A complaints system under strain
The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) exists to provide consumers with timely redress when things go wrong in legal services. Yet today, the service is struggling under the weight of demand. Complaints have more than doubled compared to pre-Covid levels, while average waiting times sit at around 275 days, with many complex cases taking well over a year. For consumers, this is simply indefensible. Justice delayed is justice denied.
This pressure cannot be explained by rising demand alone. It reflects deeper, systemic weaknesses across the complaints system. First-tier complaints handling remains poor. Too many firms are failing to resolve issues at source, leaving consumers with little choice but to escalate to LeO. Regulators have tolerated this for too long. They have been overly laissez-faire in enforcing standards, and the Legal Services Board (LSB) has not intervened decisively. The result is a complaints system that allows poor practice to persist and funnels avoidable demand into LeO, overwhelming its capacity.
Incremental fixes cannot meet systemic failure
LeO has not been idle. Early resolution initiatives, digital improvements and productivity gains of more than 25% since 2021 demonstrate real effort. But incremental improvements have been overwhelmed by the scale of demand. When pressure consistently outstrips capacity, tinkering at the edges is not enough. What is needed now is radical reform that re-imagines LeO for the 21st century.
We do not need to look far for evidence that such transformation is possible. The Pensions Ombudsman faced similar challenges: rising caseloads, long delays and declining confidence. Recognising that incremental change would not be sufficient, it undertook a root-and-branch review of its operating model. Processes were streamlined and digital capability strengthened to reduce waiting times. Crucially, it embraced transparency and accountability, publishing data and decisions that helped drive improvements across the pensions sector.
The results were tangible. Waiting times fell, confidence improved and the scheme demonstrated that even in complex, high-volume environments, decisive reform can deliver better outcomes for consumers.
The case for decisive reform
LeO now stands at a similar inflection point. This is why the Panel supports Option 3 in the Office for Legal Complaints’ draft budget proposals for 2026/27, inclusive or alongside funding to transform the scheme. This is not an endorsement of higher cost for its own sake. It is recognition that Option 3 is the only credible option that reflects the scale of the transformation challenge and delivers value for money by stabilising the service. It recognises that stabilising LeO in the short term is not enough. Consumers cannot afford a service that simply treads water while demand continues to rise. Without this investment, delays will worsen, confidence will erode further, and the opportunity to deliver meaningful change will be lost.
Funding alone, however, will not fix the problem. The Panel is resolute that any transformation must be externally led and independently overseen, with a clear mandate to recommend radical redesign rather than incremental change. Independence is essential to credibility and to maintaining confidence while LeO sticks to the day job and continues to deliver its statutory function.
At the same time, regulators must finally tackle the root cause of avoidable demand. Poor first-tier complaints handling cannot continue unchecked. Regulators must be more transparent, drive mandatory adoption of best practice such as LeO’s Model Complaint Resolution Procedure (backed with consumer testing), and use data and publication to expose and address persistent under-performance. Without meaningful upstream action, no amount of reform at LeO will be sustainable.
Other ombudsman schemes have shown that transformation is possible. The Pensions Ombudsman has demonstrated what decisive leadership and external scrutiny can achieve. Now it is time for LeO to do the same. Consumers deserve a Legal Ombudsman that works for them — not one that leaves justice waiting in a queue.
The Panel’s full response to LeO’s consultation can be found here.
By Adhir Ramdarshan, Member of the Legal Services Consumer Panel