In its decision, the court has clarified that a ‘complaint’ is the whole complaint made by the complainer, but also that for some sections of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 (for example, when we make a determination of eligibility) a ‘complaint’ is each individual element of the whole complaint while in other sections of the Act (for example, when determining the limits of potential compensation or applying a complaint levy) it is not. We need to work through the practical implications of the same word meaning different things at different stages of the Act, and that something can be both one thing and many things at the same time.

The complex, detailed and prescriptive nature of the statute that governs our work, shaped by a contentious parliamentary debate and numerous significant late amendments, has created a number of areas where contradictions exist and interpretation is needed to balance the overarching statutory aim of an efficient complaints system with the technical details set out in certain parts of the statute.

That is why the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has long called for a new framework bill to replace the existing statute. In the absence of this, the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, currently progressing though the Scottish Parliament needs to remove unhelpful prescription and ensure that the form of the complaints process follows its stated function – to provide an accessible, swift and effective complaints process for consumers and lawyers alike. We will continue to make submissions to Parliament on that basis.

We accept the court’s decisions on the issues of appeal. In doing so, we would echo the words of the unrepresented lay complainer to the court, who said:

It is, of course, the fact of the right of appeal to the court that means we are unable to change a decision once it is made. We have long argued that an appeal to the Court of Session is not an appropriate route for a lay complainer (or indeed, many solicitors) to raise a concern about a potential error in a decision or to request a review. We have recently written to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee raising just this issue as part of its scrutiny of the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill.

While we cannot comment on the details of this particular case, we would welcome the opportunity to be able to receive, consider, and where appropriate amend decisions where we identify an error or where new information comes to light. We urge the Parliament to support the measures proposed in the bill to do just that.

Neil Stevenson is chief executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission