Andy Bean writes:

I have now had chance to review the two latest Peer Review results and accompanying Reports. Both Reports seem to indicate the liking for detailed information sheets/booklets being issued to clients if they are uncomplicated and straight-forward.

However, it is quite clear from both Reports that when firms are dealing with youths or vulnerable clients, such information and any standard letters should always be tailored to their needs. In fact, one Peer Reviewer suggests that rather than writing a lengthy letter to a client and within that letter asking them to make an appointment, a separate letter should be issued with that simple task within it.

Another consistent issue raised across both of these Reports is the taking of instructions at the earliest opportunity, and then following that up at the earliest opportunity with the full proof of evidence being obtained and held on the file. Both Reports do seem to be sympathetic to the fact that some clients are unwilling to attend the firm’s office so that such proofs can be obtained, but it is quite clear that the Peer Reviewers are taking the view that you need to therefore be a bit more pro-active, and consider other alternative ways of obtaining instructions, i.e. attending upon the client at Court to obtain the proof, or obtaining proof of evidence via the telephone.

I know we did not see one of the samples of files to which one of these Reports refers, but with regards to the second sample, we did and I think that generally as a firm we are getting pretty much a good feel for whether or not a sample will receive Competent, Competent Plus or Below ratings. I know that the issues that we may raise are not the same as Peer Reviewers, but then again when we looked at the two Reports prepared on a Family sample, on the same sample of files those Peer Reviewers did not raise the same issues, but the outcome was the same.

One thing that did concern me on both of these samples were isolated incidents on files being taken and used as ‘areas of concern’, rather than the Peer Reviewer being able to evidence a clear Competent Failure across the sample of files. I am sure that every firm will appreciate that there are going to be on certain occasions “bad files”. I think that if this approach is going to be taken it has to be stressed to all firms the importance of ensuring that every file is 100% compliant.