a result. Reliable data on when complaints are received and how they conclude is also what the SRA’s complaints data collection requires, so firms that keep a good register are better placed for both.

The Legal Ombudsman’s Model Complaints Resolution Procedure

LeO published its final Model Complaints Resolution Procedure (MCRP) on 29 July 2026. The voluntary framework has two stages, Early Resolution and Full Investigation, and five core features: acknowledgement of the complaint, an Early Resolution stage, a Full Investigation stage, a written outcome, and a link to LeO’s MCRP resources.

LeO’s pilot results show what the approach can achieve. Of the complaints handled by pilot firms, 57% were resolved at Early Resolution, which took an average of seven days against 21 for Full Investigation. Only 19 of 631 pilot complaints reached LeO.

Firms do not have to adopt the MCRP, and it does not replace SRA requirements. It is still a useful benchmark for accessibility, proportionality, response times and consistency, and a prompt to ask whether your own procedure has stages that add delay without adding resolution. Firms that want to test their procedure against the five core features can follow this step-by-step gap check for COLPs and COFAs, which starts with whether the procedure has a documented Early Resolution stage.

What should COLPs and managing partners review now?

Six areas are worth concentrating on:

1. Review your complaints policy. Check that it reflects current SRA requirements, LeO referral rights and time limits, and the way complaints are handled in practice.
2. Test staff awareness. Make sure fee earners, support staff and managers can recognise, record and escalate complaints, including informal expressions of dissatisfaction.
3. Examine supervision arrangements. Ask whether complaints reveal weaknesses in workloads, file management, client communication or the supervision of less experienced staff.
4. Assess management reporting. Check that the COLP and senior management receive enough information on complaint volumes, recurring themes, resolution times and outstanding corrective actions.
5. Review how lessons are implemented. Recurring problems should lead to changes in procedures, training or supervision, and those changes should then be evaluated.
6. Consider the wider regulatory implications. Assess whether a complaint points to a potential breach, whether remedial action is needed, and whether the matter meets the threshold for reporting to the SRA under paragraphs 3.9 and 9.1(d) of the Code for Firms.

Not every complaint is a regulatory breach, and not every breach has to be notified to the SRA. Firms do need a way of recognising when a service complaint raises more serious concerns about conduct, competence or compliance.

Compliance officers can only do this with proper support. As the SRA’s Compliance Officer Thematic Review makes clear, they need resources, authority and management backing.

Complaints are an opportunity to improve

A 37% increase in complaints received by LeO does not mean standards have fallen by the same proportion. The figures reflect demand for LeO’s service, and many factors affect whether a dissatisfied client escalates. LeO’s own data also shows a three-point fall in unreasonable first-tier handling findings.

Even so, poor communication, delay, unclear costs and weak complaints handling are well-known problems. What matters is whether a firm has systems to spot them, respond properly and stop them recurring. A firm that resolves an individual complaint without addressing its cause may simply be waiting for the next one.

Frequently asked questions

How long does a firm have to resolve a complaint before the client can go to the Legal Ombudsman?
Eight weeks from the date the complaint was first made to the firm. After that the client can refer it to LeO even if the firm’s own process is unfinished.

How long does a client have to refer a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman?
Generally within six months of the firm’s final response and within one year of the act or omission, or of when the client should reasonably have known there was cause for complaint. LeO has discretion, particularly where signposting was incorrect.

Do firms have to adopt the Model Complaints Resolution Procedure?
No. It is voluntary and does not replace SRA requirements, but firms can use it as a benchmark.

How Enderley Consulting can help

At Enderley Consulting we work with law firms to strengthen their compliance arrangements, support compliance officers and make sure policies work in practice. For complaints, that can include:

• A compliance audit and gap analysis of your complaints procedure, register and final response letters
• COLP/COFA support, including management reporting on complaints data
• The Enderley Infohub compliance management platform, which includes a centralised, auditable complaints register and role-based staff training