IPS Annual Report 2012
54
Annual Report 2012 Regulator for the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives
-
Upload
newnorth-print-limited -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
description
CILEX IPS Annual Report 2012
Transcript of IPS Annual Report 2012
Annual Report
2012Regulator for the
Chartered Institute of Legal Executives
2 3
Contents
IntroductionChair’s foreword 4
Chief Executive’s report 5
About ipsHighlights in 2012 7
Achievements against strategy & Business planEducation and standards 9
Registration and accreditation 10
Fitness to practise 11
Governance and process 12
Business development 13
Communication and partnership 14
Working with others 16
Financial review 18
AnnexesAnnex 1: Annual Report of the Admissions and Licensing Committee 19
Annex 2: Annual Report of the Professional Conduct Panel, 28
Disciplinary Tribunal and Appeals Panel
Annex 3: IPS Consumer Engagement Strategy 38
Annex 4: IPS Complaints and Disciplinary Function Customer 39
Satisfaction Surveys – Analysis of responses 2012
2 3
Contents
IntroductionChair’s foreword 4
Chief Executive’s report 5
About ipsHighlights in 2012 7
Achievements against strategy & Business planEducation and standards 9
Registration and accreditation 10
Fitness to practise 11
Governance and process 12
Business development 13
Communication and partnership 14
Working with others 16
Financial review 18
AnnexesAnnex 1: Annual Report of the Admissions and Licensing Committee 19
Annex 2: Annual Report of the Professional Conduct Panel, 28
Disciplinary Tribunal and Appeals Panel
Annex 3: IPS Consumer Engagement Strategy 38
Annex 4: IPS Complaints and Disciplinary Function Customer 39
Satisfaction Surveys – Analysis of responses 2012
54
Introduction
Chair’s foreword Chief Executive’s Report
4 5
During 2012 IPS Ltd had one overriding focus: to prepare the way
for Chartered Legal Executives to take the next logical step in
their progression towards recognition in their own right as fully
qualified, fully competent specialist lawyers. Recent years have seen
the first legal executive advocates, partners and judge – recognised for
the qualified, learned, reliable lawyers we have always known them to be.
What, then, should prevent their being allowed the long overdue right to
practise independently in their chosen field of law?
It has been our declared aim, since IPS was created, to secure that right
for CILEx Fellows specialising in litigation, probate, conveyancing and
advocacy. It makes no sense for an experienced lawyer – perhaps a head of
department – to have to get documents signed off by a colleague, perhaps
one with little or no experience of the work in question, simply because
they happen to hold the title of ‘solicitor’. There is no logic in a position
where a Chartered Legal Executive is entitled to preside over a court or
tribunal as a judge but not to address it as an independent practitioner.
It is equally unreasonable for a profession which aspires to promote
equality and celebrate diversity to encourage ambitious individuals to
climb a laborious and obstructed path to full qualification only to find their
progress blocked when they want to practise independently. Equality and
diversity is not about monitoring, surveys, policies and ‘action’ plans. It is
about removing unnecessary obstacles that prevent talented people from
realising their ambitions. What better vehicle for equality is there than to
allow anyone capable of it to run their own business?
So the IPS Board set aside everything that might detract from our highest
priority: to prepare applications which will convince the Legal Services
Board that the time is now right for Chartered Legal Executives to be
granted the rights of independent practice to which they properly aspire.
As I write, the applications are almost ready for submission. Those few
words mask an immense amount of work done – well beyond the call of
duty – by our dedicated and capable office team, whose passion for the
task has been an inspiration to me and the other members of the Board.
Everyone has played their part. Success will be the reward for a genuine
team effort.
During the year I had many discussions about the applications with judges,
politicians, legislators and other stakeholders and opinion formers. One
theme came through again and again: Chartered Legal Executives are held
in high regard by those with whom they have professional dealings. No
one argued that they are not up to the challenge of independent practice;
indeed, there was a degree of incredulity as to why CILEx Fellows have
been denied the right for so long.
I therefore perceive this as an idea whose time has come. The most
significant challenge is therefore to IPS itself: we must demonstrate to the
Legal Services Board, and later to the Lord Chancellor and Parliament, not
only that Chartered Legal Executives are up to the job; but that IPS has the
capacity and capability to regulate them, and the businesses they set up,
in a way which assures all observers that their legal practice is safe and
competent. The steps we have taken to ensure that IPS steps up to the
mark are recorded elsewhere in this report.
One sign of the organisation’s burgeoning capacity is that this major
campaign did not prevent our playing a full part, alongside other regulators,
in the development of the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates and
the management of the Legal Education and Training Review. Both should
show results during 2013. And in 2012 our reviews of work-based learning
and continuing professional development came to fruition.
We now have in place systematic arrangements for assessing the readiness
of CILEx members to progress to Fellowship (and therefore, in due course,
to enter into independent practice), replacing the previous system which
lacked robustness and transparency.
Our radical proposals on CPD were well enough received to enable us to
launch, at the year ended, a three month pilot of our innovative scheme
which is based on practitioners preparing their own personal development
plans and then demonstrating how they have put them into practice. We
hope this will be successful enough for us to consign CPD requirements
based on hours served or points scored well and truly to the past.
Altogether, then, a year of detailed analysis, robust debate, hard slog and
single minded commitment. The rewards will be significant.
Alan Kershaw
Chairman
2012 presented us with another challenging year. The IPS Board
made it our first priority to finalise the Applications for CILEx to be
designated as an Approved Regulator for the reserved legal activities
of probate and reserved instrument activities (aka conveyancing);
to extend litigation and advocacy designations to civil, criminal and
family litigation; and develop full regulatory arrangements for our
immigration service providers. However we were also committed to
completing development of a work based learning scheme to replace the
long-serving qualifying employment measure of experience for admission to
Fellowship of CILEx and delivering proposals for a new style of CPD to replace
the current hours-based scheme. Meanwhile we continued our involvement
with joint projects with the SRA and the BSB on quality assurance of criminal
advocacy and the review of legal education and training.
And then there was the day job, with a number of challenging disciplinary
cases whilst we also implemented procedural changes following the
governance review of the disciplinary rules the previous year. This
necessitated a very substantial piece of work by the practice standards staff
to draft a procedures manual to help inform and guide panellists, the parties
to complaints and newly appointed independent panel clerks about how the
complaints and disciplinary procedures work in practice. CPD monitoring and
approving applications for Fellowship were new areas of work for IPS, also
involving a heavy work load.
The Legal Services Board (LSB) continued to develop its regulatory role,
looking for better ways to meet its obligations under the Act. So, in addition
to the independent governance review and work on setting the practice
fees, IPS was also required to complete a regulatory self-assessment. The
procedure was designed around the requirements of entity regulation and
therefore it was inevitable that we were not able to evidence performance in
many of the categories as yet. However it gave us an invaluable reminder of
the criteria we need to address in our practice rights applications.
There was an important initiative on consumer engagement which, again, is
particularly challenging for IPS as we regulate individuals who are employed
and therefore have limited powers at our disposal to engage directly with
consumers of legal services. However we established a number of initiatives
which will help to give us a rounded view of consumer expectations going
forward. We also contributed our views to the triennial review of the LSB and
Legal Ombudsman carried out by the Ministry of Justice.
In case this sounds like a tale of woe: the good news is that we made excellent
progress with all of our key objectives for the year. We benefited from good
engagement with the LSB as we developed our practice rights applications
and submitted draft applications towards the end of the year. The decision
to take on new, experienced staff to support our work in education and the
development of practice rights was vindicated. They have made significant
contributions to the work and, as all of the new initiatives have developed
and progressed, we have strengthened very considerably our understanding
of and ability to deliver the expanded regulatory role which is at the heart of
the IPS Strategy to the end of 2014.
The workload during the year
was intense for all of the IPS team,
not only those working on new projects. Despite
taking on new people there are still not very many of us, and
the dedication of staff this year has been outstanding. Their reward is the
uncertainty (perhaps that should be certainty) of more change and challenge
in 2013 as we push on with the transition to an entity regulation role.
We have of course been guided and supported by the IPS Board who bring
experience of regulation in other sectors and of legal practice. One of the
original Board members, Faizal Essat stepped down during the year. Faizal’s
contribution as a CILEx advocate with experience in a range of legal work
and of teaching trainee legal executives was a significant loss. However Ian
Chivers, who joined the Board immediately after Faizal’s departure, also
brings substantial knowledge of a good range of legal practice. The Chair
has of course been tireless in his pursuit of the strategic objectives and in
explaining the case for CILEx members to be recognised as the specialist
lawyers they undoubtedly are.
CILEx continued to make the funding and other resources available which
IPS needs to ensure that the qualification and regulatory arrangements for
members develop and its aspirations for a wider regulatory role can be met.
It has remained supportive of our regulatory work without encroaching on
our regulatory responsibilities. This is borne out by our clean bill of health
on independent governance rules and the process for setting practice fees.
Regulation makes ever increasing financial demands on CILEx, and that
means CILEx members. Activity levels during the year drove up expenditure
in most areas of our work. We ended the year close to budget, but this
was to some extent down to timing issues. A key issue for IPS and CILEx
is making sure the regulatory costs are managed in the face of all of those
developments and that we arrive at a steady financial
state as soon as we can.
The following pages will give more information
about our work during the year including
detailed annual reports on investigation
and disciplinary activity and the work of the
Admissions and Licensing Committee.
Ian Watson
Chief Executive
54
Introduction
Chair’s foreword Chief Executive’s Report
4 5
During 2012 IPS Ltd had one overriding focus: to prepare the way
for Chartered Legal Executives to take the next logical step in
their progression towards recognition in their own right as fully
qualified, fully competent specialist lawyers. Recent years have seen
the first legal executive advocates, partners and judge – recognised for
the qualified, learned, reliable lawyers we have always known them to be.
What, then, should prevent their being allowed the long overdue right to
practise independently in their chosen field of law?
It has been our declared aim, since IPS was created, to secure that right
for CILEx Fellows specialising in litigation, probate, conveyancing and
advocacy. It makes no sense for an experienced lawyer – perhaps a head of
department – to have to get documents signed off by a colleague, perhaps
one with little or no experience of the work in question, simply because
they happen to hold the title of ‘solicitor’. There is no logic in a position
where a Chartered Legal Executive is entitled to preside over a court or
tribunal as a judge but not to address it as an independent practitioner.
It is equally unreasonable for a profession which aspires to promote
equality and celebrate diversity to encourage ambitious individuals to
climb a laborious and obstructed path to full qualification only to find their
progress blocked when they want to practise independently. Equality and
diversity is not about monitoring, surveys, policies and ‘action’ plans. It is
about removing unnecessary obstacles that prevent talented people from
realising their ambitions. What better vehicle for equality is there than to
allow anyone capable of it to run their own business?
So the IPS Board set aside everything that might detract from our highest
priority: to prepare applications which will convince the Legal Services
Board that the time is now right for Chartered Legal Executives to be
granted the rights of independent practice to which they properly aspire.
As I write, the applications are almost ready for submission. Those few
words mask an immense amount of work done – well beyond the call of
duty – by our dedicated and capable office team, whose passion for the
task has been an inspiration to me and the other members of the Board.
Everyone has played their part. Success will be the reward for a genuine
team effort.
During the year I had many discussions about the applications with judges,
politicians, legislators and other stakeholders and opinion formers. One
theme came through again and again: Chartered Legal Executives are held
in high regard by those with whom they have professional dealings. No
one argued that they are not up to the challenge of independent practice;
indeed, there was a degree of incredulity as to why CILEx Fellows have
been denied the right for so long.
I therefore perceive this as an idea whose time has come. The most
significant challenge is therefore to IPS itself: we must demonstrate to the
Legal Services Board, and later to the Lord Chancellor and Parliament, not
only that Chartered Legal Executives are up to the job; but that IPS has the
capacity and capability to regulate them, and the businesses they set up,
in a way which assures all observers that their legal practice is safe and
competent. The steps we have taken to ensure that IPS steps up to the
mark are recorded elsewhere in this report.
One sign of the organisation’s burgeoning capacity is that this major
campaign did not prevent our playing a full part, alongside other regulators,
in the development of the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates and
the management of the Legal Education and Training Review. Both should
show results during 2013. And in 2012 our reviews of work-based learning
and continuing professional development came to fruition.
We now have in place systematic arrangements for assessing the readiness
of CILEx members to progress to Fellowship (and therefore, in due course,
to enter into independent practice), replacing the previous system which
lacked robustness and transparency.
Our radical proposals on CPD were well enough received to enable us to
launch, at the year ended, a three month pilot of our innovative scheme
which is based on practitioners preparing their own personal development
plans and then demonstrating how they have put them into practice. We
hope this will be successful enough for us to consign CPD requirements
based on hours served or points scored well and truly to the past.
Altogether, then, a year of detailed analysis, robust debate, hard slog and
single minded commitment. The rewards will be significant.
Alan Kershaw
Chairman
2012 presented us with another challenging year. The IPS Board
made it our first priority to finalise the Applications for CILEx to be
designated as an Approved Regulator for the reserved legal activities
of probate and reserved instrument activities (aka conveyancing);
to extend litigation and advocacy designations to civil, criminal and
family litigation; and develop full regulatory arrangements for our
immigration service providers. However we were also committed to
completing development of a work based learning scheme to replace the
long-serving qualifying employment measure of experience for admission to
Fellowship of CILEx and delivering proposals for a new style of CPD to replace
the current hours-based scheme. Meanwhile we continued our involvement
with joint projects with the SRA and the BSB on quality assurance of criminal
advocacy and the review of legal education and training.
And then there was the day job, with a number of challenging disciplinary
cases whilst we also implemented procedural changes following the
governance review of the disciplinary rules the previous year. This
necessitated a very substantial piece of work by the practice standards staff
to draft a procedures manual to help inform and guide panellists, the parties
to complaints and newly appointed independent panel clerks about how the
complaints and disciplinary procedures work in practice. CPD monitoring and
approving applications for Fellowship were new areas of work for IPS, also
involving a heavy work load.
The Legal Services Board (LSB) continued to develop its regulatory role,
looking for better ways to meet its obligations under the Act. So, in addition
to the independent governance review and work on setting the practice
fees, IPS was also required to complete a regulatory self-assessment. The
procedure was designed around the requirements of entity regulation and
therefore it was inevitable that we were not able to evidence performance in
many of the categories as yet. However it gave us an invaluable reminder of
the criteria we need to address in our practice rights applications.
There was an important initiative on consumer engagement which, again, is
particularly challenging for IPS as we regulate individuals who are employed
and therefore have limited powers at our disposal to engage directly with
consumers of legal services. However we established a number of initiatives
which will help to give us a rounded view of consumer expectations going
forward. We also contributed our views to the triennial review of the LSB and
Legal Ombudsman carried out by the Ministry of Justice.
In case this sounds like a tale of woe: the good news is that we made excellent
progress with all of our key objectives for the year. We benefited from good
engagement with the LSB as we developed our practice rights applications
and submitted draft applications towards the end of the year. The decision
to take on new, experienced staff to support our work in education and the
development of practice rights was vindicated. They have made significant
contributions to the work and, as all of the new initiatives have developed
and progressed, we have strengthened very considerably our understanding
of and ability to deliver the expanded regulatory role which is at the heart of
the IPS Strategy to the end of 2014.
The workload during the year
was intense for all of the IPS team,
not only those working on new projects. Despite
taking on new people there are still not very many of us, and
the dedication of staff this year has been outstanding. Their reward is the
uncertainty (perhaps that should be certainty) of more change and challenge
in 2013 as we push on with the transition to an entity regulation role.
We have of course been guided and supported by the IPS Board who bring
experience of regulation in other sectors and of legal practice. One of the
original Board members, Faizal Essat stepped down during the year. Faizal’s
contribution as a CILEx advocate with experience in a range of legal work
and of teaching trainee legal executives was a significant loss. However Ian
Chivers, who joined the Board immediately after Faizal’s departure, also
brings substantial knowledge of a good range of legal practice. The Chair
has of course been tireless in his pursuit of the strategic objectives and in
explaining the case for CILEx members to be recognised as the specialist
lawyers they undoubtedly are.
CILEx continued to make the funding and other resources available which
IPS needs to ensure that the qualification and regulatory arrangements for
members develop and its aspirations for a wider regulatory role can be met.
It has remained supportive of our regulatory work without encroaching on
our regulatory responsibilities. This is borne out by our clean bill of health
on independent governance rules and the process for setting practice fees.
Regulation makes ever increasing financial demands on CILEx, and that
means CILEx members. Activity levels during the year drove up expenditure
in most areas of our work. We ended the year close to budget, but this
was to some extent down to timing issues. A key issue for IPS and CILEx
is making sure the regulatory costs are managed in the face of all of those
developments and that we arrive at a steady financial
state as soon as we can.
The following pages will give more information
about our work during the year including
detailed annual reports on investigation
and disciplinary activity and the work of the
Admissions and Licensing Committee.
Ian Watson
Chief Executive
6 7
Introduction
About IPS
IPS protects the interest of consumers
of legal services by regulating
Chartered Legal Executives and other
members of The Chartered Institute of
Legal Executives (CILEx) in accordance
with the regulatory objectives, set out
in the Legal Services Act 2007, and
Better Regulation Principles.
Highlights in 2012
Reviewing the Continuing Professional Development scheme
and developing new proposals
Successfully completing a six month pilot of the Work
Based Learning scheme
Adopting policies to deliver the consumer engagement strategy, including launching a
web-based client survey
Completing the LSB Regulatory Standards self-assessment, Internal
Governance Rules review and Practice Certificate Fees
application
Developing arrangements to regulate individuals and entities
practising in immigration, conveyancing, probate and
civil, criminal and family litigation
6 7
Introduction
About IPS
IPS protects the interest of consumers
of legal services by regulating
Chartered Legal Executives and other
members of The Chartered Institute of
Legal Executives (CILEx) in accordance
with the regulatory objectives, set out
in the Legal Services Act 2007, and
Better Regulation Principles.
Highlights in 2012
Reviewing the Continuing Professional Development scheme
and developing new proposals
Successfully completing a six month pilot of the Work
Based Learning scheme
Adopting policies to deliver the consumer engagement strategy, including launching a
web-based client survey
Completing the LSB Regulatory Standards self-assessment, Internal
Governance Rules review and Practice Certificate Fees
application
Developing arrangements to regulate individuals and entities
practising in immigration, conveyancing, probate and
civil, criminal and family litigation
8 9
Achievements against strategy & Business planDuring 2012 we worked towards meeting our Key Objectives set out in our 2011-2014 Strategy. Our strategy set out our ambition to broaden our regulatory remit to encompass a range of legal professionals and organisations, regulating on the basis of risk whilst ensuring the standards of professionalism demonstrated by CILEx members are maintained. Our Key Aims identified developments necessary to achieve that ambition and our Key Objectives set particular activities to be pursued during 2012/13.
Our 2012 Business Plan outlined how we would achieve the Key Objectives and the activities that would be undertaken. It was divided into the six portfolio areas for which each Board Member is responsible. Through hard work and consistent monitoring we completed key activities, met key objectives and worked towards achieving our overall strategy.
The Board has evaluated IPS’ performance against the strategy and business plan in 2012. Achievements against our objectives are highlighted in the following sections.
Quality assuranceIPS works with CILEx to promote and secure high standards of practice.
We quality assure the CILEx qualifications through an on-going monitoring
process, ensuring that members of CILEx are appropriately trained. During
2012 we continued to review the arrangements and standards adopted by
CILEx, in relation to qualifications and experience, study and training and
assessment of candidates, to ensure that they were fit for purpose. This
involved receiving regular reports from CILEx on education risk assessment
frameworks and examination malpractice decisions.
We received reports from CILEx’s Awards Performance and Strategy
Committee, which has an oversight role in supporting the delivery of the
professional qualifications and performance of the awarding function. IPS has
been represented on that committee by portfolio holder Andrew Middleton.
Legal Education and Training ReviewWe continued to work with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and
the Bar Standards Board (BSB) on the most comprehensive review of legal
education since the ‘Ormrod Report’ in 1971. The Legal Education and
Training Review (LETR) is an evidence-based review of education and training
requirements across regulated and non-regulated legal services in England
and Wales.
The LETR Symposium in July brought together leaders in the field of legal and
professional education, training and regulation. The event was an opportunity
to illustrate the work that had been carried out in the review. Diane Burleigh,
Chief Executive of CILEx spoke at the symposium on the challenges and
opportunities facing new professions such as paralegals and apprentices.
The report of the LETR research team will be delivered during 2013. At that
point IPS will address the recommendations in the report relating to the
regulation of legal education and training as they affect CILEx members and
authorised practitioners.
Key Objective:IPS will ensure that all individuals and organisations regulated by IPS deliver
services to the standard the public are entitled to expect by ensuring every
professional member of CILEx is appropriately trained and educated to
exercise the privileges and responsibilities which belong to their category of
membership.
Education and Standards
Portfolio Holder: Andrew Middleton
Independent Board Member
8 9
Achievements against strategy & Business planDuring 2012 we worked towards meeting our Key Objectives set out in our 2011-2014 Strategy. Our strategy set out our ambition to broaden our regulatory remit to encompass a range of legal professionals and organisations, regulating on the basis of risk whilst ensuring the standards of professionalism demonstrated by CILEx members are maintained. Our Key Aims identified developments necessary to achieve that ambition and our Key Objectives set particular activities to be pursued during 2012/13.
Our 2012 Business Plan outlined how we would achieve the Key Objectives and the activities that would be undertaken. It was divided into the six portfolio areas for which each Board Member is responsible. Through hard work and consistent monitoring we completed key activities, met key objectives and worked towards achieving our overall strategy.
The Board has evaluated IPS’ performance against the strategy and business plan in 2012. Achievements against our objectives are highlighted in the following sections.
Quality assuranceIPS works with CILEx to promote and secure high standards of practice.
We quality assure the CILEx qualifications through an on-going monitoring
process, ensuring that members of CILEx are appropriately trained. During
2012 we continued to review the arrangements and standards adopted by
CILEx, in relation to qualifications and experience, study and training and
assessment of candidates, to ensure that they were fit for purpose. This
involved receiving regular reports from CILEx on education risk assessment
frameworks and examination malpractice decisions.
We received reports from CILEx’s Awards Performance and Strategy
Committee, which has an oversight role in supporting the delivery of the
professional qualifications and performance of the awarding function. IPS has
been represented on that committee by portfolio holder Andrew Middleton.
Legal Education and Training ReviewWe continued to work with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and
the Bar Standards Board (BSB) on the most comprehensive review of legal
education since the ‘Ormrod Report’ in 1971. The Legal Education and
Training Review (LETR) is an evidence-based review of education and training
requirements across regulated and non-regulated legal services in England
and Wales.
The LETR Symposium in July brought together leaders in the field of legal and
professional education, training and regulation. The event was an opportunity
to illustrate the work that had been carried out in the review. Diane Burleigh,
Chief Executive of CILEx spoke at the symposium on the challenges and
opportunities facing new professions such as paralegals and apprentices.
The report of the LETR research team will be delivered during 2013. At that
point IPS will address the recommendations in the report relating to the
regulation of legal education and training as they affect CILEx members and
authorised practitioners.
Key Objective:IPS will ensure that all individuals and organisations regulated by IPS deliver
services to the standard the public are entitled to expect by ensuring every
professional member of CILEx is appropriately trained and educated to
exercise the privileges and responsibilities which belong to their category of
membership.
Education and Standards
Portfolio Holder: Andrew Middleton
Independent Board Member
10 11
Achievements
Key Objective: IPS will:
• Ensure robust processes are in place to maintain a register of members which
is responsive, accurate and up to date, allowing enquirers to access the status,
rights and fitness to practise history of those listed;
• Finalise the Work Based Learning project; and
• Continue to make full contribution to the Joint Advocacy Group, meeting the
objectives set by the Legal Services Board.
Registration and accreditation
Rights of Audience and Qualifying EmploymentThe Admissions and Licensing Committee (ALC) oversees the CILEx Rights of Audience Scheme and considers applications for admission as a Fellow, including waivers. Through the ALC IPS assesses whether CILEx members meet the standards required to enrol on the qualification scheme, renews Rights of Audience certificates and accredits course providers.
The ALC is also responsible for considering applications relating to qualifying employment. These applications take the form of:• Fellowship applications – made by graduate members seeking
fellowship of CILEx• Waiver applications – made by graduate members seeking a waiver
from the requirement to complete two years’ qualifying employment after attaining graduate member status
• Pilot applications – waiver applications considered through the operation of the work based learning pilot; and
• Qualifying Employment forms – submitted by members of CILEx or non-members seeking determination of whether their employment history would constitute qualifying employment.
Below is a graph showing the number of applications considered.
During 2012 we changed the composition of the ALC so that Board members no longer serve on it, to maintain a clear distinction between policy and case work roles. Two new members were appointed. The work of the Committee is reported more fully in Annex 1.
Work Based LearningIn February 2012 we launched a six month pilot of our proposed work based learning scheme, marking the end stages of a project to review
the arrangements by which CILEx members evidence their qualifying employment experience. The pilot, which was overseen by the ALC, allowed us to test the practical application of the work based learning outcomes, assessment methodology and the proposed recording mechanism. Participants and their employers were provided with guidance and were asked to provide feedback on their experience of the scheme. The results of the pilot informed our approach to finalising the work based learning proposals. The scheme will be submitted to the Legal Services Board for approval in early 2013.
Associate ProsecutorsMay 2012 marked our first full year of regulating Associate Prosecutor members of CILEx under the Legal Services Act 2007. During the first year of regulation we approved revisions to course material, inspected courses, including the youth court and bail courses and a level 2 advocacy course, and moderated standards of the advocacy assessments carried out by the Crown Prosecution Service. We met with Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) who, in their report into advocacy, had highlighted the contribution Associate Prosecutors had made to reducing costs while maintaining the quality of their advocacy and case presentation. We reported to the LSB on the progress made during the year, who confirmed they were satisfied with our regulation of Associate Prosecutors.
Quality Assurance Scheme for AdvocatesDuring the year, IPS continued as a member of the Joint Advocacy Group (JAG) working with the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Bar Standards Board to develop a scheme to quality assure criminal advocacy. Despite the external factors affecting its progress, JAG met key milestones during 2012, including agreeing methods of assessment and reaccreditation of criminal advocates and conducting a fourth consultation on the proposed scheme. We continued to ensure CILEx Advocate’s rights to appear in criminal proceedings were not undermined or overlooked.
We launched a Notification Procedure in September 2012 – requiring criminal advocates to notify us of their continued intention to undertake criminal advocacy. We used the Notification Procedure as an opportunity to collect up-to-date data about advocates, such as equality and diversity information.
Portfolio Holder: Thelma Brown
Chartered Legal Executive Board
Member
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Fellowship Waiver Pilot Qualifying employment
Approved
Refused
Fellowship0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Waiver Pilot
Approved
Refused
QualifyingEmployment
Column1Civil litigation 23Conveyancing 6Crime 0Employment disputes 12Employment law 6Family 15Immigration 0Private/non legal matters3Trust/probate 6CILEx/IPS misconduct 29
Civil liFgaFon Conveyancing Crime Employment disputes Employment law Family ImmigraFon Private/non legal maGers Trust/probate CILEx/IPS misconduct
Key Objective:IPS will ensure that:
• Robust processes are in place to deal effectively and efficiently with
practitioners whose professional conduct, competence or state of health may
call into question their continued registration;
• Every professional understands, and is committed to, IPS’ standards of
professional conduct and competence; and
• Every professional is able to demonstrate that they have maintained
competence and stayed up-to-date throughout their professional career.
CPD review
During 2012 we continued to review our continuing professional
development (CPD) regime. As part of the review, the CPD Working
Group, considered a wide range of domestic and international CPD
schemes from legal and other professions.
In June 2012 we consulted on proposed changes to our CPD arrangements.
We have developed proposals for an outputs-based system whereby CILEx
members will be required to complete development plans at the beginning
of the CPD year, put in place a structured approach towards achieving
development, and then reflect upon the learning achieved. The review
of CPD has also resulted in a change to the CPD year; so from 2013 the
CPD year will be from October to September instead of from January to
December.
We are testing our proposals by a three month CPD pilot. Over 150 CILEx
members volunteered to participate in the pilot launched in December
2012. The outcome of the pilot will enable us to review our proposals and
their operation before we finalise our scheme and submit an application
to the Legal Services Board for approval of the changes.
Complaints and disciplinary casework
Our aim is to protect and promote the public and consumer interest
by carrying out timely investigations and administering proportionate
and targeted enforcement action. In 2012 we investigated a total of
35 complaints and allegations of misconduct made against CILEx
members as well as considering prior conduct declarations made by
CILEx members and applicants wishing to become members of CILEx.
Below is an illustration of the areas of law in which complaints arose.
Investigations are carried out in accordance with the Investigation,
Disciplinary and Appeals Rules and cases are heard by the Professional
Conduct Panel and Disciplinary Tribunal. IPS monitors its performance
in complaints handling against Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). In
2012, IPS exceeded performance indicators for conclusion of cases by the
Disciplinary Tribunal. 76% of cases were concluded within 6 months of
the date of referral to the Disciplinary Tribunal against a KPI of 65%. This
was due to effective investigation at the Professional Conduct Panel stage.
However, the KPI for conclusion of cases by the Professional Conduct
Panel was not met. This was due to fewer Professional Conduct Panel
meetings taking place during 2012. IPS has scheduled more meetings in
2013 to address this aspect of the KPIs.
During 2012 we conducted a comprehensive review of the governance
arrangements of our complaints and disciplinary functions. The review
involved evaluating the status of IPS staff and level of involvement they
could have with the clerking and advice role at Professional Conduct Panel
meetings and Disciplinary Tribunal hearings. The review resulted in the
appointment of independent clerks for the Professional Conduct Panel
and Disciplinary Tribunal. In 2012 panellists serving on the Disciplinary
Tribunal were re-appointed for a further two years.
A full report of investigation and disciplinary work can be found at
Annex 2.
Fitness to practise
Portfolio Holder: Sandra Barton
Chartered Legal Executive Board
Member
Column1Civil litigation 23Conveyancing 6Crime 0Employment disputes 12Employment law 6Family 15Immigration 0Private/non legal matters3Trust/probate 6CILEx/IPS misconduct 29
Civil liFgaFon Conveyancing Crime Employment disputes Employment law Family ImmigraFon Private/non legal maGers Trust/probate CILEx/IPS misconduct
Column1Civil litigation 23Conveyancing 6Crime 0Employment disputes 12Employment law 6Family 15Immigration 0Private/non legal matters3Trust/probate 6CILEx/IPS misconduct 29
Civil liFgaFon Conveyancing Crime Employment disputes Employment law Family ImmigraFon Private/non legal maGers Trust/probate CILEx/IPS misconduct
Civil litigation Family
Immigration
Private/non legal matters
Trust/probate
CILEx/IPS misconduct*
Conveyancing
Crime
Employment disputes
Employment law
* “CILEx / IPS misconduct” is referrals from CILEx or IPS in respect of members failing to comply with CILEx and IPS regulations, largely examination misconduct, failing to declare prior conduct and failing to respond to IPS.
10 11
Achievements
Key Objective: IPS will:
• Ensure robust processes are in place to maintain a register of members which
is responsive, accurate and up to date, allowing enquirers to access the status,
rights and fitness to practise history of those listed;
• Finalise the Work Based Learning project; and
• Continue to make full contribution to the Joint Advocacy Group, meeting the
objectives set by the Legal Services Board.
Registration and accreditation
Rights of Audience and Qualifying EmploymentThe Admissions and Licensing Committee (ALC) oversees the CILEx Rights of Audience Scheme and considers applications for admission as a Fellow, including waivers. Through the ALC IPS assesses whether CILEx members meet the standards required to enrol on the qualification scheme, renews Rights of Audience certificates and accredits course providers.
The ALC is also responsible for considering applications relating to qualifying employment. These applications take the form of:• Fellowship applications – made by graduate members seeking
fellowship of CILEx• Waiver applications – made by graduate members seeking a waiver
from the requirement to complete two years’ qualifying employment after attaining graduate member status
• Pilot applications – waiver applications considered through the operation of the work based learning pilot; and
• Qualifying Employment forms – submitted by members of CILEx or non-members seeking determination of whether their employment history would constitute qualifying employment.
Below is a graph showing the number of applications considered.
During 2012 we changed the composition of the ALC so that Board members no longer serve on it, to maintain a clear distinction between policy and case work roles. Two new members were appointed. The work of the Committee is reported more fully in Annex 1.
Work Based LearningIn February 2012 we launched a six month pilot of our proposed work based learning scheme, marking the end stages of a project to review
the arrangements by which CILEx members evidence their qualifying employment experience. The pilot, which was overseen by the ALC, allowed us to test the practical application of the work based learning outcomes, assessment methodology and the proposed recording mechanism. Participants and their employers were provided with guidance and were asked to provide feedback on their experience of the scheme. The results of the pilot informed our approach to finalising the work based learning proposals. The scheme will be submitted to the Legal Services Board for approval in early 2013.
Associate ProsecutorsMay 2012 marked our first full year of regulating Associate Prosecutor members of CILEx under the Legal Services Act 2007. During the first year of regulation we approved revisions to course material, inspected courses, including the youth court and bail courses and a level 2 advocacy course, and moderated standards of the advocacy assessments carried out by the Crown Prosecution Service. We met with Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) who, in their report into advocacy, had highlighted the contribution Associate Prosecutors had made to reducing costs while maintaining the quality of their advocacy and case presentation. We reported to the LSB on the progress made during the year, who confirmed they were satisfied with our regulation of Associate Prosecutors.
Quality Assurance Scheme for AdvocatesDuring the year, IPS continued as a member of the Joint Advocacy Group (JAG) working with the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Bar Standards Board to develop a scheme to quality assure criminal advocacy. Despite the external factors affecting its progress, JAG met key milestones during 2012, including agreeing methods of assessment and reaccreditation of criminal advocates and conducting a fourth consultation on the proposed scheme. We continued to ensure CILEx Advocate’s rights to appear in criminal proceedings were not undermined or overlooked.
We launched a Notification Procedure in September 2012 – requiring criminal advocates to notify us of their continued intention to undertake criminal advocacy. We used the Notification Procedure as an opportunity to collect up-to-date data about advocates, such as equality and diversity information.
Portfolio Holder: Thelma Brown
Chartered Legal Executive Board
Member
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Fellowship Waiver Pilot Qualifying employment
Approved
Refused
Fellowship0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Waiver Pilot
Approved
Refused
QualifyingEmployment
Column1Civil litigation 23Conveyancing 6Crime 0Employment disputes 12Employment law 6Family 15Immigration 0Private/non legal matters3Trust/probate 6CILEx/IPS misconduct 29
Civil liFgaFon Conveyancing Crime Employment disputes Employment law Family ImmigraFon Private/non legal maGers Trust/probate CILEx/IPS misconduct
Key Objective:IPS will ensure that:
• Robust processes are in place to deal effectively and efficiently with
practitioners whose professional conduct, competence or state of health may
call into question their continued registration;
• Every professional understands, and is committed to, IPS’ standards of
professional conduct and competence; and
• Every professional is able to demonstrate that they have maintained
competence and stayed up-to-date throughout their professional career.
CPD review
During 2012 we continued to review our continuing professional
development (CPD) regime. As part of the review, the CPD Working
Group, considered a wide range of domestic and international CPD
schemes from legal and other professions.
In June 2012 we consulted on proposed changes to our CPD arrangements.
We have developed proposals for an outputs-based system whereby CILEx
members will be required to complete development plans at the beginning
of the CPD year, put in place a structured approach towards achieving
development, and then reflect upon the learning achieved. The review
of CPD has also resulted in a change to the CPD year; so from 2013 the
CPD year will be from October to September instead of from January to
December.
We are testing our proposals by a three month CPD pilot. Over 150 CILEx
members volunteered to participate in the pilot launched in December
2012. The outcome of the pilot will enable us to review our proposals and
their operation before we finalise our scheme and submit an application
to the Legal Services Board for approval of the changes.
Complaints and disciplinary casework
Our aim is to protect and promote the public and consumer interest
by carrying out timely investigations and administering proportionate
and targeted enforcement action. In 2012 we investigated a total of
35 complaints and allegations of misconduct made against CILEx
members as well as considering prior conduct declarations made by
CILEx members and applicants wishing to become members of CILEx.
Below is an illustration of the areas of law in which complaints arose.
Investigations are carried out in accordance with the Investigation,
Disciplinary and Appeals Rules and cases are heard by the Professional
Conduct Panel and Disciplinary Tribunal. IPS monitors its performance
in complaints handling against Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). In
2012, IPS exceeded performance indicators for conclusion of cases by the
Disciplinary Tribunal. 76% of cases were concluded within 6 months of
the date of referral to the Disciplinary Tribunal against a KPI of 65%. This
was due to effective investigation at the Professional Conduct Panel stage.
However, the KPI for conclusion of cases by the Professional Conduct
Panel was not met. This was due to fewer Professional Conduct Panel
meetings taking place during 2012. IPS has scheduled more meetings in
2013 to address this aspect of the KPIs.
During 2012 we conducted a comprehensive review of the governance
arrangements of our complaints and disciplinary functions. The review
involved evaluating the status of IPS staff and level of involvement they
could have with the clerking and advice role at Professional Conduct Panel
meetings and Disciplinary Tribunal hearings. The review resulted in the
appointment of independent clerks for the Professional Conduct Panel
and Disciplinary Tribunal. In 2012 panellists serving on the Disciplinary
Tribunal were re-appointed for a further two years.
A full report of investigation and disciplinary work can be found at
Annex 2.
Fitness to practise
Portfolio Holder: Sandra Barton
Chartered Legal Executive Board
Member
Column1Civil litigation 23Conveyancing 6Crime 0Employment disputes 12Employment law 6Family 15Immigration 0Private/non legal matters3Trust/probate 6CILEx/IPS misconduct 29
Civil liFgaFon Conveyancing Crime Employment disputes Employment law Family ImmigraFon Private/non legal maGers Trust/probate CILEx/IPS misconduct
Column1Civil litigation 23Conveyancing 6Crime 0Employment disputes 12Employment law 6Family 15Immigration 0Private/non legal matters3Trust/probate 6CILEx/IPS misconduct 29
Civil liFgaFon Conveyancing Crime Employment disputes Employment law Family ImmigraFon Private/non legal maGers Trust/probate CILEx/IPS misconduct
Civil litigation Family
Immigration
Private/non legal matters
Trust/probate
CILEx/IPS misconduct*
Conveyancing
Crime
Employment disputes
Employment law
* “CILEx / IPS misconduct” is referrals from CILEx or IPS in respect of members failing to comply with CILEx and IPS regulations, largely examination misconduct, failing to declare prior conduct and failing to respond to IPS.
12 13
Achievements
Board members portfolio review
At the start of 2012 the annual skills audit of Board members was carried
out. The results showed that Board members demonstrated a good range
of skills to enable performance in their portfolio areas. The skills audit came
in useful when recruiting a new Board member in April 2012 following the
resignation of Faizal Essat.
Upon the appointment of Ian Chivers, Board member portfolios were
reviewed. The Risk and Performance portfolio previously held by Faizal
was merged within the Governance and Process portfolio and a new
portfolio of Business Development was created. The Business Development
portfolio focuses on entity regulation, practice rights and new business
opportunities. The portfolio supports our strategic aim to be the regulator
of choice for legal professionals and to take advantage of developments in
legal regulation.
Governance documents
IPS’ governance documents were reviewed at the end of 2012. They
include the Code of Conduct for Board Members, Standing Orders, Matters
Reserved to the Board and the Confidential Minutes Policy. The documents
can be found on the IPS website.
IPS and CILEx reviewed the CILEx/IPS Protocols and Service Level
Agreements. The Service Level Agreements and Protocols maintain
independence and transparency at all levels of IPS and CILEx’s business. The
adjustments made to the Service Level Agreements and Protocols reflected
ILEX’s Charter status and changes in the nature of work carried out by
various CILEx departments.
Internal Governance Rules
For the third year running we secured a clean bill of health from the
Legal Services Board (LSB) for our internal governance arrangements.
This meant that the LSB was satisfied that the formal processes, protocols
and arrangements that IPS and CILEx had put in place were effective and
independent regulation was taking place in practice. Furthermore, the LSB
recognised the positive steps that IPS and CILEx had taken in previous years
to ensure compliance with the LSB’s Internal Governance Rules.
Regulatory Standards Self-assessment
We submitted our Regulatory Standards self-assessment to the LSB in
July 2012. The process involved self-assessing our performance against
constituent parts of regulation: outcomes focused regulation; risk
assessment; supervision; enforcement and capacity and capability.
In our self-assessment we demonstrated our increased capacity and
capability through the recruitment of additional staff who brought
experience of entity regulation, client protection arrangements and
outcomes focused regulation. We received positive feedback from the
LSB on our outcomes focused regulation and enforcement arrangements.
The self-assessment highlighted that we need to carry out further work
on understanding the needs of consumers and planning future activities.
During 2013 we will continue to work on the areas we need to develop.
Key Performance Indicators
We continually monitor our performance against Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs). There are KPIs that relate to the IPS Board, IPS as a whole
and the IPS complaints handling process. As with other years the KPIs were
generally met or exceeded.
IPS continues to meet the KPIs relating to the Board and IPS generally, with
Board Member attendance maintained above 80% and timely publication
of IPS Board minutes. In 2012, the production of the 2011 Annual Report
was delayed but the revised KPI is likely to be met for the 2013 report. The
KPI assessment for 2012 can be found on the IPS website.
Risk Register
We maintain and regularly review an organisation-wide risk register. The
register is used to assess risks in key areas of IPS’s work: education and
standards, registration and accreditation, fitness to practise, governance
and process, business development and communication and partnership.
It is used to score more generic, day to day risks such as finance, resources
and workload. The risk register is also used to evaluate the effectiveness of
existing control procedures and mitigating action.
The risks that were rated highly during 2012 related to the need to review
fitness to practise rules and the need to develop a methodology to assess
the competence of immigration advisors. We are pleased that we have
addressed both of these risks during 2012 by way of our review of the
governance arrangements of our complaints and disciplinary functions, the
development of regulatory arrangements for practice rights and regulating
entities and the development of an accreditation and regulation scheme for
immigration advisors.
Governance and Process
Key Objective:IPS will conduct itself in accordance with best practice in organisational
governance by:
• Appointing Board members on merit and keeping their skills and
knowledge up-to-date, taking part in regular appraisals and training, as
appropriate;
• Securing effective use of resources and good value for money; and
• Continuing to manage its business effectively, ensuring that its
performance is regularly monitored against priorities set by the Board. Portfolio Holder: Hilary Daniels
Independent Board Member
Business development
Key Objective:IPS will ensure robust processes are in place to develop appropriate regulatory
frameworks to support applications for new rights for CILEx members.
Portfolio Holder: Ian Chivers
Chartered Legal Executive Board
Member
Series 1Definitely 28.7Probably 26.4Unsure 26.4Probably not 7.6Will not 10.9
To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Definitely Probably Unsure Probably not Will not
Series1
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Practice rights research resultsCILEx members were asked how likely they would be to apply for extended rights to practise Conveyancing, Probate, and/or Litigation
Will notProbably notUnsureProbablyDefinitely0%
Practice rights applications
During 2012 we worked extensively on applications for conveyancing
rights, probate rights and civil, family and criminal litigation rights. CILEx
remained steadfast in ensuring IPS had the resources it needed to develop
the applications and, more importantly, to develop our capacity to regulate
members and entities providing legal services. The work was overseen by
the Practice Rights Working Group and involved developing an outcomes
focused, risk based approach for authorising and regulating entities and
entry and qualification criteria for practitioners seeking practice rights. We
worked with insurers to develop consumer protection arrangements and
carried out a comprehensive review of our regulatory arrangements, which
included revising the Code of Conduct and Investigation Disciplinary and
Appeals Rules to be able to regulate entities.
We commissioned research to identify business models, risks associated
with entities and the demand for practice rights. The outcomes of the
research enabled us to develop a risk based approach for the regulation of
entities, including developing a mechanism for regulatory decision making
through the use of risk assessment frameworks and market segmentation.
The graph below illustrates some of the results.
We tested and refined our ideas through a series of formal consultations
on our proposed qualification criteria for the different practice rights; risk
framework; approach to outcomes focused regulation; enforcement; and
client protection arrangements.
We held a number of reference group meetings which were well attended
by CILEx members, members of the legal profession and consumer group
representatives. The contributions received helped to inform and shape our
proposed new regulatory regime.
Regulation of immigration advisors
The Practice Rights Working Group oversaw development of an accreditation
and regulation scheme for immigration advisors. The project ran parallel to
the practice rights applications project.
As part of the project we carried out a programme of visits to immigration
practices. This enabled us to test our proposed risk framework, gather data
on the risks presented by immigration practitioners and practices to the
consumer and public interest, and increase our understanding of the sector.
The programme of visits also enabled us to develop our understanding of
the consumers served by CILEx immigration advisors.
We are committed to understanding and proactively managing the risks
to consumers who require immigration advice and services, in particular
vulnerable asylum seekers. This has been a key priority in 2012 and will
continue to be in 2013; and we are glad to have been recognised by the
Legal Services Board, in their consultation Regulation of immigration advice
and services as the only qualifying regulator ‘making moves towards a
regulatory approach to assuring quality in this area’.
12 13
Achievements
Board members portfolio review
At the start of 2012 the annual skills audit of Board members was carried
out. The results showed that Board members demonstrated a good range
of skills to enable performance in their portfolio areas. The skills audit came
in useful when recruiting a new Board member in April 2012 following the
resignation of Faizal Essat.
Upon the appointment of Ian Chivers, Board member portfolios were
reviewed. The Risk and Performance portfolio previously held by Faizal
was merged within the Governance and Process portfolio and a new
portfolio of Business Development was created. The Business Development
portfolio focuses on entity regulation, practice rights and new business
opportunities. The portfolio supports our strategic aim to be the regulator
of choice for legal professionals and to take advantage of developments in
legal regulation.
Governance documents
IPS’ governance documents were reviewed at the end of 2012. They
include the Code of Conduct for Board Members, Standing Orders, Matters
Reserved to the Board and the Confidential Minutes Policy. The documents
can be found on the IPS website.
IPS and CILEx reviewed the CILEx/IPS Protocols and Service Level
Agreements. The Service Level Agreements and Protocols maintain
independence and transparency at all levels of IPS and CILEx’s business. The
adjustments made to the Service Level Agreements and Protocols reflected
ILEX’s Charter status and changes in the nature of work carried out by
various CILEx departments.
Internal Governance Rules
For the third year running we secured a clean bill of health from the
Legal Services Board (LSB) for our internal governance arrangements.
This meant that the LSB was satisfied that the formal processes, protocols
and arrangements that IPS and CILEx had put in place were effective and
independent regulation was taking place in practice. Furthermore, the LSB
recognised the positive steps that IPS and CILEx had taken in previous years
to ensure compliance with the LSB’s Internal Governance Rules.
Regulatory Standards Self-assessment
We submitted our Regulatory Standards self-assessment to the LSB in
July 2012. The process involved self-assessing our performance against
constituent parts of regulation: outcomes focused regulation; risk
assessment; supervision; enforcement and capacity and capability.
In our self-assessment we demonstrated our increased capacity and
capability through the recruitment of additional staff who brought
experience of entity regulation, client protection arrangements and
outcomes focused regulation. We received positive feedback from the
LSB on our outcomes focused regulation and enforcement arrangements.
The self-assessment highlighted that we need to carry out further work
on understanding the needs of consumers and planning future activities.
During 2013 we will continue to work on the areas we need to develop.
Key Performance Indicators
We continually monitor our performance against Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs). There are KPIs that relate to the IPS Board, IPS as a whole
and the IPS complaints handling process. As with other years the KPIs were
generally met or exceeded.
IPS continues to meet the KPIs relating to the Board and IPS generally, with
Board Member attendance maintained above 80% and timely publication
of IPS Board minutes. In 2012, the production of the 2011 Annual Report
was delayed but the revised KPI is likely to be met for the 2013 report. The
KPI assessment for 2012 can be found on the IPS website.
Risk Register
We maintain and regularly review an organisation-wide risk register. The
register is used to assess risks in key areas of IPS’s work: education and
standards, registration and accreditation, fitness to practise, governance
and process, business development and communication and partnership.
It is used to score more generic, day to day risks such as finance, resources
and workload. The risk register is also used to evaluate the effectiveness of
existing control procedures and mitigating action.
The risks that were rated highly during 2012 related to the need to review
fitness to practise rules and the need to develop a methodology to assess
the competence of immigration advisors. We are pleased that we have
addressed both of these risks during 2012 by way of our review of the
governance arrangements of our complaints and disciplinary functions, the
development of regulatory arrangements for practice rights and regulating
entities and the development of an accreditation and regulation scheme for
immigration advisors.
Governance and Process
Key Objective:IPS will conduct itself in accordance with best practice in organisational
governance by:
• Appointing Board members on merit and keeping their skills and
knowledge up-to-date, taking part in regular appraisals and training, as
appropriate;
• Securing effective use of resources and good value for money; and
• Continuing to manage its business effectively, ensuring that its
performance is regularly monitored against priorities set by the Board. Portfolio Holder: Hilary Daniels
Independent Board Member
Business development
Key Objective:IPS will ensure robust processes are in place to develop appropriate regulatory
frameworks to support applications for new rights for CILEx members.
Portfolio Holder: Ian Chivers
Chartered Legal Executive Board
Member
Series 1Definitely 28.7Probably 26.4Unsure 26.4Probably not 7.6Will not 10.9
To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Definitely Probably Unsure Probably not Will not
Series1
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Practice rights research resultsCILEx members were asked how likely they would be to apply for extended rights to practise Conveyancing, Probate, and/or Litigation
Will notProbably notUnsureProbablyDefinitely0%
Practice rights applications
During 2012 we worked extensively on applications for conveyancing
rights, probate rights and civil, family and criminal litigation rights. CILEx
remained steadfast in ensuring IPS had the resources it needed to develop
the applications and, more importantly, to develop our capacity to regulate
members and entities providing legal services. The work was overseen by
the Practice Rights Working Group and involved developing an outcomes
focused, risk based approach for authorising and regulating entities and
entry and qualification criteria for practitioners seeking practice rights. We
worked with insurers to develop consumer protection arrangements and
carried out a comprehensive review of our regulatory arrangements, which
included revising the Code of Conduct and Investigation Disciplinary and
Appeals Rules to be able to regulate entities.
We commissioned research to identify business models, risks associated
with entities and the demand for practice rights. The outcomes of the
research enabled us to develop a risk based approach for the regulation of
entities, including developing a mechanism for regulatory decision making
through the use of risk assessment frameworks and market segmentation.
The graph below illustrates some of the results.
We tested and refined our ideas through a series of formal consultations
on our proposed qualification criteria for the different practice rights; risk
framework; approach to outcomes focused regulation; enforcement; and
client protection arrangements.
We held a number of reference group meetings which were well attended
by CILEx members, members of the legal profession and consumer group
representatives. The contributions received helped to inform and shape our
proposed new regulatory regime.
Regulation of immigration advisors
The Practice Rights Working Group oversaw development of an accreditation
and regulation scheme for immigration advisors. The project ran parallel to
the practice rights applications project.
As part of the project we carried out a programme of visits to immigration
practices. This enabled us to test our proposed risk framework, gather data
on the risks presented by immigration practitioners and practices to the
consumer and public interest, and increase our understanding of the sector.
The programme of visits also enabled us to develop our understanding of
the consumers served by CILEx immigration advisors.
We are committed to understanding and proactively managing the risks
to consumers who require immigration advice and services, in particular
vulnerable asylum seekers. This has been a key priority in 2012 and will
continue to be in 2013; and we are glad to have been recognised by the
Legal Services Board, in their consultation Regulation of immigration advice
and services as the only qualifying regulator ‘making moves towards a
regulatory approach to assuring quality in this area’.
14 15
Portfolio Holder:
Patrick Bligh-Cheesman
Independent Board Member
Consumer engagement strategy and action plan
Our first priority is to promote and safeguard the interests of
consumers of legal services and the public in general. We have greatly
expanded our work in this area through our Consumer Engagement
Action Plan, which sets out programmed activities over a set period
of time. We continue to monitor our achievements against our
Consumer Engagement Strategy (Annex 3), which is an on-going
statement of overarching objectives and commitments.
Integrated Action Plan and Literature Reviews
During 2012 we developed an Integrated Action Plan. The Plan is a
management tool used to collate and process information identified
through literature reviews and information received from a range of
consumer engagement activities, both IPS driven and external.
We have been carrying out literature reviews to improve our
understanding of consumer experiences and expectations in the
legal sector. The results of the literature reviews are processed
and considered through the Integrated Action Plan. It is vital that
regulatory arrangements deliver appropriate consumer expectations.
The information that we gather in this way is used to inform our
policy development. For example, it has influenced the review and
development of our regulatory arrangements for the practice rights
application.
First Tier Complaints Handling Survey
In 2012 IPS continued to survey CILEx members who declared that
complaints had been made about their work and/or conduct during
the previous year. The survey showed that the most common areas
of law in which complaints were made were wills and probate, family
and conveyancing and the most common types of complaint were
‘delay’, ‘failure to advise’ and ‘cost excessive’. We took account of
these issues when revising our Code of Conduct.
We have developed the First Tier Complaints Handling Survey year
on year. During 2012 changes were made to the survey in light of
YouGov research, guidance produced by the Legal Ombudsman
(LeO) and the Oxera Framework. IPS moved from using LeO’s ‘area of
law’ categories to those categories defined by the Oxera Framework.
Below are illustrations of the survey response rates over the last two
years and the survey results showing the outcome of complaints.
Communication & Partnership
Survey response rate
First Tier Complaints handling survey
Customer Satisfaction Survey
Outcome of complaints
Key Objective:IPS will engage with stakeholders to ensure that it understands the
needs and requirements of consumers of legal services and that
there is transparency and openness in communications.
2012 2011
Surveys sent 243 155
Responses received 175 44
Response rate 72% 28%
Unfounded
Explanation provided
Resolved
Refund/Reduction in fees
Documents returned
Compensation awarded
Referred to LeO
Referred to regulator
Other
Achievements
Chartered Legal Executive Client Survey
In October 2012 we launched our Chartered Legal Executive Client Survey.
The objective of the survey is to gather information from clients about
services provided by Chartered Legal Executives to them. Information
is sought through anonymous feedback provided by clients. We have
encouraged all Chartered Legal Executives to direct their clients to the
survey which is accessed through our website (www.cilex.org.uk/ips/ips_
home/for_consumers.aspx).
The survey seeks information about first-tier complaints handling; how
Chartered Legal Executives are perceived by clients; and the quality of
services they provide. The Oxera framework was used to formulate some
questions in the survey, in particular those relating to the area of law, type
of service complaint and type of consumer. Over time we expect to collect
a substantial amount of data to help us to identify the issues which are
of concern to consumers. Data gathered will also be used as part of our
intelligence gathering function and to identify and inform our approach to
regulation.
Customer Satisfaction Survey
We continued to survey complainants and members who were subject to
misconduct complaints to identify levels of satisfaction with IPS’s complaints
handling process. As illustrated in the table below, we successfully met our
aim of increasing the rate of responses to the survey.
The survey results showed satisfaction amongst complainants and CILEx
members about the procedures and the way IPS staff dealt with cases.
Analysis revealed that responses to the survey are affected by the outcome
of a case, for example, very often members who have had cases brought
against them which have been dismissed are happy whilst the complainant
is not. IPS is performing well in formal areas, such as clarity of information
and promptness of responses, where we have control of the outcome. A
report of the analysis of the questionnaires appears at Annex 4.
2012 2011 2012 2011
Surveys sent 20 12 10 12
Responses received 12 6 4 4
Response rate 60% 50% 40% 33%
Member Complainant
Survey response rate
14 15
Portfolio Holder:
Patrick Bligh-Cheesman
Independent Board Member
Consumer engagement strategy and action plan
Our first priority is to promote and safeguard the interests of
consumers of legal services and the public in general. We have greatly
expanded our work in this area through our Consumer Engagement
Action Plan, which sets out programmed activities over a set period
of time. We continue to monitor our achievements against our
Consumer Engagement Strategy (Annex 3), which is an on-going
statement of overarching objectives and commitments.
Integrated Action Plan and Literature Reviews
During 2012 we developed an Integrated Action Plan. The Plan is a
management tool used to collate and process information identified
through literature reviews and information received from a range of
consumer engagement activities, both IPS driven and external.
We have been carrying out literature reviews to improve our
understanding of consumer experiences and expectations in the
legal sector. The results of the literature reviews are processed
and considered through the Integrated Action Plan. It is vital that
regulatory arrangements deliver appropriate consumer expectations.
The information that we gather in this way is used to inform our
policy development. For example, it has influenced the review and
development of our regulatory arrangements for the practice rights
application.
First Tier Complaints Handling Survey
In 2012 IPS continued to survey CILEx members who declared that
complaints had been made about their work and/or conduct during
the previous year. The survey showed that the most common areas
of law in which complaints were made were wills and probate, family
and conveyancing and the most common types of complaint were
‘delay’, ‘failure to advise’ and ‘cost excessive’. We took account of
these issues when revising our Code of Conduct.
We have developed the First Tier Complaints Handling Survey year
on year. During 2012 changes were made to the survey in light of
YouGov research, guidance produced by the Legal Ombudsman
(LeO) and the Oxera Framework. IPS moved from using LeO’s ‘area of
law’ categories to those categories defined by the Oxera Framework.
Below are illustrations of the survey response rates over the last two
years and the survey results showing the outcome of complaints.
Communication & Partnership
Survey response rate
First Tier Complaints handling survey
Customer Satisfaction Survey
Outcome of complaints
Key Objective:IPS will engage with stakeholders to ensure that it understands the
needs and requirements of consumers of legal services and that
there is transparency and openness in communications.
2012 2011
Surveys sent 243 155
Responses received 175 44
Response rate 72% 28%
Unfounded
Explanation provided
Resolved
Refund/Reduction in fees
Documents returned
Compensation awarded
Referred to LeO
Referred to regulator
Other
Achievements
Chartered Legal Executive Client Survey
In October 2012 we launched our Chartered Legal Executive Client Survey.
The objective of the survey is to gather information from clients about
services provided by Chartered Legal Executives to them. Information
is sought through anonymous feedback provided by clients. We have
encouraged all Chartered Legal Executives to direct their clients to the
survey which is accessed through our website (www.cilex.org.uk/ips/ips_
home/for_consumers.aspx).
The survey seeks information about first-tier complaints handling; how
Chartered Legal Executives are perceived by clients; and the quality of
services they provide. The Oxera framework was used to formulate some
questions in the survey, in particular those relating to the area of law, type
of service complaint and type of consumer. Over time we expect to collect
a substantial amount of data to help us to identify the issues which are
of concern to consumers. Data gathered will also be used as part of our
intelligence gathering function and to identify and inform our approach to
regulation.
Customer Satisfaction Survey
We continued to survey complainants and members who were subject to
misconduct complaints to identify levels of satisfaction with IPS’s complaints
handling process. As illustrated in the table below, we successfully met our
aim of increasing the rate of responses to the survey.
The survey results showed satisfaction amongst complainants and CILEx
members about the procedures and the way IPS staff dealt with cases.
Analysis revealed that responses to the survey are affected by the outcome
of a case, for example, very often members who have had cases brought
against them which have been dismissed are happy whilst the complainant
is not. IPS is performing well in formal areas, such as clarity of information
and promptness of responses, where we have control of the outcome. A
report of the analysis of the questionnaires appears at Annex 4.
2012 2011 2012 2011
Surveys sent 20 12 10 12
Responses received 12 6 4 4
Response rate 60% 50% 40% 33%
Member Complainant
Survey response rate
16 17
Working with others
We continued to look for opportunities to work and collaborate with
other regulators. In summer 2012 we signed up to a Framework
Memorandum of Understanding between regulators with the
potential of regulating licensing bodies or owners and managers
of licensing bodies.
Throughout 2012 we tested and refined our proposals on policy
developments through a series of consultation exercises. We would
like to take this opportunity to thank all the CILEx members and
stakeholders who attended reference group meetings throughout
the year, helping us refine our approach to practice rights, entity
regulation, CPD and work based learning.
As well as holding reference group meetings we published seven
consultations, five of which were on proposals for practice rights
and entity regulation. IPS also consulted on proposals to revise the
CPD scheme for CILEx members. The fourth consultation on the
Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates was undertaken jointly
with other members of the Joint Advocacy Group, the Solicitors
Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board.
We responded to ten consultations during 2012, the majority
of which were joint responses with CILEx. IPS welcomed the
opportunity to comment on the regulation of immigration advice
and services and the regulation of special bodies/non-commercial
bodies. In our response to the Legal Services Board consultation on
will-writing, probate and estate administration activities IPS argued
for a general review of the rationale for reservation or regulation
of areas of law to establish a set of agreed principles to underpin
the consideration of what should or should not be reserved or
regulated.
Tables of consultations issued by IPS and consultation responses can
be found below.
Response Deadline Title
02/11/2012 Complaints and Disciplinary Arrangements
19/10/2012 Professional Indemnity Insurance and Client Protection Arrangements for IPS Regulated Entities
19/10/2012 Application for Reserved Legal Activity rights and regulatory arrangement s for immigration advisors
19/10/2012 Proposals to revise the Code of Conduct
19/10/2012 Continuing Professional Development
10/08/2012 Risk-based and Outcomes Focused Regulation
Response Deadline Body Title Response by Date of response
18/12/2012 SRA The ban on referral fees in personal injury cases No response Not applicable
08/11/2012 LSB Will-writing, probate and estate administration activities CILEx / IPS 08/11/2012
9/10/2012 SRA Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (Crime) No response Not applicable
17/09/2012 IPRegAmendments to the Code of Conduct, Patent Attorney and Trade Mark Attorney Registered Bodies Regulations
IPS 17/09/2012
10/09/2012 SRA Independent financial advice No response Not applicable
7/09/2012 ICAEWApplication by ICAEW to become an Approved Regulator and Licensing Authority for Probate Activities under the Legal Services Act 2007
No response Not applicable
17/08/2012 SRA Future of authorised professional firms No response Not applicable
16/07/2012 LSB Will-writing, probate and estate administration activities CILEx / IPS 11/07/2012
16/07/2012 LSB Regulation of special bodies/non-commercial bodies CILEx / IPS 31/07/2012
13/07/2012 LSB Section 69 Order: modification of the SRA Compensation Fund No response Not applicable
20/06/2012 BIS Enhancing consumer confidence through effective enforcement IPS 20/06/2012
15/06/2012 LeO Review of scheme rules and case fee structure CILEx / IPS 15/06/2012
01/06/2012 LSB Approaches to quality CILEx / IPS 01/06/2012
28/05/2012 BSB New Handbook and Entity Regulation No response Not Applicable
24/05/2012 LSB Regulation of immigration advice and services CILEx / IPS 24/05/2012
23/04/2012 SRA Changes to the SRA Practice Framework Rules No response Not applicable
30/03/2012 MoJ Triennial Review of the LSB and OLC CILEx / IPS 30/03/2012
09/03/2012 LSB Draft: Strategic Plan 2012-15 Business Plan 2012/13 CILEx / IPS 16/03/2012
09/03/2012 LSB Equality Report and Proposed Equality Objectives No response Not applicable
15/02/2012 SRA The regulation of international practice No response Not applicable
18/01/2012 LEO Strategy 2012-15 and Business Plan 2012-13 IPS 19/01/2012
17/01/2012 SRA SRA Financial Protection Review No response Not applicable
Consultations issued in 2012
Consultation responses in 2012
16 17
Working with others
We continued to look for opportunities to work and collaborate with
other regulators. In summer 2012 we signed up to a Framework
Memorandum of Understanding between regulators with the
potential of regulating licensing bodies or owners and managers
of licensing bodies.
Throughout 2012 we tested and refined our proposals on policy
developments through a series of consultation exercises. We would
like to take this opportunity to thank all the CILEx members and
stakeholders who attended reference group meetings throughout
the year, helping us refine our approach to practice rights, entity
regulation, CPD and work based learning.
As well as holding reference group meetings we published seven
consultations, five of which were on proposals for practice rights
and entity regulation. IPS also consulted on proposals to revise the
CPD scheme for CILEx members. The fourth consultation on the
Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates was undertaken jointly
with other members of the Joint Advocacy Group, the Solicitors
Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board.
We responded to ten consultations during 2012, the majority
of which were joint responses with CILEx. IPS welcomed the
opportunity to comment on the regulation of immigration advice
and services and the regulation of special bodies/non-commercial
bodies. In our response to the Legal Services Board consultation on
will-writing, probate and estate administration activities IPS argued
for a general review of the rationale for reservation or regulation
of areas of law to establish a set of agreed principles to underpin
the consideration of what should or should not be reserved or
regulated.
Tables of consultations issued by IPS and consultation responses can
be found below.
Response Deadline Title
02/11/2012 Complaints and Disciplinary Arrangements
19/10/2012 Professional Indemnity Insurance and Client Protection Arrangements for IPS Regulated Entities
19/10/2012 Application for Reserved Legal Activity rights and regulatory arrangement s for immigration advisors
19/10/2012 Proposals to revise the Code of Conduct
19/10/2012 Continuing Professional Development
10/08/2012 Risk-based and Outcomes Focused Regulation
Response Deadline Body Title Response by Date of response
18/12/2012 SRA The ban on referral fees in personal injury cases No response Not applicable
08/11/2012 LSB Will-writing, probate and estate administration activities CILEx / IPS 08/11/2012
9/10/2012 SRA Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (Crime) No response Not applicable
17/09/2012 IPRegAmendments to the Code of Conduct, Patent Attorney and Trade Mark Attorney Registered Bodies Regulations
IPS 17/09/2012
10/09/2012 SRA Independent financial advice No response Not applicable
7/09/2012 ICAEWApplication by ICAEW to become an Approved Regulator and Licensing Authority for Probate Activities under the Legal Services Act 2007
No response Not applicable
17/08/2012 SRA Future of authorised professional firms No response Not applicable
16/07/2012 LSB Will-writing, probate and estate administration activities CILEx / IPS 11/07/2012
16/07/2012 LSB Regulation of special bodies/non-commercial bodies CILEx / IPS 31/07/2012
13/07/2012 LSB Section 69 Order: modification of the SRA Compensation Fund No response Not applicable
20/06/2012 BIS Enhancing consumer confidence through effective enforcement IPS 20/06/2012
15/06/2012 LeO Review of scheme rules and case fee structure CILEx / IPS 15/06/2012
01/06/2012 LSB Approaches to quality CILEx / IPS 01/06/2012
28/05/2012 BSB New Handbook and Entity Regulation No response Not Applicable
24/05/2012 LSB Regulation of immigration advice and services CILEx / IPS 24/05/2012
23/04/2012 SRA Changes to the SRA Practice Framework Rules No response Not applicable
30/03/2012 MoJ Triennial Review of the LSB and OLC CILEx / IPS 30/03/2012
09/03/2012 LSB Draft: Strategic Plan 2012-15 Business Plan 2012/13 CILEx / IPS 16/03/2012
09/03/2012 LSB Equality Report and Proposed Equality Objectives No response Not applicable
15/02/2012 SRA The regulation of international practice No response Not applicable
18/01/2012 LEO Strategy 2012-15 and Business Plan 2012-13 IPS 19/01/2012
17/01/2012 SRA SRA Financial Protection Review No response Not applicable
Consultations issued in 2012
Consultation responses in 2012
18 19
2012 2011
Income £ £
Contribution from CILEx 1,022,071 635,397
Rights of audience 8,238 4,342
Disciplinary fees 3,068 10,357
Total 1,033,377 650,096
ExpenditureIPS Board 173,618 122,553
Investigating and complaints expenses 127,955 79,061
Practice rights application fees 122,057 28,500
Admissions and licensing expenses 31,740 21,728
Other direct expenses 39,136 10,536
Bad debts provided 11,324 0
Audit fees 2,750 2,600
Professional fees 0 30,453
Management charges 524,797 354,665
Total 1,033,377 650,096
Profit before tax 0 0
Taxation 0 0
Profit after tax 0 0
Year ended 31 December 2012
IPS expenditure during 2012 increased substantially, reflecting the
expanding role of IPS and the intense activity around particular activities the
company undertook. Direct income sources remained limited to advocacy
rights applications and orders arising from disciplinary work. The majority
of the funding allocated by CILEx to IPS to carry out its regulatory functions
comes from Practice Certificate Fees paid by CILEx Fellows and Associate
Prosecutors. However, the most significant areas of work causing the
increased expenditure are referred to below.
Four new employees joined during the year to enable us to develop the
practice rights applications for submission to the Legal Services Board; and
two other support staff were recruited to assist with CPD and admissions
work taken over from the CILEx membership team. This not only affected
the direct staff costs of IPS but also increased the per capita allocation of
administrative charges for services and facilities provided through CILEx.
The practice rights applications, and work based learning, CPD and
admissions projects resulted in high levels of activity for staff, Board members
and the Admissions and Licensing Committee. This extra activity is reflected
in the costs for each of these areas of work. Research was carried out which
was needed to support the applications for practice rights and specialist
advice was taken on rules and setting up compensation and indemnity
arrangements.
Complaints and disciplinary casework also increased and some new costs
arose from altered arrangements adopted following a review early in the
year of the way in which proceedings are managed.
CILEx Council continues to support IPS as it develops its regulatory role. It is
expected further development will be needed in 2013, but that the current
investment will start to show returns thereafter.
IncomeContribution from CILEx1022071Rights of audience 16476Disciplinary fees 6136
To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.
ContribuHon from CILEx Rights of audience
Disciplinary fees
ExpenditureIPS Board 173618Investigating and complaints127955Practice rights application122057Admisions and licensing31740Other direct expenses39136Bad dedts 11324Audit fees 2750Professional fees 0Management charges524797
IPS Board InvesGgaGng and complaints PracGce rights applicaGon Admisions and licensing Other direct expenses Bad dedts Audit fees Professional fees Management charges
ExpenditureIPS Board 173618Investigating and complaints127955Practice rights application122057Admisions and licensing31740Other direct expenses39136Bad dedts 11324Audit fees 2750Professional fees 0Management charges524797
IPS Board InvesGgaGng and complaints PracGce rights applicaGon Admisions and licensing Other direct expenses Bad dedts Audit fees Professional fees Management charges
Contribution from CILEx
Rights of audience
Disciplinary fees
IPS Board
Investigating and complaints
Practice rights application
Admissions and licensing
Other direct expenses
Bad debts
Audit fees
Professional fees
Management charges
Financial Review Annex 1
CHAIR’S FOREWORD
I was delighted to take over the role of Chair of the Committee, and to welcome two new members, Kath Hill and John McCarthy, who joined the
committee in March 2012 as new professional members.
This has been another challenging year for the Committee, which has seen its workload more than double from last year. We have continued to
have oversight of the Rights of Audience Scheme, and the Associate Prosecutors Qualification scheme, but the bulk of our work related to Qualifying
Employment applications. The Committee considered more than twice as many fellowship applications as last year, and more than 3 times as many
applications for agreeing Qualifying Employment.
However most of our work related to the Work Based Learning scheme: the Committee devoted considerable time to developing the work based learning
outcomes and supporting documentation, taking into account consultation responses, and then agreed to pilot the proposed scheme. During the 6
months of its operation, 131 members applied for a qualifying employment waiver via the pilot scheme. This placed a substantial additional burden on all
those involved, including Committee members and those working in the offices of IPS. It is a credit to all those involved that all applications were dealt
with in a timely and appropriate manner.
I would like to thank all members of the Committee for the hard work and commitment they have shown in dealing with this year’s heavy workload. Thanks
are also due the office that has provided invaluable support to our work. At the time of writing, the Work Based Learning Scheme has been approved by
the Council of CILEx and has been referred to the LSB for formal approval. I look forward with interest to 2013 and the formal implementation of the
Work Based Learning Scheme – another interesting development of the work of the Committee.
KAROL SANDERSON
ADMISSIONS AND LICENSING COMMITTEE CHAIR
Annual report of the admissions
and licensing committee 2012
Detailed profit & loss account
18 19
2012 2011
Income £ £
Contribution from CILEx 1,022,071 635,397
Rights of audience 8,238 4,342
Disciplinary fees 3,068 10,357
Total 1,033,377 650,096
ExpenditureIPS Board 173,618 122,553
Investigating and complaints expenses 127,955 79,061
Practice rights application fees 122,057 28,500
Admissions and licensing expenses 31,740 21,728
Other direct expenses 39,136 10,536
Bad debts provided 11,324 0
Audit fees 2,750 2,600
Professional fees 0 30,453
Management charges 524,797 354,665
Total 1,033,377 650,096
Profit before tax 0 0
Taxation 0 0
Profit after tax 0 0
Year ended 31 December 2012
IPS expenditure during 2012 increased substantially, reflecting the
expanding role of IPS and the intense activity around particular activities the
company undertook. Direct income sources remained limited to advocacy
rights applications and orders arising from disciplinary work. The majority
of the funding allocated by CILEx to IPS to carry out its regulatory functions
comes from Practice Certificate Fees paid by CILEx Fellows and Associate
Prosecutors. However, the most significant areas of work causing the
increased expenditure are referred to below.
Four new employees joined during the year to enable us to develop the
practice rights applications for submission to the Legal Services Board; and
two other support staff were recruited to assist with CPD and admissions
work taken over from the CILEx membership team. This not only affected
the direct staff costs of IPS but also increased the per capita allocation of
administrative charges for services and facilities provided through CILEx.
The practice rights applications, and work based learning, CPD and
admissions projects resulted in high levels of activity for staff, Board members
and the Admissions and Licensing Committee. This extra activity is reflected
in the costs for each of these areas of work. Research was carried out which
was needed to support the applications for practice rights and specialist
advice was taken on rules and setting up compensation and indemnity
arrangements.
Complaints and disciplinary casework also increased and some new costs
arose from altered arrangements adopted following a review early in the
year of the way in which proceedings are managed.
CILEx Council continues to support IPS as it develops its regulatory role. It is
expected further development will be needed in 2013, but that the current
investment will start to show returns thereafter.
IncomeContribution from CILEx1022071Rights of audience 16476Disciplinary fees 6136
To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.
ContribuHon from CILEx Rights of audience
Disciplinary fees
ExpenditureIPS Board 173618Investigating and complaints127955Practice rights application122057Admisions and licensing31740Other direct expenses39136Bad dedts 11324Audit fees 2750Professional fees 0Management charges524797
IPS Board InvesGgaGng and complaints PracGce rights applicaGon Admisions and licensing Other direct expenses Bad dedts Audit fees Professional fees Management charges
ExpenditureIPS Board 173618Investigating and complaints127955Practice rights application122057Admisions and licensing31740Other direct expenses39136Bad dedts 11324Audit fees 2750Professional fees 0Management charges524797
IPS Board InvesGgaGng and complaints PracGce rights applicaGon Admisions and licensing Other direct expenses Bad dedts Audit fees Professional fees Management charges
Contribution from CILEx
Rights of audience
Disciplinary fees
IPS Board
Investigating and complaints
Practice rights application
Admissions and licensing
Other direct expenses
Bad debts
Audit fees
Professional fees
Management charges
Financial Review Annex 1
CHAIR’S FOREWORD
I was delighted to take over the role of Chair of the Committee, and to welcome two new members, Kath Hill and John McCarthy, who joined the
committee in March 2012 as new professional members.
This has been another challenging year for the Committee, which has seen its workload more than double from last year. We have continued to
have oversight of the Rights of Audience Scheme, and the Associate Prosecutors Qualification scheme, but the bulk of our work related to Qualifying
Employment applications. The Committee considered more than twice as many fellowship applications as last year, and more than 3 times as many
applications for agreeing Qualifying Employment.
However most of our work related to the Work Based Learning scheme: the Committee devoted considerable time to developing the work based learning
outcomes and supporting documentation, taking into account consultation responses, and then agreed to pilot the proposed scheme. During the 6
months of its operation, 131 members applied for a qualifying employment waiver via the pilot scheme. This placed a substantial additional burden on all
those involved, including Committee members and those working in the offices of IPS. It is a credit to all those involved that all applications were dealt
with in a timely and appropriate manner.
I would like to thank all members of the Committee for the hard work and commitment they have shown in dealing with this year’s heavy workload. Thanks
are also due the office that has provided invaluable support to our work. At the time of writing, the Work Based Learning Scheme has been approved by
the Council of CILEx and has been referred to the LSB for formal approval. I look forward with interest to 2013 and the formal implementation of the
Work Based Learning Scheme – another interesting development of the work of the Committee.
KAROL SANDERSON
ADMISSIONS AND LICENSING COMMITTEE CHAIR
Annual report of the admissions
and licensing committee 2012
Detailed profit & loss account
212120
Annex 1 Annex 1
Introduction
1. The Admissions and Licensing Committee (ALC) was set up in January 2011. The ALC was set up under a new composition to comply with changes
introduced by the Legal Services Act 2007. This report covers the work of the ALC during the period 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.
2. In September 2011 it became necessary for the two serving professional members to withdraw from the Committee’s casework functions as they were
also members of the IPS Board. IPS recruited 2 new professional members to serve on the Admissions and Licensing Committee with effect from March
2012 who were independent of the IPS Board and CILEx Council.
3. The ALC was supported in its work relating to the Advocacy scheme and Associate Prosecutors, by two external advisers. The external advisers are
experienced in civil, criminal and family proceedings. They are responsible for marking candidate portfolios, vetting course provider applications,
inspection of courses and maintenance of standards. They may attend meetings of the Committee, although they do not participate in decision
making.
4. The Committee found the advice and input of the external advisers useful in its decision making. It was able to place reliance upon their expert views
on the suitability and competence of candidates and course providers.
5. External advisers may be reappointed to their position and may serve a maximum of 3 consecutive 3 year terms. The External advisers were reappointed
for their final term of 3 years in July 2012.
Rights of Audience Scheme
6. The Committee is responsible for all of the aspects of the rights of audience qualification scheme. Its key areas of responsibility include approval
of candidate applications to enrol onto advocacy skills courses, approval of applications to renew advocacy certificates and accreditation of course
providers to deliver advocacy skills courses. The Committee was supported by the external advisors in each of these areas.
Candidate applications
7. All Graduate Members and Fellows seeking rights of audience must undergo an enrolment process. This is referred to as an application for a
Certificate of Eligibility. The application involves a detailed process. Candidates begin by completing a general application which asks for details
of their litigation and advocacy experience. They also produce a portfolio of eight cases that they have handled. Five of these portfolio cases
must cover litigation cases and three must cover advocacy cases. The portfolio cases are marked by an external adviser to ensure they meet the
knowledge and experience guidelines. If they did, and also applicants had the examinations required for the scheme, the application was approved
under the delegated procedure by an Officer of IPS. Applications that did not meet the knowledge and experience guidelines were referred to the ALC
for consideration. The Committee is responsible for deciding whether or not to approve the application. If the Committee approved the application
the candidate could proceed to enrol onto the advocacy skills course.
8. A total of 13 applications were received during 2012. Of those applications, 5 were approved and applicants were granted certificates of eligibility to
proceed onto courses. The remaining 8 applications are on-going.
9. The most popular areas of enrolment have been criminal proceedings and family proceedings. Of the 13 applications received during 2012, 6 were
applications to enrol onto a criminal proceedings course, 6 were applications to enrol onto a family proceedings course and 1 was an application to enrol
onto a civil proceedings course.
10. The Committee granted 1 certificate of eligibility to enrol onto a family proceedings course. The Officer granted 3 certificates of eligibility to enrol onto
criminal proceedings courses and 4 certificate of eligibility to enrol onto a family proceedings course under the delegated procedure. 1 candidate has
successfully completed the advocacy skills course and is now a Chartered Legal Executive Advocate. The remaining 7 candidates have been unable to
attend a course due to the lack of course availability. Course availability is limited as there are insufficient candidates for courses to run.
11. Unfortunately the civil proceedings course has proved unpopular. This is because it is less cost effective to the firm for Chartered Legal Executives to
undertake civil advocacy than it is for Counsel to undertake the same work. There remain 2 candidates who have been granted a certificate of eligibility
since the scheme commenced who have not yet qualified as Chartered Legal Executive Advocates. Logistical reasons are hindering the arrangement of
a course for them.
Area of Practice
Applications
Received Approved On-going
Civil 1 - 1
Criminal 6 3 3
Family 6 3
2 applications received in 2011 were also approved in 2012
3
1 application received in 2011 and 1 application received in 2010 also remain on-going
12. A summary of the applications received and processed during 2012 appears below.
Advocacy certificate renewals
13. Chartered Legal Executive Advocates are required to renew certificates on 1 June or 1 December after the expiry of 12 months since the issue of their
first certificate. Thereafter they move to 3 yearly renewals.
14. At the first renewal Chartered Legal Executive Advocates must produce portfolios of 3 cases where they have exercised their new rights. 9 first year
renewals fell due during 2012. The Officer considered and approved 3 applications for renewal of criminal proceedings certificates, and 2 applications
for renewal of family proceedings certificates under the delegated procedure. 3 applications were not received as the applicants indicated that they
did not wish to renew their certificates.
15. The remaining application was not in a position to be considered before the required renewal date. It will therefore be dealt with as an application
to renew a lapsed certificate. Applications to renew lapsed certificates are dealt with in the same way as first year renewals but must be supported
by evidence of the applicant’s CPD hours for the preceding 12 months and an explanation as to why the certificate lapsed. The application remains
on-going.
16. A summary of the first year renewal applications received and processed during 2012 appears below.
Area of PracticeFirst year renewal applications
Received Approved Outstanding/Lapsed
Civil - - -
Criminal 3 3 1
Family 2 2 3
17. Subsequent renewals are approved by the IPS office on the basis that applicants have complied with the Continued Professional Development
requirements. 24 Subsequent renewals fell due during 2012. The IPS office approved 15 subsequent renewals of criminal proceedings certificates and
7 subsequent renewals of family proceedings certificates. The remaining 2 applications were not received as the applicants indicated that they did not
wish to renew their certificates.
212120
Annex 1 Annex 1
Introduction
1. The Admissions and Licensing Committee (ALC) was set up in January 2011. The ALC was set up under a new composition to comply with changes
introduced by the Legal Services Act 2007. This report covers the work of the ALC during the period 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.
2. In September 2011 it became necessary for the two serving professional members to withdraw from the Committee’s casework functions as they were
also members of the IPS Board. IPS recruited 2 new professional members to serve on the Admissions and Licensing Committee with effect from March
2012 who were independent of the IPS Board and CILEx Council.
3. The ALC was supported in its work relating to the Advocacy scheme and Associate Prosecutors, by two external advisers. The external advisers are
experienced in civil, criminal and family proceedings. They are responsible for marking candidate portfolios, vetting course provider applications,
inspection of courses and maintenance of standards. They may attend meetings of the Committee, although they do not participate in decision
making.
4. The Committee found the advice and input of the external advisers useful in its decision making. It was able to place reliance upon their expert views
on the suitability and competence of candidates and course providers.
5. External advisers may be reappointed to their position and may serve a maximum of 3 consecutive 3 year terms. The External advisers were reappointed
for their final term of 3 years in July 2012.
Rights of Audience Scheme
6. The Committee is responsible for all of the aspects of the rights of audience qualification scheme. Its key areas of responsibility include approval
of candidate applications to enrol onto advocacy skills courses, approval of applications to renew advocacy certificates and accreditation of course
providers to deliver advocacy skills courses. The Committee was supported by the external advisors in each of these areas.
Candidate applications
7. All Graduate Members and Fellows seeking rights of audience must undergo an enrolment process. This is referred to as an application for a
Certificate of Eligibility. The application involves a detailed process. Candidates begin by completing a general application which asks for details
of their litigation and advocacy experience. They also produce a portfolio of eight cases that they have handled. Five of these portfolio cases
must cover litigation cases and three must cover advocacy cases. The portfolio cases are marked by an external adviser to ensure they meet the
knowledge and experience guidelines. If they did, and also applicants had the examinations required for the scheme, the application was approved
under the delegated procedure by an Officer of IPS. Applications that did not meet the knowledge and experience guidelines were referred to the ALC
for consideration. The Committee is responsible for deciding whether or not to approve the application. If the Committee approved the application
the candidate could proceed to enrol onto the advocacy skills course.
8. A total of 13 applications were received during 2012. Of those applications, 5 were approved and applicants were granted certificates of eligibility to
proceed onto courses. The remaining 8 applications are on-going.
9. The most popular areas of enrolment have been criminal proceedings and family proceedings. Of the 13 applications received during 2012, 6 were
applications to enrol onto a criminal proceedings course, 6 were applications to enrol onto a family proceedings course and 1 was an application to enrol
onto a civil proceedings course.
10. The Committee granted 1 certificate of eligibility to enrol onto a family proceedings course. The Officer granted 3 certificates of eligibility to enrol onto
criminal proceedings courses and 4 certificate of eligibility to enrol onto a family proceedings course under the delegated procedure. 1 candidate has
successfully completed the advocacy skills course and is now a Chartered Legal Executive Advocate. The remaining 7 candidates have been unable to
attend a course due to the lack of course availability. Course availability is limited as there are insufficient candidates for courses to run.
11. Unfortunately the civil proceedings course has proved unpopular. This is because it is less cost effective to the firm for Chartered Legal Executives to
undertake civil advocacy than it is for Counsel to undertake the same work. There remain 2 candidates who have been granted a certificate of eligibility
since the scheme commenced who have not yet qualified as Chartered Legal Executive Advocates. Logistical reasons are hindering the arrangement of
a course for them.
Area of Practice
Applications
Received Approved On-going
Civil 1 - 1
Criminal 6 3 3
Family 6 3
2 applications received in 2011 were also approved in 2012
3
1 application received in 2011 and 1 application received in 2010 also remain on-going
12. A summary of the applications received and processed during 2012 appears below.
Advocacy certificate renewals
13. Chartered Legal Executive Advocates are required to renew certificates on 1 June or 1 December after the expiry of 12 months since the issue of their
first certificate. Thereafter they move to 3 yearly renewals.
14. At the first renewal Chartered Legal Executive Advocates must produce portfolios of 3 cases where they have exercised their new rights. 9 first year
renewals fell due during 2012. The Officer considered and approved 3 applications for renewal of criminal proceedings certificates, and 2 applications
for renewal of family proceedings certificates under the delegated procedure. 3 applications were not received as the applicants indicated that they
did not wish to renew their certificates.
15. The remaining application was not in a position to be considered before the required renewal date. It will therefore be dealt with as an application
to renew a lapsed certificate. Applications to renew lapsed certificates are dealt with in the same way as first year renewals but must be supported
by evidence of the applicant’s CPD hours for the preceding 12 months and an explanation as to why the certificate lapsed. The application remains
on-going.
16. A summary of the first year renewal applications received and processed during 2012 appears below.
Area of PracticeFirst year renewal applications
Received Approved Outstanding/Lapsed
Civil - - -
Criminal 3 3 1
Family 2 2 3
17. Subsequent renewals are approved by the IPS office on the basis that applicants have complied with the Continued Professional Development
requirements. 24 Subsequent renewals fell due during 2012. The IPS office approved 15 subsequent renewals of criminal proceedings certificates and
7 subsequent renewals of family proceedings certificates. The remaining 2 applications were not received as the applicants indicated that they did not
wish to renew their certificates.
22 23
Annex 1 Annex 1
Course providers
19. Upon obtaining a certificate of eligibility candidates must complete an advocacy skills course. The course is a practical course aimed at developing
advocacy skills and involves a thorough assessment of advocacy skills against set criteria. The courses are split into civil, criminal and family proceedings,
with candidates undertaking the course relevant to the specialist area in which they obtained a certificate of eligibility.
20. Courses must be provided by course providers accredited in accordance with the Rights of Audience Certification Rules. Kaplan Altior was the first
accredited course provider and has been the sole provider of courses to date. It has delivered courses in criminal and family proceedings. It is willing to
deliver courses in civil proceedings but had been unable to do so due to limited interest and practical problems. A family proceedings course has not run
since December 2010. This is due to a lack of bookings. It is anticipated that a family proceedings course will run in 2013.
21. Kaplan provided a criminal proceedings course in May 2012. 7 candidates successfully completed the course and assessments and qualified as Chartered
Legal Executive Advocates.
22. There are currently 3 candidates waiting to undertake a criminal proceedings course, 2 candidates waiting to undertake a civil proceedings course and 7
candidates waiting to undertake a family proceedings course.
Associate Prosecutor Qualification Scheme
23. The ALC became responsible for oversight of the Associate Prosecutor qualification scheme from 1 May 2011.
24. The CPS delivers Associate Prosecutor (AP) training courses. Due to government cut backs AP recruitment was not taking place. The CPS recently
commenced Associate Prosecutor training courses, in Youth and Youth Bail courses for Level 1 Associate Prosecutors. The external adviser inspected
a number of these courses in November 2012. Upon successful completion of this course Associate Prosecutors are authorised to undertake some
Youth and Youth bail hearings. The inspection found that the level of resource the CPS puts into training was consistently high and the course met
the expected outcomes. All recommendations made by the External Adviser following inspections have been implemented immediately by the CPS.
Qualifying Employment
25. The ALC was responsible for considering applications relating to qualifying employment, reviewing the arrangements for assessing qualifying employment
and making recommendations to IPS for revisions to the scheme.
Work based learning scheme
26. It was proposed that the current procedures for assessing qualifying employment would be replaced with a work based learning scheme where members
were required to evidence achievement of a specified set of outcomes in a log book. An IPS and CILEx joint working group had developed work based
learning outcomes and supporting documentation, including a log book and checklist. The proposed scheme had been consulted upon during 2010.
27. The ALC developed the work based learning outcomes and supporting documentation, taking into account responses to the 2010 consultation. The
revised scheme was then consulted upon again during 2011.
28. Having considered the outcomes of the consultation, the ALC agreed to pilot the proposed scheme for a period of 6 months during 2012. Those
members wishing to apply for a waiver to the requirement to complete 2 years’ qualifying employment in the Graduate membership grade were
required to make their application via the pilot scheme.
Area of PracticeSubsequent renewal applications
Received Approved Outstanding/Lapsed
Civil - - -
Criminal 15 15 -
Family 7 7 2 29. The ALC considered the results of the pilot scheme and the application to the LSB is been drafted for submission in February 2013. The ALC is working
towards the scheme being fully introduced in later 2013.
Qualifying Employment Applications
30. The ALC is responsible for considering all applications relating to qualifying employment. These applications generally take the form
of a Fellowship Application or a Waiver Application. Potential applicants may complete a Qualifying Employment Form to seek an indication from the
ALC as to whether their work is qualifying employment.
31. Fellowship Applications are made by Graduate members of CILEx who wish to be accepted into Fellowship of CILEx. They are considered by the
ALC when it has not been possible for the office to determine the application in the usual manner. This normally occurs where it is unclear from the
information provided whether the applicant meets the qualifying employment criteria.
32. The Committee considered 59 Fellowship Applications. Of those 59 applications, 35 were approved and 24 were refused.
33. Waiver Applications are made by Graduate members of CILEx for a waiver from the requirement to complete 2 years qualifying employment after
attaining Graduate member status. All Waiver Applications are considered by the Committee.
34. The Committee considered 232 Waiver Applications, 101 were considered by way of the application form, 131 through the operation of the Work
Based Learning pilot. Of the 101 Waiver Applications, 88 were approved and 13 were refused. Of the 131 Pilot Applications, 98 were approved and
33 were refused.
35. Qualifying Employment Forms may be submitted by members of CILEx in any grade and by persons who are not members of CILEx who seek a
determination on whether their employment history would constitute qualifying employment and therefore whether they are likely to be successful in
making an application to become a Fellow of CILEx. No fee is payable in respect of these forms where the applicant is a member of CILEx.
36. The Committee considered 106 Qualifying Employment Forms. Of those 106 applications, 69 were found to be in qualifying employment and 37 were
found not to be in qualifying employment.
37. The Committee asked that equality and diversity records be maintained in relation to its casework decisions. Whilst equality and diversity information
was not available in respect of all applications, where the information was available it was analysed in relation to the applicant’s gender, ethnicity and
age.
38. Of the 397 applications considered by the Committee, there was information
available on 397 candidates in relation to the gender of the applicant. Of
those 397 applications, 296 were made by females and 101 were made by
males. The Committee approved 209 applications made by females and 72
applications made by males. The Committee refused 87 applications made by
females and 29 applications made by males. A breakdown of these figures is
shown to the right..
18. A summary of the subsequent renewal applications received and processed during 2012 appears below.
250
200
150
100
50
0
Male
Female
Approved Rejected
22 23
Annex 1 Annex 1
Course providers
19. Upon obtaining a certificate of eligibility candidates must complete an advocacy skills course. The course is a practical course aimed at developing
advocacy skills and involves a thorough assessment of advocacy skills against set criteria. The courses are split into civil, criminal and family proceedings,
with candidates undertaking the course relevant to the specialist area in which they obtained a certificate of eligibility.
20. Courses must be provided by course providers accredited in accordance with the Rights of Audience Certification Rules. Kaplan Altior was the first
accredited course provider and has been the sole provider of courses to date. It has delivered courses in criminal and family proceedings. It is willing to
deliver courses in civil proceedings but had been unable to do so due to limited interest and practical problems. A family proceedings course has not run
since December 2010. This is due to a lack of bookings. It is anticipated that a family proceedings course will run in 2013.
21. Kaplan provided a criminal proceedings course in May 2012. 7 candidates successfully completed the course and assessments and qualified as Chartered
Legal Executive Advocates.
22. There are currently 3 candidates waiting to undertake a criminal proceedings course, 2 candidates waiting to undertake a civil proceedings course and 7
candidates waiting to undertake a family proceedings course.
Associate Prosecutor Qualification Scheme
23. The ALC became responsible for oversight of the Associate Prosecutor qualification scheme from 1 May 2011.
24. The CPS delivers Associate Prosecutor (AP) training courses. Due to government cut backs AP recruitment was not taking place. The CPS recently
commenced Associate Prosecutor training courses, in Youth and Youth Bail courses for Level 1 Associate Prosecutors. The external adviser inspected
a number of these courses in November 2012. Upon successful completion of this course Associate Prosecutors are authorised to undertake some
Youth and Youth bail hearings. The inspection found that the level of resource the CPS puts into training was consistently high and the course met
the expected outcomes. All recommendations made by the External Adviser following inspections have been implemented immediately by the CPS.
Qualifying Employment
25. The ALC was responsible for considering applications relating to qualifying employment, reviewing the arrangements for assessing qualifying employment
and making recommendations to IPS for revisions to the scheme.
Work based learning scheme
26. It was proposed that the current procedures for assessing qualifying employment would be replaced with a work based learning scheme where members
were required to evidence achievement of a specified set of outcomes in a log book. An IPS and CILEx joint working group had developed work based
learning outcomes and supporting documentation, including a log book and checklist. The proposed scheme had been consulted upon during 2010.
27. The ALC developed the work based learning outcomes and supporting documentation, taking into account responses to the 2010 consultation. The
revised scheme was then consulted upon again during 2011.
28. Having considered the outcomes of the consultation, the ALC agreed to pilot the proposed scheme for a period of 6 months during 2012. Those
members wishing to apply for a waiver to the requirement to complete 2 years’ qualifying employment in the Graduate membership grade were
required to make their application via the pilot scheme.
Area of PracticeSubsequent renewal applications
Received Approved Outstanding/Lapsed
Civil - - -
Criminal 15 15 -
Family 7 7 2 29. The ALC considered the results of the pilot scheme and the application to the LSB is been drafted for submission in February 2013. The ALC is working
towards the scheme being fully introduced in later 2013.
Qualifying Employment Applications
30. The ALC is responsible for considering all applications relating to qualifying employment. These applications generally take the form
of a Fellowship Application or a Waiver Application. Potential applicants may complete a Qualifying Employment Form to seek an indication from the
ALC as to whether their work is qualifying employment.
31. Fellowship Applications are made by Graduate members of CILEx who wish to be accepted into Fellowship of CILEx. They are considered by the
ALC when it has not been possible for the office to determine the application in the usual manner. This normally occurs where it is unclear from the
information provided whether the applicant meets the qualifying employment criteria.
32. The Committee considered 59 Fellowship Applications. Of those 59 applications, 35 were approved and 24 were refused.
33. Waiver Applications are made by Graduate members of CILEx for a waiver from the requirement to complete 2 years qualifying employment after
attaining Graduate member status. All Waiver Applications are considered by the Committee.
34. The Committee considered 232 Waiver Applications, 101 were considered by way of the application form, 131 through the operation of the Work
Based Learning pilot. Of the 101 Waiver Applications, 88 were approved and 13 were refused. Of the 131 Pilot Applications, 98 were approved and
33 were refused.
35. Qualifying Employment Forms may be submitted by members of CILEx in any grade and by persons who are not members of CILEx who seek a
determination on whether their employment history would constitute qualifying employment and therefore whether they are likely to be successful in
making an application to become a Fellow of CILEx. No fee is payable in respect of these forms where the applicant is a member of CILEx.
36. The Committee considered 106 Qualifying Employment Forms. Of those 106 applications, 69 were found to be in qualifying employment and 37 were
found not to be in qualifying employment.
37. The Committee asked that equality and diversity records be maintained in relation to its casework decisions. Whilst equality and diversity information
was not available in respect of all applications, where the information was available it was analysed in relation to the applicant’s gender, ethnicity and
age.
38. Of the 397 applications considered by the Committee, there was information
available on 397 candidates in relation to the gender of the applicant. Of
those 397 applications, 296 were made by females and 101 were made by
males. The Committee approved 209 applications made by females and 72
applications made by males. The Committee refused 87 applications made by
females and 29 applications made by males. A breakdown of these figures is
shown to the right..
18. A summary of the subsequent renewal applications received and processed during 2012 appears below.
250
200
150
100
50
0
Male
Female
Approved Rejected
24 25
Annex 1 Annex 1
39. Of the 397 applications considered by the Committee, there was information available on 390 candidates in relation to the age of the applicant. Of
those 390 applications, 41 were made by applicants within the age range 20 - 25 years. Of those 41 applicants, 29 were approved by the Committee
and 12 were refused.165 were made by applicants within the age range 26 – 30 years. Of those 165 applicants, 101 were approved by the Committee
and 64 were refused. 86 applications were received by applicants in the age range 31 – 35 years. Of those applications, 71 were approved by the
Committee and 15 were refused. 19 were made by applicants within the age range 36 – 40 years. Of those 19 applicants, 10 were approved by the
Committee and 9 were refused. 48 were made by applicants within the age range 41 - 45 years. Of those 48 applicants, 31 were approved by the
Committee and 17 were refused. 17 were made by applicants within the age range 46 - 50 years. Of those 17 applicants, 11 were approved by the
Committee and 6 were refused. 10 were made by applicants within the age range 51 - 55 years. Of those 10 applicants, 5 were approved by the
Committee and 5 were refused. The fewest applications were received from applicants aged 55 years and over, with only 4 applications being received.
Of those applications, 2 were approved by the Committee and 2 were refused. A breakdown of the figures is shown below.
120
100
80
60
40
20
020-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 Over 55
Approved
Rejected
40. Of the 397 applications considered by the Committee, there was information available on 266 candidates in relation to the ethnicity of the applicant.
The largest proportion of applications was received from White British applicants, with 211 applications being received from applicants in this category.
Of those 211 applications, 164 were approved by the Committee and 47 were refused. A summary of the figures appears below.
Code Descriptor Accepted Rejected
W1 White British 164 47
A2 Asian or Asian British – Pakistani 5 4
PNS Prefer not to say 1 1
M2 Mixed – White and Black African 1 2
W9 White – other background 2 0
B2 Black or Black British – African 4 5
A1 Asian or Asian British - Indian 6 4
M1 Mixed – White and Black Caribbean 0 1
B1 Black or Black British - Caribbean 2 3
A9 Asian or Asian British - Bangladeshi 4 1
B9 Black or Black British – other background 1 0
A3 Asian or Asian British - Bangladeshi 4 1
M3 Mixed – White and Asian 2 1
Approved
Rejected180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0W1 A2 PNS M2 W9 B2 A1 M1 B1 A9 B9 A3 M3
41. Applications from non-white applicants were received in significantly smaller numbers. As a result these have been aggregated. For White British
applicants 78% of applications were accepted and 22% rejected. For all other applicants 58% of applications were accepted and 42% rejected. The
Committee found that these statistics indicate some differences in decision making, but that this may be owing to the nature of the work conducted
by members of different ethnicity. From 2013 onwards, IPS will monitor the area of practice for the purposes of the Equality and Diversity statistics to
inform the outcomes of the decision making.
Equality and Diversity Data from the Work Based Learning Pilot
42. 98 applicants completed the E and D questionnaire and have also been heard by the Committee, of these 26 were refused.
43. No applicants declared a disability.
44. Applications refused, broken down male to female. 5 male applicants were refused, compare with 21 female applicants (19%).
81%19%
1 2
Female
Male
81%19%
1 2
24 25
Annex 1 Annex 1
39. Of the 397 applications considered by the Committee, there was information available on 390 candidates in relation to the age of the applicant. Of
those 390 applications, 41 were made by applicants within the age range 20 - 25 years. Of those 41 applicants, 29 were approved by the Committee
and 12 were refused.165 were made by applicants within the age range 26 – 30 years. Of those 165 applicants, 101 were approved by the Committee
and 64 were refused. 86 applications were received by applicants in the age range 31 – 35 years. Of those applications, 71 were approved by the
Committee and 15 were refused. 19 were made by applicants within the age range 36 – 40 years. Of those 19 applicants, 10 were approved by the
Committee and 9 were refused. 48 were made by applicants within the age range 41 - 45 years. Of those 48 applicants, 31 were approved by the
Committee and 17 were refused. 17 were made by applicants within the age range 46 - 50 years. Of those 17 applicants, 11 were approved by the
Committee and 6 were refused. 10 were made by applicants within the age range 51 - 55 years. Of those 10 applicants, 5 were approved by the
Committee and 5 were refused. The fewest applications were received from applicants aged 55 years and over, with only 4 applications being received.
Of those applications, 2 were approved by the Committee and 2 were refused. A breakdown of the figures is shown below.
120
100
80
60
40
20
020-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 Over 55
Approved
Rejected
40. Of the 397 applications considered by the Committee, there was information available on 266 candidates in relation to the ethnicity of the applicant.
The largest proportion of applications was received from White British applicants, with 211 applications being received from applicants in this category.
Of those 211 applications, 164 were approved by the Committee and 47 were refused. A summary of the figures appears below.
Code Descriptor Accepted Rejected
W1 White British 164 47
A2 Asian or Asian British – Pakistani 5 4
PNS Prefer not to say 1 1
M2 Mixed – White and Black African 1 2
W9 White – other background 2 0
B2 Black or Black British – African 4 5
A1 Asian or Asian British - Indian 6 4
M1 Mixed – White and Black Caribbean 0 1
B1 Black or Black British - Caribbean 2 3
A9 Asian or Asian British - Bangladeshi 4 1
B9 Black or Black British – other background 1 0
A3 Asian or Asian British - Bangladeshi 4 1
M3 Mixed – White and Asian 2 1
Approved
Rejected180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0W1 A2 PNS M2 W9 B2 A1 M1 B1 A9 B9 A3 M3
41. Applications from non-white applicants were received in significantly smaller numbers. As a result these have been aggregated. For White British
applicants 78% of applications were accepted and 22% rejected. For all other applicants 58% of applications were accepted and 42% rejected. The
Committee found that these statistics indicate some differences in decision making, but that this may be owing to the nature of the work conducted
by members of different ethnicity. From 2013 onwards, IPS will monitor the area of practice for the purposes of the Equality and Diversity statistics to
inform the outcomes of the decision making.
Equality and Diversity Data from the Work Based Learning Pilot
42. 98 applicants completed the E and D questionnaire and have also been heard by the Committee, of these 26 were refused.
43. No applicants declared a disability.
44. Applications refused, broken down male to female. 5 male applicants were refused, compare with 21 female applicants (19%).
81%19%
1 2
Female
Male
81%19%
1 2
26 27
Annex 1 Annex 1
21%79%
1 2 Female
Male
45. Overall applications received, broken down male to female. IPS received 77 application from females and 21 from male applicants (21%)
46. There appears to be no bias on the male/female refusals.
21%79%
1 2
49. Approvals as a percentage of applications from the same background:
Asian 2/8 (25%)
Black 0/2 (0%)
Mixed 6/6 (100%)
Other 2/2 (100%)
White 62/80 (78%)
50. Refusals as a percentage of applications from the same background:
Asian 6/8 refused (75%)
Black 2/2 refused (100%)
White 18/80 refused (22%)
47. Applications refused, broken down by ethnic origin. 6 Asian applicants were refused, 2 Black applicants were refused and 18 White applicants were
refused.
48. Overall applications received, broken down by ethnic origin. IPS received 8 applications from applicants of an Asian background, 2 from a Black
background, 80 from a White background, 6 from a Mixed background and 2 from Other backgrounds
Asian
Asian
Black
Black
White
White
Other
Mixed
23%8%
69%
1 2 3 8%
2%81%2%6%
1 2 3 4 5
23%8%
69%
1 2 3
8%2%
81%2%6%
1 2 3 4 5
51. The figures are statistically small. However there should be some investigation into the roles of the applicants to determine whether there is a reason
why these applicants were less likely to succeed.
Meetings of the Committee
52. The Committee met 10 times in 2012. All meetings were conducted face-to face.
26 27
Annex 1 Annex 1
21%79%
1 2 Female
Male
45. Overall applications received, broken down male to female. IPS received 77 application from females and 21 from male applicants (21%)
46. There appears to be no bias on the male/female refusals.
21%79%
1 2
49. Approvals as a percentage of applications from the same background:
Asian 2/8 (25%)
Black 0/2 (0%)
Mixed 6/6 (100%)
Other 2/2 (100%)
White 62/80 (78%)
50. Refusals as a percentage of applications from the same background:
Asian 6/8 refused (75%)
Black 2/2 refused (100%)
White 18/80 refused (22%)
47. Applications refused, broken down by ethnic origin. 6 Asian applicants were refused, 2 Black applicants were refused and 18 White applicants were
refused.
48. Overall applications received, broken down by ethnic origin. IPS received 8 applications from applicants of an Asian background, 2 from a Black
background, 80 from a White background, 6 from a Mixed background and 2 from Other backgrounds
Asian
Asian
Black
Black
White
White
Other
Mixed
23%8%
69%
1 2 3 8%
2%81%2%6%
1 2 3 4 5
23%8%
69%
1 2 3
8%2%
81%2%6%
1 2 3 4 5
51. The figures are statistically small. However there should be some investigation into the roles of the applicants to determine whether there is a reason
why these applicants were less likely to succeed.
Meetings of the Committee
52. The Committee met 10 times in 2012. All meetings were conducted face-to face.
28 29
Annex 2 Annex 2
PREFACE
The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) is designated as an Approved Regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007. CILEx has delegated its
regulatory activities to its subsidiary company, ILEX Professional Standards Limited (IPS). Amongst other areas of activity, IPS is responsible for investigating
allegations of misconduct made against CILEx members and determining what, if any, action should be taken as a result of proven misconduct. IPS is also
responsible for considering declarations of prior conduct made by members of CILEx and applicants for membership.
2012 saw the introduction of a Fitness to Practise Procedures Manual setting out the administrative and decision-making processes through which IPS staff
and panellists implement the Investigation, Disciplinary and Appeals Rules (the IDAR) which govern those processes. This also brings together the fitness
to practise policies which IPS has put in place.
During 2012 IPS consulted on proposed changes to the IDAR. Changes will become necessary should CILEx’s application for enhanced practice rights
for CILEx members be approved by the Legal Services Board. IPS took this opportunity to make other adjustments to the IDAR to further develop an
outcomes-focused approach to the investigation process and application of sanctions.
In 2011 IPS introduced a process of appraising panellists. A comprehensive programme of appraisal took place in 2012. The appraisals demonstrated that
panellists are highly skilled and capable of carrying out their responsibilities.
IPS has appointed independent clerks to support the conduct panels this year.
Panellists, clerks and staff have worked diligently, tirelessly and with flexibility this year to deliver IPS’ regulatory objectives in the disposal of fitness to
practise cases.
SANDRA BARTON
BOARD MEMBER
1 INTRODUCTION
IPS investigates complaints and allegations of misconduct made against CILEx members. This includes complaints made by third parties about conduct,
information received from third parties or other bodies which indicates misconduct, and referrals from CILEx in respect of members who fail to comply
with CILEx or IPS regulations, such as the examination regulations and Continuing Professional Development (CPD) regulations.
IPS is also responsible for receiving prior conduct declarations made by CILEx members and applicants wishing to become members of CILEx and
determining what action to take, if any. Members are required to make declarations in respect of convictions, cautions, bankruptcy, County Court
Judgments, arrangements with creditors, and disciplinary orders made against them by other professional bodies.
Complaints, allegations of misconduct and prior conduct declarations are investigated and dealt with in accordance with the rules set out in the IDAR.
All members of CILEx must comply with the IPS Code of Conduct for CILEx members, which includes the obligation to comply with CILEx rules, bye-laws
and regulations. In addition members must observe other codes applicable to their employment. Legal Executive Advocates must also comply with the
Rights of Audience Conduct Rules. The conduct of members is measured against the Code of Conduct.
There are three IPS panels which consider the conduct of CILEx members: the Professional Conduct Panel, Disciplinary Tribunal and Appeals Panel. This
report considers the work of these panels during the 2012 calendar year.
2 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PANEL
This Panel is responsible for considering complaints or allegations of misconduct made against CILEx members, and prior conduct declarations made by
members of CILEx and by applicants seeking to join CILEx.
The IDAR distinguishes between complaints and allegations of misconduct, and prior conduct matters. The IDAR sets out the procedures to be followed
by, and the powers available to, the Panel. The Panel sits as a panel of three, with a majority of lay members. One member will be a Fellow of CILEx. No
Panel member may be a member of CILEx Council or the IPS Board.
Where a prior conduct declaration is made the Panel determines whether or not to accept that person’s application to join CILEx or, where they are already
in membership, it determines what action to take in respect of that membership. The IDAR allow for decisions about certain types of prior conduct
matters to be delegated to an Officer of IPS. These decisions are reported to the Panel.
Where a complaint or allegation of misconduct is made against a CILEx member the Panel is responsible for determining whether a prima facie case has
been made out to substantiate the allegation. Where there is a prima facie case, if the misconduct is serious in nature or the evidence needs testing
at an oral hearing, the Panel will make a referral to the Disciplinary Tribunal. Where such a referral is not considered necessary, the Panel will reach a
determination as to whether the allegation is proved on the balance of probabilities on the basis of the evidence before it.
Where it finds an allegation proved, the Panel may:
• take no further action;
• reprimand or warn the member;
• require the member to give an undertaking as to their future conduct;
• impose conditions on a member in respect of their conduct or employment.
The IDAR allows for delegated decisions to be made in the following instances:
• to reject a complaint or allegation of misconduct which is made out of time, discloses no misconduct or is beyond the jurisdiction of IPS to consider;
• to refer serious cases directly to the Disciplinary Tribunal; and
• to enter into a determination by consent.
These powers can be exercised by an Officer of IPS with the agreement of a lay and a professional member of the Panel.
The Panel may consider the imposition of an interim suspension order, on its own motion or on the application of IPS, where a member’s conduct has been
referred to the Disciplinary Tribunal. Such an order suspends the member’s membership of CILEx pending a hearing before the Disciplinary Tribunal, with
the result that in the intervening period the member loses any practising rights associated with their membership.
Annual Report Of The Professional Conduct Panel,
Disciplinary Tribunal And Appeals Panel 2012
28 29
Annex 2 Annex 2
PREFACE
The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) is designated as an Approved Regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007. CILEx has delegated its
regulatory activities to its subsidiary company, ILEX Professional Standards Limited (IPS). Amongst other areas of activity, IPS is responsible for investigating
allegations of misconduct made against CILEx members and determining what, if any, action should be taken as a result of proven misconduct. IPS is also
responsible for considering declarations of prior conduct made by members of CILEx and applicants for membership.
2012 saw the introduction of a Fitness to Practise Procedures Manual setting out the administrative and decision-making processes through which IPS staff
and panellists implement the Investigation, Disciplinary and Appeals Rules (the IDAR) which govern those processes. This also brings together the fitness
to practise policies which IPS has put in place.
During 2012 IPS consulted on proposed changes to the IDAR. Changes will become necessary should CILEx’s application for enhanced practice rights
for CILEx members be approved by the Legal Services Board. IPS took this opportunity to make other adjustments to the IDAR to further develop an
outcomes-focused approach to the investigation process and application of sanctions.
In 2011 IPS introduced a process of appraising panellists. A comprehensive programme of appraisal took place in 2012. The appraisals demonstrated that
panellists are highly skilled and capable of carrying out their responsibilities.
IPS has appointed independent clerks to support the conduct panels this year.
Panellists, clerks and staff have worked diligently, tirelessly and with flexibility this year to deliver IPS’ regulatory objectives in the disposal of fitness to
practise cases.
SANDRA BARTON
BOARD MEMBER
1 INTRODUCTION
IPS investigates complaints and allegations of misconduct made against CILEx members. This includes complaints made by third parties about conduct,
information received from third parties or other bodies which indicates misconduct, and referrals from CILEx in respect of members who fail to comply
with CILEx or IPS regulations, such as the examination regulations and Continuing Professional Development (CPD) regulations.
IPS is also responsible for receiving prior conduct declarations made by CILEx members and applicants wishing to become members of CILEx and
determining what action to take, if any. Members are required to make declarations in respect of convictions, cautions, bankruptcy, County Court
Judgments, arrangements with creditors, and disciplinary orders made against them by other professional bodies.
Complaints, allegations of misconduct and prior conduct declarations are investigated and dealt with in accordance with the rules set out in the IDAR.
All members of CILEx must comply with the IPS Code of Conduct for CILEx members, which includes the obligation to comply with CILEx rules, bye-laws
and regulations. In addition members must observe other codes applicable to their employment. Legal Executive Advocates must also comply with the
Rights of Audience Conduct Rules. The conduct of members is measured against the Code of Conduct.
There are three IPS panels which consider the conduct of CILEx members: the Professional Conduct Panel, Disciplinary Tribunal and Appeals Panel. This
report considers the work of these panels during the 2012 calendar year.
2 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PANEL
This Panel is responsible for considering complaints or allegations of misconduct made against CILEx members, and prior conduct declarations made by
members of CILEx and by applicants seeking to join CILEx.
The IDAR distinguishes between complaints and allegations of misconduct, and prior conduct matters. The IDAR sets out the procedures to be followed
by, and the powers available to, the Panel. The Panel sits as a panel of three, with a majority of lay members. One member will be a Fellow of CILEx. No
Panel member may be a member of CILEx Council or the IPS Board.
Where a prior conduct declaration is made the Panel determines whether or not to accept that person’s application to join CILEx or, where they are already
in membership, it determines what action to take in respect of that membership. The IDAR allow for decisions about certain types of prior conduct
matters to be delegated to an Officer of IPS. These decisions are reported to the Panel.
Where a complaint or allegation of misconduct is made against a CILEx member the Panel is responsible for determining whether a prima facie case has
been made out to substantiate the allegation. Where there is a prima facie case, if the misconduct is serious in nature or the evidence needs testing
at an oral hearing, the Panel will make a referral to the Disciplinary Tribunal. Where such a referral is not considered necessary, the Panel will reach a
determination as to whether the allegation is proved on the balance of probabilities on the basis of the evidence before it.
Where it finds an allegation proved, the Panel may:
• take no further action;
• reprimand or warn the member;
• require the member to give an undertaking as to their future conduct;
• impose conditions on a member in respect of their conduct or employment.
The IDAR allows for delegated decisions to be made in the following instances:
• to reject a complaint or allegation of misconduct which is made out of time, discloses no misconduct or is beyond the jurisdiction of IPS to consider;
• to refer serious cases directly to the Disciplinary Tribunal; and
• to enter into a determination by consent.
These powers can be exercised by an Officer of IPS with the agreement of a lay and a professional member of the Panel.
The Panel may consider the imposition of an interim suspension order, on its own motion or on the application of IPS, where a member’s conduct has been
referred to the Disciplinary Tribunal. Such an order suspends the member’s membership of CILEx pending a hearing before the Disciplinary Tribunal, with
the result that in the intervening period the member loses any practising rights associated with their membership.
Annual Report Of The Professional Conduct Panel,
Disciplinary Tribunal And Appeals Panel 2012
30 31
Annex 2 Annex 2
2.1 Complaints and Allegations of Misconduct
In 2012 the Professional Conduct Panel received and considered a total of 29 cases where complaints or allegations of misconduct had been made against
CILEx members. The following analysis was carried out of these cases:
• in 9 cases, the Panel found there was no prima facie case to support the allegation and rejected it;
• in 13 cases, the Panel found there was a prima facie case which warranted a referral to the Disciplinary Tribunal;
• in the remaining 7 cases, the Panel found the allegation was proved on the balance of probabilities and used its own disciplinary powers:
- in 1 case, the Panel decided to take no further action;
- 3 members were reprimanded for their conduct;
- 2 members received a reprimand and were also required to give an undertaking; and
- 1 member was required to give an undertaking.
Of the 29 complaints considered, 4 were made by clients, 4 by employers/former employers, and 9 by third parties. 6 referrals were made by CILEx in
respect of failure to comply with CILEx regulations, and 6 cases were brought by IPS as a result of information received. IPS also included additional
allegations in 3 cases in relation to the member’s failure to respond to the enquiries of IPS.
The Panel approved 9 delegated decisions, details of which are set out at section 2.2. Three of those decisions were approval of determinations by consent
where the Panel had previously referred the member’s conduct to the Disciplinary Tribunal. Therefore in total the Panel considered 35 cases.
2.1.1 Number of matters considered
The following graph demonstrates the number of complaints and allegations of misconduct considered by the Panel each year since 2010, when the
current version of the IDAR became effective. A comparison to the number of cases considered before 2010 would not be meaningful due to significant
changes made to the IDAR at that time, in particular the requirement that investigations could not be closed without referral to the Panel and a restriction
on members being able to resign whilst an investigation was underway. 2010 was also the year in which IPS no longer accepted service complaints. 2.1.3 Areas of law in which complaints arose
The following table analyses the areas of law in which complaints arose. The majority of allegations of misconduct considered by the Panel were referrals
from CILEx or IPS in respect of members failing to comply with CILEx and IPS regulations, largely examination misconduct, failing to declare prior conduct
and failing to respond to IPS. However, the number of referrals for examination misconduct has dropped dramatically, with the net result that the number
of CILEx/IPS misconduct cases considered by the Panel has dropped from a peak in 2010/11.
2.1.2 Year on year comparison of decisions
The following table sets out the powers available to the Panel and, in percentage terms, how they were applied. This includes referrals made to the
Disciplinary Tribunal and complaints rejected under the delegated decision procedure.
*The power to admonish was removed from the 2010 IDAR
#Out of time complaints have been rejected under the delegated decision procedure since 2010
45
40
35
30
25
202010 2011 2012
Decision 2012 % 2011 % 2010 % 2009 % 2008 % 2007 %
No case to answer 35 20 29 33 23 31
Warning 0 2.5 0 11 0 19
Admonished* - - - 6 15 5
Reprimand 13.5 20 15 11 8 14
Condition 0 0 2 0 0 11
Undertaking 8 10 2 0 0 0
Referred to Disciplinary Tribunal 40.5 37.5 49 22 42 19
Request further information 0 2.5 2 0 0 0
No further action 3 7.5 5 6 4 0
Complaint out of time # 0 0 0 11 8 0
Area of law / misconduct 2012 % 2011 % 2010 % 2009 % 2008 % 2007 %
Civil litigation 23 18 10 17 19 21
Conveyancing 6 0 2 11 8 10
Crime 0 0 0 0 0 3
Employment disputes 12 13 7 0 0 0
Employment law 6 0 2 5 0 3
Family 15 11 15 11 8 21
Immigration 0 2 10 17 8 32
Private / non legal matters 3 2 0 0 0 0
Trust / probate 6 7 10 28 8 7
CILEx / IPS misconduct 29 47 44 11 49 3
30 31
Annex 2 Annex 2
2.1 Complaints and Allegations of Misconduct
In 2012 the Professional Conduct Panel received and considered a total of 29 cases where complaints or allegations of misconduct had been made against
CILEx members. The following analysis was carried out of these cases:
• in 9 cases, the Panel found there was no prima facie case to support the allegation and rejected it;
• in 13 cases, the Panel found there was a prima facie case which warranted a referral to the Disciplinary Tribunal;
• in the remaining 7 cases, the Panel found the allegation was proved on the balance of probabilities and used its own disciplinary powers:
- in 1 case, the Panel decided to take no further action;
- 3 members were reprimanded for their conduct;
- 2 members received a reprimand and were also required to give an undertaking; and
- 1 member was required to give an undertaking.
Of the 29 complaints considered, 4 were made by clients, 4 by employers/former employers, and 9 by third parties. 6 referrals were made by CILEx in
respect of failure to comply with CILEx regulations, and 6 cases were brought by IPS as a result of information received. IPS also included additional
allegations in 3 cases in relation to the member’s failure to respond to the enquiries of IPS.
The Panel approved 9 delegated decisions, details of which are set out at section 2.2. Three of those decisions were approval of determinations by consent
where the Panel had previously referred the member’s conduct to the Disciplinary Tribunal. Therefore in total the Panel considered 35 cases.
2.1.1 Number of matters considered
The following graph demonstrates the number of complaints and allegations of misconduct considered by the Panel each year since 2010, when the
current version of the IDAR became effective. A comparison to the number of cases considered before 2010 would not be meaningful due to significant
changes made to the IDAR at that time, in particular the requirement that investigations could not be closed without referral to the Panel and a restriction
on members being able to resign whilst an investigation was underway. 2010 was also the year in which IPS no longer accepted service complaints. 2.1.3 Areas of law in which complaints arose
The following table analyses the areas of law in which complaints arose. The majority of allegations of misconduct considered by the Panel were referrals
from CILEx or IPS in respect of members failing to comply with CILEx and IPS regulations, largely examination misconduct, failing to declare prior conduct
and failing to respond to IPS. However, the number of referrals for examination misconduct has dropped dramatically, with the net result that the number
of CILEx/IPS misconduct cases considered by the Panel has dropped from a peak in 2010/11.
2.1.2 Year on year comparison of decisions
The following table sets out the powers available to the Panel and, in percentage terms, how they were applied. This includes referrals made to the
Disciplinary Tribunal and complaints rejected under the delegated decision procedure.
*The power to admonish was removed from the 2010 IDAR
#Out of time complaints have been rejected under the delegated decision procedure since 2010
45
40
35
30
25
202010 2011 2012
Decision 2012 % 2011 % 2010 % 2009 % 2008 % 2007 %
No case to answer 35 20 29 33 23 31
Warning 0 2.5 0 11 0 19
Admonished* - - - 6 15 5
Reprimand 13.5 20 15 11 8 14
Condition 0 0 2 0 0 11
Undertaking 8 10 2 0 0 0
Referred to Disciplinary Tribunal 40.5 37.5 49 22 42 19
Request further information 0 2.5 2 0 0 0
No further action 3 7.5 5 6 4 0
Complaint out of time # 0 0 0 11 8 0
Area of law / misconduct 2012 % 2011 % 2010 % 2009 % 2008 % 2007 %
Civil litigation 23 18 10 17 19 21
Conveyancing 6 0 2 11 8 10
Crime 0 0 0 0 0 3
Employment disputes 12 13 7 0 0 0
Employment law 6 0 2 5 0 3
Family 15 11 15 11 8 21
Immigration 0 2 10 17 8 32
Private / non legal matters 3 2 0 0 0 0
Trust / probate 6 7 10 28 8 7
CILEx / IPS misconduct 29 47 44 11 49 3
32 33
Annex 2 Annex 2
2.1.4 Issues arising in complaints
An analysis of the issues arising has been undertaken and appears in the tables below. In the majority of issues there was more than one head of
complaint or more than one issue raised. Each of these has been counted individually. It should be noted that not all of the allegations were found
proved by the Panel.
As service complaints have not been accepted by IPS since 2010, it is not useful to draw comparisons between the types of complaints which have been
made before and since 2010, as the nature of complainants and complaints has changed. As expected by this change, the trend of heads of complaint
continues to move away from service-type issues to those which question integrity and competence. For the second year there has been an increase in
allegations relating to the carrying out of reserved legal activities.
2.1.5 Timescales
An analysis was undertaken of the time taken to consider complaints. The table below sets out the time taken to deal with allegations of misconduct,
measured from receipt of the allegation at IPS to determination of the case by the Panel or under the delegated decision procedure (see 2.2).
IPS key performance indicators set a target of 80% of cases being referred to the Panel within 6 months and 100% within nine months. The information
below indicates that the 80% target is not being met. However, there has been a marked improvement overall in the time taken to progress cases in
2011 and 2012, with well over 90% now being referred to the Panel within nine months. This may indicate the 6 month target requires review. IPS is
not meeting the 100% target for 9 months but exceptionally.
2.1.6 Equality and diversity
Of the 35 allegations considered by the Panel, 25 were made against males and 10 against females. From the information available, of those 35 members:
16 were of white ethnic origin, 7 of black ethnic origin, and 7 of Asian ethnic origin.
No analysis has been carried out as to how these figures correlate to the membership of CILEx generally.
2.2 Delegated decisions
In 2012, delegated decisions were made in 9 cases.
Determination by consents were entered into 3 cases, which all resulted in the member being excluded from membership of CILEx. 3 complaints were
rejected due to no misconduct or no evidence, and 1 was rejected as the individual complained of was not a member of CILEx. The conduct of 2 members
was referred directly to the Disciplinary Tribunal.
These powers have only been available since 2010. The table below presents a year on year comparison of numbers of delegated decisions made.
Heads of complaint 2012 % 2011 % 2010 % 2009 % 2008 % 2007 %
Acting in a conflict situation 0 0 1 1 2 1
Acting in area not competent 2.5 1 - - - -
Acting without or not following instructions 1 1 4 4 13 14
Client not kept updated 0 1 5 6 2 11
Delay 1.75 5 3 4 7 7
Duress 1 1 1 1 2 0
Failure to advise client adequately 0 1 1 7 9 5
Failure to send client care letter/client care irregularities 1 0 4 6 0 6
Financial irregularities 1.75 1 4 7 2 4
Holding out as solicitor/reserved activity 13 8 3 6 4 0
Holding out as legal executive/ failure to inform of status 4 1 1 1 2 1
Improper use of membership 1 - - - - -
Improper/incorrect/inadequate advice or action taken 14 27 8 22 7 13
Inaccurate information given 0 9 - - - -
Inadequate service 1 1 12 4 2 5
Inadequate or no costs information given to client 2.5 2 7 6 0 5
Lost files or documents 0 0 0 4 4 1
Misleading client, parties, court or employer 14 5 8 7 4 11
Misleading or inappropriate advertising 6 - - - - -
Unauthorised disclosure 1 0 3 0 0 0
Unauthorised approaches to employer’s clients 1 1 3 0 0 0
Unprofessional manner 9 6 7 0 0 0
Private or personal disputes 0 0 0 0 0 4
Work or office related disputes 1 6 0 4 0 3
Employment related 7
Breaches of legislation or other codes 2.5 1 3 1 2 4
Forgery or theft 1 3 1 1 9 1
CILEx / IPS misconduct 13 19 22 4 29 4
Timescale 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
0 - 3 months 9 (17%) 7 (15%) 19 (46%) 4 (22%) 9 (35%) 7 (24%)
4 - 6 months 17 (48%) 24 (67%) 5 (58%) 7 (61%) 5 (54%) 8 (52%)
7 - 9 months 25 (94%) 13 (96%) 9 (80%) 3 (78%) 3 (65%) 10 (86%)
10 - 12 months 1 (96%) 1 (98%) 4 (90%) 2 (89%) 6 (89%) 0 (86%)
Over 12 months 2 (100%) 1 (100%) 4 (100%) 2 (100%) 3 (100%) 4 (100%)
Delegated decision 2012 2011 2010
Determination by consent 3 3 0
Complaints rejected 4 5 6
Referrals to Disciplinary Tribunal 2 1 0
Number of cases
32 33
Annex 2 Annex 2
2.1.4 Issues arising in complaints
An analysis of the issues arising has been undertaken and appears in the tables below. In the majority of issues there was more than one head of
complaint or more than one issue raised. Each of these has been counted individually. It should be noted that not all of the allegations were found
proved by the Panel.
As service complaints have not been accepted by IPS since 2010, it is not useful to draw comparisons between the types of complaints which have been
made before and since 2010, as the nature of complainants and complaints has changed. As expected by this change, the trend of heads of complaint
continues to move away from service-type issues to those which question integrity and competence. For the second year there has been an increase in
allegations relating to the carrying out of reserved legal activities.
2.1.5 Timescales
An analysis was undertaken of the time taken to consider complaints. The table below sets out the time taken to deal with allegations of misconduct,
measured from receipt of the allegation at IPS to determination of the case by the Panel or under the delegated decision procedure (see 2.2).
IPS key performance indicators set a target of 80% of cases being referred to the Panel within 6 months and 100% within nine months. The information
below indicates that the 80% target is not being met. However, there has been a marked improvement overall in the time taken to progress cases in
2011 and 2012, with well over 90% now being referred to the Panel within nine months. This may indicate the 6 month target requires review. IPS is
not meeting the 100% target for 9 months but exceptionally.
2.1.6 Equality and diversity
Of the 35 allegations considered by the Panel, 25 were made against males and 10 against females. From the information available, of those 35 members:
16 were of white ethnic origin, 7 of black ethnic origin, and 7 of Asian ethnic origin.
No analysis has been carried out as to how these figures correlate to the membership of CILEx generally.
2.2 Delegated decisions
In 2012, delegated decisions were made in 9 cases.
Determination by consents were entered into 3 cases, which all resulted in the member being excluded from membership of CILEx. 3 complaints were
rejected due to no misconduct or no evidence, and 1 was rejected as the individual complained of was not a member of CILEx. The conduct of 2 members
was referred directly to the Disciplinary Tribunal.
These powers have only been available since 2010. The table below presents a year on year comparison of numbers of delegated decisions made.
Heads of complaint 2012 % 2011 % 2010 % 2009 % 2008 % 2007 %
Acting in a conflict situation 0 0 1 1 2 1
Acting in area not competent 2.5 1 - - - -
Acting without or not following instructions 1 1 4 4 13 14
Client not kept updated 0 1 5 6 2 11
Delay 1.75 5 3 4 7 7
Duress 1 1 1 1 2 0
Failure to advise client adequately 0 1 1 7 9 5
Failure to send client care letter/client care irregularities 1 0 4 6 0 6
Financial irregularities 1.75 1 4 7 2 4
Holding out as solicitor/reserved activity 13 8 3 6 4 0
Holding out as legal executive/ failure to inform of status 4 1 1 1 2 1
Improper use of membership 1 - - - - -
Improper/incorrect/inadequate advice or action taken 14 27 8 22 7 13
Inaccurate information given 0 9 - - - -
Inadequate service 1 1 12 4 2 5
Inadequate or no costs information given to client 2.5 2 7 6 0 5
Lost files or documents 0 0 0 4 4 1
Misleading client, parties, court or employer 14 5 8 7 4 11
Misleading or inappropriate advertising 6 - - - - -
Unauthorised disclosure 1 0 3 0 0 0
Unauthorised approaches to employer’s clients 1 1 3 0 0 0
Unprofessional manner 9 6 7 0 0 0
Private or personal disputes 0 0 0 0 0 4
Work or office related disputes 1 6 0 4 0 3
Employment related 7
Breaches of legislation or other codes 2.5 1 3 1 2 4
Forgery or theft 1 3 1 1 9 1
CILEx / IPS misconduct 13 19 22 4 29 4
Timescale 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
0 - 3 months 9 (17%) 7 (15%) 19 (46%) 4 (22%) 9 (35%) 7 (24%)
4 - 6 months 17 (48%) 24 (67%) 5 (58%) 7 (61%) 5 (54%) 8 (52%)
7 - 9 months 25 (94%) 13 (96%) 9 (80%) 3 (78%) 3 (65%) 10 (86%)
10 - 12 months 1 (96%) 1 (98%) 4 (90%) 2 (89%) 6 (89%) 0 (86%)
Over 12 months 2 (100%) 1 (100%) 4 (100%) 2 (100%) 3 (100%) 4 (100%)
Delegated decision 2012 2011 2010
Determination by consent 3 3 0
Complaints rejected 4 5 6
Referrals to Disciplinary Tribunal 2 1 0
Number of cases
34 35
Annex 2 Annex 2
2.3 Interim suspension orders
No such orders were considered or imposed by the Panel in 2012.
2.4 Declarations of Prior Conduct
In 2012, IPS received a total of 218 declarations of prior conduct of which 175 were dealt with under the expedited process and 43 were considered by
the Panel.
2.4.1 Expedited cases
The table below breaks down the cases which were considered under the expedited process, whereby an Officer determines that no action needs to be
taken under delegated powers.
3 DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
The Disciplinary Tribunal is responsible for considering cases referred to it by the Professional Conduct Panel or the Appeals Panel.
The Tribunal sits as a panel of three, with a majority of lay members. One member will be a Fellow of CILEx. No Tribunal member may be a member of
CILEx Council or the IPS Board.
Where it finds one or more charges proved, the Panel may:
• take no further action;
• reprimand or warn the member;
• impose conditions on a member in respect of their conduct or employment;
• order the member to pay a fine;
• exclude the member from membership of CILEx for a fixed or indefinite period.
During 2012 the Tribunal heard charges brought against 13 members of CILEx. 4 cases involved CPD misconduct and 1 examination misconduct; 1 related
to a failure to declare prior conduct and 4 others concerned prior conduct and related matters; 2 arose as a result of complaints from third parties and 1
from a complaint by a client. In contrast to 2011, a majority of members responded to the proceedings although only 2 members exercised their right
to appear at the hearing.
5 further cases were due to be considered by the Tribunal in 2012. In 1 case IPS offered no evidence and the remaining cases were withdrawn by IPS.
The Tribunal found the charges proved in all cases, although in 2 cases one particular was found not proved. 11 members were excluded for periods
ranging from 1 year to indefinite. 2 members were reprimanded. In all cases where IPS applied for costs, members were ordered to pay those costs. No
orders for costs were made against IPS.
These outcomes are expressed in percentage terms in the chart below.
Of the declarations considered under the expedited procedure 125 involved declarations made by applicants for membership or reinstatement of
membership of CILEx, 9 by Fellows, 14 by Graduate Members, and 27 by those in other grades of membership.
2.4.2 Prior conduct cases considered by the Panel
The following table breaks down the prior conduct cases referred to the Panel.
*Prior to 2010, only discharged bankruptcy orders or completed arrangements with creditors could be dealt with under the expedited procedure
Nature of matter 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
County Court Judgments 11 2 8 14 26 22
Bankruptcy order or arrangement with creditors* 90 111 63 9 12 6
Convictions or cautions 73 50 51 33 23 29
Other 1 3 0 1 9 1
TOTAL 175 166 122 57 70 58
Nature of matter 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
County Court Judgments 2 0 0 0 0 0
Bankruptcy order or arrangement with creditors* 3 4 1 29 13 9
Convictions or cautions theft/dishonesty 13 13 16 18 23 16
Other convictions or cautions 4 5 2 4 1 6
Orders made by other professional bodies 4 5 2 4 1 6
Other 2 - - - - -
TOTAL 43 54 44 51 44 35
Number of cases
Number of cases
*Prior to 2010, only discharged bankruptcy orders or completed arrangements with creditors could be dealt with under the expedited procedure
! "#$%&'()*%+#,-&. //0(12-'3.4!&2! 78&.4-$-&., 9:-.( 9;&!<#2$=(2!3%$ 9>-$=4235.?. ! A;&$!12&@(. 9
)*%+#,-&.!
0(12-'3.4!&2!532.-.6!8&.4-B&.,!
:-.(!
;&!<#2$=(2!3%B&.!
>-$=4235.?.&!(@-4(.%(!;&$!12&@(.!
Exclusion
Reprimand or warning
Conditions
Fine
No further action
Withdrawn / no evidence
Not proven
! "#$%&'()*%+#,-&. //0(12-'3.4!&2! 78&.4-$-&., 9:-.( 9;&!<#2$=(2!3%$ 9>-$=4235.?. ! A;&$!12&@(. 9
)*%+#,-&.!
0(12-'3.4!&2!532.-.6!8&.4-B&.,!
:-.(!
;&!<#2$=(2!3%B&.!
>-$=4235.?.&!(@-4(.%(!;&$!12&@(.!
The Panel approved 28 declarations, rejected 3 applications for membership or reinstatement, reprimanded 1 member, required 1 member to give an
undertaking, and requested more information in 2 cases. 5 cases were deferred for more information or for the applicant/member to appear before the
Panel. 3 members were referred to the Disciplinary Tribunal.
Where a member of CILEx makes a declaration that they have been subject to an order made under Section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974, the Professional
Conduct Panel will consider not only the fact of the order being made, but also the underlying reasons for it. These cases are therefore considered not
only as prior conduct declarations, but also as allegations of misconduct. They may be dealt with under delegated decision procedures. Such cases are
therefore included in the figures at sections 2.1 and 2.2 above.
Of the declarations considered by the Panel 19 were made by applicants wishing to enrol or reinstate as members of CILEx, 4 by Fellows, 6 by Graduate
Members and 13 by other members of ILEX. The Panel also considered 1 request for a preliminary decision from an individual considering membership
of CILEx prior to the making of a formal application.
34 35
Annex 2 Annex 2
2.3 Interim suspension orders
No such orders were considered or imposed by the Panel in 2012.
2.4 Declarations of Prior Conduct
In 2012, IPS received a total of 218 declarations of prior conduct of which 175 were dealt with under the expedited process and 43 were considered by
the Panel.
2.4.1 Expedited cases
The table below breaks down the cases which were considered under the expedited process, whereby an Officer determines that no action needs to be
taken under delegated powers.
3 DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
The Disciplinary Tribunal is responsible for considering cases referred to it by the Professional Conduct Panel or the Appeals Panel.
The Tribunal sits as a panel of three, with a majority of lay members. One member will be a Fellow of CILEx. No Tribunal member may be a member of
CILEx Council or the IPS Board.
Where it finds one or more charges proved, the Panel may:
• take no further action;
• reprimand or warn the member;
• impose conditions on a member in respect of their conduct or employment;
• order the member to pay a fine;
• exclude the member from membership of CILEx for a fixed or indefinite period.
During 2012 the Tribunal heard charges brought against 13 members of CILEx. 4 cases involved CPD misconduct and 1 examination misconduct; 1 related
to a failure to declare prior conduct and 4 others concerned prior conduct and related matters; 2 arose as a result of complaints from third parties and 1
from a complaint by a client. In contrast to 2011, a majority of members responded to the proceedings although only 2 members exercised their right
to appear at the hearing.
5 further cases were due to be considered by the Tribunal in 2012. In 1 case IPS offered no evidence and the remaining cases were withdrawn by IPS.
The Tribunal found the charges proved in all cases, although in 2 cases one particular was found not proved. 11 members were excluded for periods
ranging from 1 year to indefinite. 2 members were reprimanded. In all cases where IPS applied for costs, members were ordered to pay those costs. No
orders for costs were made against IPS.
These outcomes are expressed in percentage terms in the chart below.
Of the declarations considered under the expedited procedure 125 involved declarations made by applicants for membership or reinstatement of
membership of CILEx, 9 by Fellows, 14 by Graduate Members, and 27 by those in other grades of membership.
2.4.2 Prior conduct cases considered by the Panel
The following table breaks down the prior conduct cases referred to the Panel.
*Prior to 2010, only discharged bankruptcy orders or completed arrangements with creditors could be dealt with under the expedited procedure
Nature of matter 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
County Court Judgments 11 2 8 14 26 22
Bankruptcy order or arrangement with creditors* 90 111 63 9 12 6
Convictions or cautions 73 50 51 33 23 29
Other 1 3 0 1 9 1
TOTAL 175 166 122 57 70 58
Nature of matter 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
County Court Judgments 2 0 0 0 0 0
Bankruptcy order or arrangement with creditors* 3 4 1 29 13 9
Convictions or cautions theft/dishonesty 13 13 16 18 23 16
Other convictions or cautions 4 5 2 4 1 6
Orders made by other professional bodies 4 5 2 4 1 6
Other 2 - - - - -
TOTAL 43 54 44 51 44 35
Number of cases
Number of cases
*Prior to 2010, only discharged bankruptcy orders or completed arrangements with creditors could be dealt with under the expedited procedure
! "#$%&'()*%+#,-&. //0(12-'3.4!&2! 78&.4-$-&., 9:-.( 9;&!<#2$=(2!3%$ 9>-$=4235.?. ! A;&$!12&@(. 9
)*%+#,-&.!
0(12-'3.4!&2!532.-.6!8&.4-B&.,!
:-.(!
;&!<#2$=(2!3%B&.!
>-$=4235.?.&!(@-4(.%(!;&$!12&@(.!
Exclusion
Reprimand or warning
Conditions
Fine
No further action
Withdrawn / no evidence
Not proven
! "#$%&'()*%+#,-&. //0(12-'3.4!&2! 78&.4-$-&., 9:-.( 9;&!<#2$=(2!3%$ 9>-$=4235.?. ! A;&$!12&@(. 9
)*%+#,-&.!
0(12-'3.4!&2!532.-.6!8&.4-B&.,!
:-.(!
;&!<#2$=(2!3%B&.!
>-$=4235.?.&!(@-4(.%(!;&$!12&@(.!
The Panel approved 28 declarations, rejected 3 applications for membership or reinstatement, reprimanded 1 member, required 1 member to give an
undertaking, and requested more information in 2 cases. 5 cases were deferred for more information or for the applicant/member to appear before the
Panel. 3 members were referred to the Disciplinary Tribunal.
Where a member of CILEx makes a declaration that they have been subject to an order made under Section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974, the Professional
Conduct Panel will consider not only the fact of the order being made, but also the underlying reasons for it. These cases are therefore considered not
only as prior conduct declarations, but also as allegations of misconduct. They may be dealt with under delegated decision procedures. Such cases are
therefore included in the figures at sections 2.1 and 2.2 above.
Of the declarations considered by the Panel 19 were made by applicants wishing to enrol or reinstate as members of CILEx, 4 by Fellows, 6 by Graduate
Members and 13 by other members of ILEX. The Panel also considered 1 request for a preliminary decision from an individual considering membership
of CILEx prior to the making of a formal application.
36 37
Annex 2 Annex 2
The following graph demonstrates the number of cases heard by the Tribunal each year since 2007.
10
12
14
8
6
4
2
02007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
3.1.1 Timescales
An analysis was undertaken of the time taken to consider cases referred to the Tribunal. The table below sets out the time taken to deal with allegations
of misconduct, measured from the date of referral to the Tribunal by the Professional Conduct Panel, to determination of the case.
IPS key performance indicators set a target of 65% of cases being disposed of within 6 months, and 100% in 9 months. The information below shows
that IPS is regularly failing to meet these targets, which may indicate that they require review.
3.1.2 Equality and diversity
Of the 18 members whose conduct was referred to the Tribunal, 10 were female of which 2 were of white ethnic origin, 2 of Asian ethnic origin
and 1 of black ethnic origin. Of the 8 males, the information available indicates that 7 were of white ethic origin and 1 was of black ethnic origin.
Of the cases heard and found proven, 8 were brought against females (1 of Asian ethnic original, 1 of black ethnic origin and 3 of white ethnic origin,
the remainder unknown) and 5 against males, of whom 1 was of black ethnic origin and the remainder were of white ethnic origin.
No analysis has been carried out as to how these figures correlate to the membership of CILEx generally, as no meaningful data is currently available.
Timescale 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
0 - 3 months 6 (27%) 0 0 0 2 (25%) 1 (25%)
4 - 6 months 4 (45%) 5 (46%) 8 (89%) 4 (40%) 1 (37.5%) 3 (100%)
7 - 9 months 2 (58%) 1 (56%) 1 (100%) 6 (100%) 1 (50%) 0
10 - 12 months 10 (100%) 5 (100%) 0 0 1 (62.5%) 0
Over 12 months 0 0 0 0 3 (100%) 0
Number of cases
4 APPEALS PANEL
The Appeals Panel is responsible for considering appeals made against decisions of the Professional Conduct Panel and Disciplinary Tribunal. Its remit also
includes considering appeals against decisions made under the delegated decision procedure.
The Panel sits as a panel of three, with a majority of lay members. One member will be a Fellow of CILEx. No Panel member may be a member of CILEx
Council or the IPS Board. Panel members must not have sat on the panel which previously considered the matter.
Appeals must be made to the Panel under the grounds, and in accordance with the procedure, set out in the IDAR. The Panel has the power to affirm
or vary the findings of the original panel. In determining what action to take, the Panel has available to it all the powers available to the original panel.
The Appeals Panel considered five appeals in 2012. 3 of these were made by applicants who had been refused membership of CILEx; 1 appeal was
successful. 1 appeal was made against an order of the Professional Conduct Panel and was successful. The final appeal was against an order of the
Disciplinary Tribunal and was dismissed.
36 37
Annex 2 Annex 2
The following graph demonstrates the number of cases heard by the Tribunal each year since 2007.
10
12
14
8
6
4
2
02007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
3.1.1 Timescales
An analysis was undertaken of the time taken to consider cases referred to the Tribunal. The table below sets out the time taken to deal with allegations
of misconduct, measured from the date of referral to the Tribunal by the Professional Conduct Panel, to determination of the case.
IPS key performance indicators set a target of 65% of cases being disposed of within 6 months, and 100% in 9 months. The information below shows
that IPS is regularly failing to meet these targets, which may indicate that they require review.
3.1.2 Equality and diversity
Of the 18 members whose conduct was referred to the Tribunal, 10 were female of which 2 were of white ethnic origin, 2 of Asian ethnic origin
and 1 of black ethnic origin. Of the 8 males, the information available indicates that 7 were of white ethic origin and 1 was of black ethnic origin.
Of the cases heard and found proven, 8 were brought against females (1 of Asian ethnic original, 1 of black ethnic origin and 3 of white ethnic origin,
the remainder unknown) and 5 against males, of whom 1 was of black ethnic origin and the remainder were of white ethnic origin.
No analysis has been carried out as to how these figures correlate to the membership of CILEx generally, as no meaningful data is currently available.
Timescale 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
0 - 3 months 6 (27%) 0 0 0 2 (25%) 1 (25%)
4 - 6 months 4 (45%) 5 (46%) 8 (89%) 4 (40%) 1 (37.5%) 3 (100%)
7 - 9 months 2 (58%) 1 (56%) 1 (100%) 6 (100%) 1 (50%) 0
10 - 12 months 10 (100%) 5 (100%) 0 0 1 (62.5%) 0
Over 12 months 0 0 0 0 3 (100%) 0
Number of cases
4 APPEALS PANEL
The Appeals Panel is responsible for considering appeals made against decisions of the Professional Conduct Panel and Disciplinary Tribunal. Its remit also
includes considering appeals against decisions made under the delegated decision procedure.
The Panel sits as a panel of three, with a majority of lay members. One member will be a Fellow of CILEx. No Panel member may be a member of CILEx
Council or the IPS Board. Panel members must not have sat on the panel which previously considered the matter.
Appeals must be made to the Panel under the grounds, and in accordance with the procedure, set out in the IDAR. The Panel has the power to affirm
or vary the findings of the original panel. In determining what action to take, the Panel has available to it all the powers available to the original panel.
The Appeals Panel considered five appeals in 2012. 3 of these were made by applicants who had been refused membership of CILEx; 1 appeal was
successful. 1 appeal was made against an order of the Professional Conduct Panel and was successful. The final appeal was against an order of the
Disciplinary Tribunal and was dismissed.
38 39
consumer engagement strategy
Introduction
1. ILEX Professional Standards is committed to instilling confidence and upholding standards in the regulation of legal executive services. We will do this
by maintaining and developing risk based regulation to promote and secure proper standards of conduct and behaviour among those we regulate to
ensure that customers receive good service and the rule of law is upheld.
2. Our regulatory activities are driven by our commitment to putting the public interest at the heart of our thinking. We will engage appropriately with
consumers so as to ensure that they receive quality legal services through proportionate risk based regulation.
3. Our Consumer Engagement Strategy sets out the principles and objectives that we will follow in this work. The Strategy will be complemented by an
Action Plan that will be reviewed annually so as to take account of any changes to our operational remit or the regulatory framework.
Principles of Engagement
4. The Legal Services Act sets out the following objectives:
· Protecting and promoting the public interest
· Improving access to justice
· Protecting and promoting the interests of consumers; and
· Increasing public understanding of the citizens legal rights and duties
These objectives inform our engagement strategy.
5. In order to be able to regulate effectively we must understand the needs and requirements of consumers of legal services. We will proactively seek out
this information to identify their concerns, needs for information and their views on our regulation so that we can respond and regulate accordingly.
6. We will work with the Legal Services Board (LSB) and Legal Services Consumer Panel to make sure that we continue to put the consumer and public
interest at the heart of regulation, taking account of their research and work streams so that we can avoid duplication but complement their work
where desirable and practicable. We will work with the LSB and other regulators to share best practice and raise consumer confidence and satisfaction
in the provision of legal services.
7. Our consumer engagement work will make use of existing channels of communication wherever practicable and aim to encourage a dialogue with
consumers and other stakeholders, providing feedback as appropriate. Our consumer engagement programme will seek to achieve the following
objectives:
Objectives
1. To engage proactively with consumers of legal services and other stakeholders and use the information gained to inform evidence based policy
development.
2. To provide information to help consumers make decisions about legal services, understand the standards they can expect and how to complain if
necessary.
3. To consult consumers and other stakeholders about our regulation of legal services and take account of their views in the development our organisation.
Annex 3 Annex 4
Number of surveys sent:
2012 2011
20 12
Number of responses received at year end:
2012 2011
12 (60%) 6 (46%)
Of the responses received in 2012, in 5 cases there had been a finding against the member. 2 further members stated that they did not wish to complete
the form.
SECTION 1: COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
1. Was a complaints handling procedure leaflet sent to you?
2012 2011
YES 11 (92%) 5 (83%)
NO 1 (8%) 1 (17%)
If a complaints handling procedure leaflet was sent to you, how easy was this to understand?
2012 2011
Very difficult 0 0
Fairly difficult 1 (9%) 0
Acceptable 3 (27%) 1 (20%)
Fairly easy 4 (37%) 2 (40%)
Very easy 3 (27%) 2 (40%)
2. Did the leaflet provide a satisfactory summary of the process that would be followed?
2012 2011
YES 10 (91%) 5 (100%)
NO 1 (9%) 0
If no, what was missing?
1. No information was given about how to enter a determination by consent – only that it was available and, further, no guidance was given regarding
ultimate penalties. I was asked to choose and propose my own penalty without any guidance. Unfair.
IPS comments/learning points:
1. Since this case was concluded, IPS produced a Fitness to Practise Procedures Manual intended to provide more assistance to members on procedural
aspects including determination by consent. The manual includes sanction guidance. Members can now be referred to the Manual.
3. Did the leaflet cover the issues you expected it to cover?
2012 2011
YES 8 (73%) 5 (100%)
NO 3 (27%) 0
ips complaints & disciplinary
function customer satisfaction surveys
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES FROM CILEx MEMBERS 2012
38 39
consumer engagement strategy
Introduction
1. ILEX Professional Standards is committed to instilling confidence and upholding standards in the regulation of legal executive services. We will do this
by maintaining and developing risk based regulation to promote and secure proper standards of conduct and behaviour among those we regulate to
ensure that customers receive good service and the rule of law is upheld.
2. Our regulatory activities are driven by our commitment to putting the public interest at the heart of our thinking. We will engage appropriately with
consumers so as to ensure that they receive quality legal services through proportionate risk based regulation.
3. Our Consumer Engagement Strategy sets out the principles and objectives that we will follow in this work. The Strategy will be complemented by an
Action Plan that will be reviewed annually so as to take account of any changes to our operational remit or the regulatory framework.
Principles of Engagement
4. The Legal Services Act sets out the following objectives:
· Protecting and promoting the public interest
· Improving access to justice
· Protecting and promoting the interests of consumers; and
· Increasing public understanding of the citizens legal rights and duties
These objectives inform our engagement strategy.
5. In order to be able to regulate effectively we must understand the needs and requirements of consumers of legal services. We will proactively seek out
this information to identify their concerns, needs for information and their views on our regulation so that we can respond and regulate accordingly.
6. We will work with the Legal Services Board (LSB) and Legal Services Consumer Panel to make sure that we continue to put the consumer and public
interest at the heart of regulation, taking account of their research and work streams so that we can avoid duplication but complement their work
where desirable and practicable. We will work with the LSB and other regulators to share best practice and raise consumer confidence and satisfaction
in the provision of legal services.
7. Our consumer engagement work will make use of existing channels of communication wherever practicable and aim to encourage a dialogue with
consumers and other stakeholders, providing feedback as appropriate. Our consumer engagement programme will seek to achieve the following
objectives:
Objectives
1. To engage proactively with consumers of legal services and other stakeholders and use the information gained to inform evidence based policy
development.
2. To provide information to help consumers make decisions about legal services, understand the standards they can expect and how to complain if
necessary.
3. To consult consumers and other stakeholders about our regulation of legal services and take account of their views in the development our organisation.
Annex 3 Annex 4
Number of surveys sent:
2012 2011
20 12
Number of responses received at year end:
2012 2011
12 (60%) 6 (46%)
Of the responses received in 2012, in 5 cases there had been a finding against the member. 2 further members stated that they did not wish to complete
the form.
SECTION 1: COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
1. Was a complaints handling procedure leaflet sent to you?
2012 2011
YES 11 (92%) 5 (83%)
NO 1 (8%) 1 (17%)
If a complaints handling procedure leaflet was sent to you, how easy was this to understand?
2012 2011
Very difficult 0 0
Fairly difficult 1 (9%) 0
Acceptable 3 (27%) 1 (20%)
Fairly easy 4 (37%) 2 (40%)
Very easy 3 (27%) 2 (40%)
2. Did the leaflet provide a satisfactory summary of the process that would be followed?
2012 2011
YES 10 (91%) 5 (100%)
NO 1 (9%) 0
If no, what was missing?
1. No information was given about how to enter a determination by consent – only that it was available and, further, no guidance was given regarding
ultimate penalties. I was asked to choose and propose my own penalty without any guidance. Unfair.
IPS comments/learning points:
1. Since this case was concluded, IPS produced a Fitness to Practise Procedures Manual intended to provide more assistance to members on procedural
aspects including determination by consent. The manual includes sanction guidance. Members can now be referred to the Manual.
3. Did the leaflet cover the issues you expected it to cover?
2012 2011
YES 8 (73%) 5 (100%)
NO 3 (27%) 0
ips complaints & disciplinary
function customer satisfaction surveys
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES FROM CILEx MEMBERS 2012
40 41
If no, what was missing?
1. I expected to be directed to more support as a member.
2. How to deal with the SRA.
3. How to achieve a determination by consent, what happens in the event of a full admission, guidance and assistance re penalties.
IPS comments/learning points:
1. The Manual provides assistance on procedural aspect. IPS has providing training to CILEx staff regarding disciplinary procedures. The responsibility
rests with CILEx to provide support to members.
2. This is not advice that can be given by IPS. This again is an issue for CILEx as the representative body to consider what support it gives members who
are subject to regulatory proceedings.
3. IPS has since addressed this matter through its Manual.
4. Did you feel that we made you aware that a complaint had been made against you at the appropriate time?
2012 2011
YES 7 (78%) 4 (67%)
NO 2 (22%) 2 (33%)
If no, when should we have informed you?
1. I felt that the complainant was considered far more than I was.
2. Complaint arrived weekend before sat ILEX exams re GDL. Perhaps checking first would have avoided this.
3. No complaint was made, a newspaper article was forwarded to you.
4. N/A I notified you of the breach of conduct.
5. N/A I informed you of my wrongdoing.
IPS comments/learning points
2. Case officers are conscious of examination periods for the CILEx exams and are alert to whether members are in the process of taking them, but in this
instance this information was not known to the officer as the member was undertaking an examination that was not a CILEx examination until raised
by the member, who was then allowed more time to respond to the complaint.
3-5. Increasingly investigations are carried out as a result of information received rather than a complaint being made. IPS will consider producing a
separate feedback form for investigations carried out under Rule 22 of IDAR so that they focus on appropriate questions.
5. Did we provide you with sufficient information about the procedure we would use to investigate the complaint made against you?
2012 2011
YES 10 (83%) 6 (100%)
NO 2 (17%) 0
If no, please indicate what could have been made clearer?
1. There was no investigation, merely reliance on a regulatory settlement agreement.
2. I continually asked about determination by consent from the very start in view of my full admission and was not told the panel could not deal with it,
hence further delays and I only found out months after the report.
IPS comments/learning points
1. Increasingly investigations are carried out as a result of information received rather than a complaint being made. IPS will consider producing a separate
feedback form for investigations carried out under Rule 22 of IDAR.
2. The case concerned was reviewed and disclosed that the comment is factually incorrect, but this matter has now been addressed by the Manual.
6. Did we provide you with sufficient information about our disciplinary powers as a professional body?
2012 2011
YES 11 (92%) 6 (100%)
NO 1 (8%) 0
Annex 4 Annex 4
Comments:
1. The whole process seemed to be unnecessarily delayed in view of my earlier
admission. It could have bypassed the Panel if they had no power to resolve it by consent.
IPS comments/learning points
1. This is now addressed by the Manual.
SECTION 2: COMMUNICATION
7. Which method(s) of communication were used during the investigation of the case?
2012 2011
Email 10 1
Letter 11 6
Telephone 6 1
Were you happy with the method(s) of communication used?
2012 2011
YES 10 (82%) 3 (50%)
NO 1 (9%) 0
No response 1 (9%) 3 (50%)
8. Did we keep you adequately informed about the progress of the complaint made against you?
2012 2011
YES 10 (82%) 6 (100%)
NO 1 (9%) 0
N/A 1 (9%) 0
Comments:
1. I was informed, given options and at times advice.
2. There was no complaint, you acted unilaterally.
3. Several times information was sent to my old address meaning I did not receive it for several weeks.
IPS comments/learning points
3. IPS accepts correspondence was sent to the wrong address by mistake.
9. We aim to respond to initial complaints within seven working days. How satisfied were you with the time we took to respond to your
letters/emails during the investigation of the case?
2012 2011
Very dissatisfied 0 0
Fairly dissatisfied 0 0
Acceptable 2 (16%) 2 (33%)
Fairly satisfied 5 (42%) 0
Very satisfied 5 (42%) 4 (67%)
10. Were our letters easy to understand?
2012 2011
YES 12 (100%) 6 (100%)
NO 0 0
40 41
If no, what was missing?
1. I expected to be directed to more support as a member.
2. How to deal with the SRA.
3. How to achieve a determination by consent, what happens in the event of a full admission, guidance and assistance re penalties.
IPS comments/learning points:
1. The Manual provides assistance on procedural aspect. IPS has providing training to CILEx staff regarding disciplinary procedures. The responsibility
rests with CILEx to provide support to members.
2. This is not advice that can be given by IPS. This again is an issue for CILEx as the representative body to consider what support it gives members who
are subject to regulatory proceedings.
3. IPS has since addressed this matter through its Manual.
4. Did you feel that we made you aware that a complaint had been made against you at the appropriate time?
2012 2011
YES 7 (78%) 4 (67%)
NO 2 (22%) 2 (33%)
If no, when should we have informed you?
1. I felt that the complainant was considered far more than I was.
2. Complaint arrived weekend before sat ILEX exams re GDL. Perhaps checking first would have avoided this.
3. No complaint was made, a newspaper article was forwarded to you.
4. N/A I notified you of the breach of conduct.
5. N/A I informed you of my wrongdoing.
IPS comments/learning points
2. Case officers are conscious of examination periods for the CILEx exams and are alert to whether members are in the process of taking them, but in this
instance this information was not known to the officer as the member was undertaking an examination that was not a CILEx examination until raised
by the member, who was then allowed more time to respond to the complaint.
3-5. Increasingly investigations are carried out as a result of information received rather than a complaint being made. IPS will consider producing a
separate feedback form for investigations carried out under Rule 22 of IDAR so that they focus on appropriate questions.
5. Did we provide you with sufficient information about the procedure we would use to investigate the complaint made against you?
2012 2011
YES 10 (83%) 6 (100%)
NO 2 (17%) 0
If no, please indicate what could have been made clearer?
1. There was no investigation, merely reliance on a regulatory settlement agreement.
2. I continually asked about determination by consent from the very start in view of my full admission and was not told the panel could not deal with it,
hence further delays and I only found out months after the report.
IPS comments/learning points
1. Increasingly investigations are carried out as a result of information received rather than a complaint being made. IPS will consider producing a separate
feedback form for investigations carried out under Rule 22 of IDAR.
2. The case concerned was reviewed and disclosed that the comment is factually incorrect, but this matter has now been addressed by the Manual.
6. Did we provide you with sufficient information about our disciplinary powers as a professional body?
2012 2011
YES 11 (92%) 6 (100%)
NO 1 (8%) 0
Annex 4 Annex 4
Comments:
1. The whole process seemed to be unnecessarily delayed in view of my earlier
admission. It could have bypassed the Panel if they had no power to resolve it by consent.
IPS comments/learning points
1. This is now addressed by the Manual.
SECTION 2: COMMUNICATION
7. Which method(s) of communication were used during the investigation of the case?
2012 2011
Email 10 1
Letter 11 6
Telephone 6 1
Were you happy with the method(s) of communication used?
2012 2011
YES 10 (82%) 3 (50%)
NO 1 (9%) 0
No response 1 (9%) 3 (50%)
8. Did we keep you adequately informed about the progress of the complaint made against you?
2012 2011
YES 10 (82%) 6 (100%)
NO 1 (9%) 0
N/A 1 (9%) 0
Comments:
1. I was informed, given options and at times advice.
2. There was no complaint, you acted unilaterally.
3. Several times information was sent to my old address meaning I did not receive it for several weeks.
IPS comments/learning points
3. IPS accepts correspondence was sent to the wrong address by mistake.
9. We aim to respond to initial complaints within seven working days. How satisfied were you with the time we took to respond to your
letters/emails during the investigation of the case?
2012 2011
Very dissatisfied 0 0
Fairly dissatisfied 0 0
Acceptable 2 (16%) 2 (33%)
Fairly satisfied 5 (42%) 0
Very satisfied 5 (42%) 4 (67%)
10. Were our letters easy to understand?
2012 2011
YES 12 (100%) 6 (100%)
NO 0 0
42 43
Comments:
1. They were always comprehensive.
2. But again I repeat letters referred to determination by consent without explaining how it could be achieved. It took a call from me asking if I was
expected to forego membership to achieve this.
IPS comments/learning points:
2. Whilst the comment made by the member is factually incorrect, this is now addressed by the Manual.
11. If you left telephone messages did we call you back promptly?
2012 2011
YES 6 (100%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
12. Our targets for referring complaints to the Professional Conduct Panel are 80% within six months and 100% within nine months. Our
targets for the final hearing in cases referred to the Disciplinary Tribunal are 65% completed within six months and 100% within nine
months of referral. How satisfied are you with these timescales?
2012 2011
Very dissatisfied 1 (8%) 0
Fairly dissatisfied 2 (17%) 0
Acceptable 3 (25%) 1 (17%)
Fairly satisfied 3 (25%) 2 (33%)
Very satisfied 1 (8%) 3 (50%)
No response 2 (17%) 0
13. How satisfied were you with the overall time we took to deal with your case?
2012 2011
Very dissatisfied 1 (8%) 0
Fairly dissatisfied 1 (8%) 0
Acceptable 6 (50%) 1 (17%)
Fairly satisfied 2 (17%) 2 (33%)
Very satisfied 2 (17%) 3 (50%)
14. Did you feel that we fully understood your response to the complaint?
Comments:
1. Not at all, the understanding of the response in parts was non-existent.
2. Not at all. The condition [sanction imposed] proves that the allegations and my defence were not understood. If I had deliberately [redacted] I would
quite rightly received more punishment therefore what was the pointing of requiring me not to [redacted] again when it was accepted it was an
accident.
3. My inability to respond due to SRA gagging was not taken into account.
4. I made a full admission from the start (from within 2 weeks of the initial report) and indicated that I wanted to resolve matters by consent. The panel
process was a waste of time as they had no jurisdiction. I was pleading for info about determination and it fell on deaf ears.
5. I was encouraged to give a full explanation.
IPS comments/learning points:
4. The sanction suggested by the member for a consent agreement at an early
stage was not acceptable to IPS and therefore the matter had to be referred to the Panel.
The member was informed.
15. Did our report provide a satisfactory summary of your response to the complaint?
Comments:
1. It was excellent.
2. In parts but not as a whole.
3. But did not deal with my inability to respond as I would have wished.
4. I felt that it was even-handed which was all I could ask.
SECTION 3: OUTCOME
16. Did we let you know about the decision in your case promptly (we normally have 5 working days to inform you of the decision)?
2012 2011
YES 11 (92%) 6 (100%)
NO 1 (8%) 0
Comments:
1. I wrote on 28 February proposing exclusion for three years and this was not confirmed until 11 April 2012.
IPS response/learning points:
1. The process for agreeing determinations once a sanction is proposed by the member takes time. This was made clear to the member and they were
kept undated. The final decision was when the determination was issued, which was notified promptly.
17. Did we make you aware that our investigation had come to an end?
2012 2011
YES 12 (100%) 6 (100%)
NO 0 0
18. Were you made aware if you could appeal and the time limits for making an appeal?
2012 2011
YES 10 (84%) 5 (100%)
NO 0 0
N/A 2 (16%) 0
19. Was an appeal form sent to you, if you had indicated that you wished to appeal?
2012 2011
YES 2 (16%) 3 (75%)
NO 0 1 (25%)
N/A 10 (84%)
Annex 4 Annex 4
42 43
Comments:
1. They were always comprehensive.
2. But again I repeat letters referred to determination by consent without explaining how it could be achieved. It took a call from me asking if I was
expected to forego membership to achieve this.
IPS comments/learning points:
2. Whilst the comment made by the member is factually incorrect, this is now addressed by the Manual.
11. If you left telephone messages did we call you back promptly?
2012 2011
YES 6 (100%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
12. Our targets for referring complaints to the Professional Conduct Panel are 80% within six months and 100% within nine months. Our
targets for the final hearing in cases referred to the Disciplinary Tribunal are 65% completed within six months and 100% within nine
months of referral. How satisfied are you with these timescales?
2012 2011
Very dissatisfied 1 (8%) 0
Fairly dissatisfied 2 (17%) 0
Acceptable 3 (25%) 1 (17%)
Fairly satisfied 3 (25%) 2 (33%)
Very satisfied 1 (8%) 3 (50%)
No response 2 (17%) 0
13. How satisfied were you with the overall time we took to deal with your case?
2012 2011
Very dissatisfied 1 (8%) 0
Fairly dissatisfied 1 (8%) 0
Acceptable 6 (50%) 1 (17%)
Fairly satisfied 2 (17%) 2 (33%)
Very satisfied 2 (17%) 3 (50%)
14. Did you feel that we fully understood your response to the complaint?
Comments:
1. Not at all, the understanding of the response in parts was non-existent.
2. Not at all. The condition [sanction imposed] proves that the allegations and my defence were not understood. If I had deliberately [redacted] I would
quite rightly received more punishment therefore what was the pointing of requiring me not to [redacted] again when it was accepted it was an
accident.
3. My inability to respond due to SRA gagging was not taken into account.
4. I made a full admission from the start (from within 2 weeks of the initial report) and indicated that I wanted to resolve matters by consent. The panel
process was a waste of time as they had no jurisdiction. I was pleading for info about determination and it fell on deaf ears.
5. I was encouraged to give a full explanation.
IPS comments/learning points:
4. The sanction suggested by the member for a consent agreement at an early
stage was not acceptable to IPS and therefore the matter had to be referred to the Panel.
The member was informed.
15. Did our report provide a satisfactory summary of your response to the complaint?
Comments:
1. It was excellent.
2. In parts but not as a whole.
3. But did not deal with my inability to respond as I would have wished.
4. I felt that it was even-handed which was all I could ask.
SECTION 3: OUTCOME
16. Did we let you know about the decision in your case promptly (we normally have 5 working days to inform you of the decision)?
2012 2011
YES 11 (92%) 6 (100%)
NO 1 (8%) 0
Comments:
1. I wrote on 28 February proposing exclusion for three years and this was not confirmed until 11 April 2012.
IPS response/learning points:
1. The process for agreeing determinations once a sanction is proposed by the member takes time. This was made clear to the member and they were
kept undated. The final decision was when the determination was issued, which was notified promptly.
17. Did we make you aware that our investigation had come to an end?
2012 2011
YES 12 (100%) 6 (100%)
NO 0 0
18. Were you made aware if you could appeal and the time limits for making an appeal?
2012 2011
YES 10 (84%) 5 (100%)
NO 0 0
N/A 2 (16%) 0
19. Was an appeal form sent to you, if you had indicated that you wished to appeal?
2012 2011
YES 2 (16%) 3 (75%)
NO 0 1 (25%)
N/A 10 (84%)
Annex 4 Annex 4
44 45
20. Do you consider that the process was:
2012 2011
Proportionate YES 5 (42%) 6 (100%)
NO 7 (58%) 0
Consistent YES 12 (100%) 6 (100%)
NO 0 0
Transparent YES 2 (100%) 6 (100%)
NO 0 0
Fair YES 8 (68%) 6 (100%)
NO 2 (16%) 0
No response
2 (16%) 0
Impartial YES 10 (84%) 6 (100%)
NO 2 (16%) 0
Timely YES 10 (84%) 6 (100%)
NO 2 (16%) 0
Comments:
1. It was totally against member. I felt unfairly treated as a whole. It was impartial as a whole.
2. No real grounds for complaint so should not have been entertained. 4 months is too long for a spurious complaint.
3. I have not expected the use of lay members but considered this to be appropriate.
4. Desk top exercise should have been enough to show I made a mistake due to stress accepted by my employer, regional employer and police. Consistent
but not in a good way. Process did not allow me to give confidential information in my defence without it being shared publically [with complainant].
5. No process in place to deal with this kind of matter [regulatory settlement agreement with SRA].
6. No assistance in dealing with SRA was given.
7. Time-wasting and uneconomic as a result bearing in mind my full admission. Consistently slow and ambiguous. I cannot comment [on fairness] as I
was asked to propose my own penalty without any guidance and that is hardly a fair and just procedure.
IPS general comments/learning points on questions 20 to 23 are summarised at end of this section. Some issues have been
commented on elsewhere in this report.
21. Overall, how satisfied were you with how we handled your complaint?
2012 2011
Very dissatisfied 1 (8%) 0
Fairly dissatisfied 2 (17%) 0
Acceptable 2 (17%) 1 (17%)
Fairly satisfied 4 (33%) 1 (17%)
Very satisfied 3 (25%) 4 (66%)
Comments:
1. I was left feeling isolated and after in excess of 35 years with no other complaints felt like resigning from my profession.
2. There were no real grounds for this complaint. It was spurious and vexatious and should not have been allowed to go on.
3. My initial call was not easy to make [self-reporting] but I was shown courtesy and respect throughout the process.
4. Apart from the SRA aspect.
IPS general comments/learning points on questions 20 to 23 are summarised at
end of this section. Some issues have been commented on elsewhere in this report.
22. If you could suggest one improvement to the way we handle
complaints what would that be?
1. Nothing springs to mind.
2. Frivolous self-serving complaints should be singled out immediately and fast tracked or
dismissed.
3. I accept a complaint has to be investigated however the member should be provided with more support.
4. Investigator understanding the practice and law of the area in question.
5. Not leave four months before allowing the panel or anyone senior to decide if complaint has any merit.
6. I was informed of the final decision by email which was fine, however I am unclear about the start date of my suspension from membership.
7. Consideration could perhaps be given to consulting/liaising with ILEX as to any exams that the member may have been involved or about to sit, thus
reducing chances of badly timed allegation being received on eve of exams as occurred with myself. Other than that no issues.
8. Follow a procedure which allows confidential information to be shared with hearing but not published.
9. To have ability to look at regulatory settlement matters independently without the SRA agreement not to deny being imposed in ILEX hearings.
10. Complaints procedure booklet needs to provide an explanation about securing a determination by consent and where admission made early procedure
should bypass panel stage to save costs and time and unnecessary stress/booklet to provide guidance on what penalty to propose in such circumstances
to it is not unfairly weighted against the member
IPS general comments/learning points on questions 20 to 23 summarised at end of this section. Some issues have been commented on elsewhere in this
report.
IPS specific comments:
4. This comment indicates that the member did not understand that the jurisdiction of IPS is the Code of Conduct and not what is, or is not, standard
practice.
9. This member had entered into a regulatory settlement agreement with the SRA under which they accepted misconduct and agreed not to deny it.
The fact of the RSA having been made was in itself misconduct.
23. Are there any further comments which you wish to make?
1. I found the staff at IPS very helpful and professional.
2. The complainant was overbearing within the proceedings and it seemed he was able to do the same throughout the complaint. The whole situation
put terrible pressure upon me as a member to such an extent it frequently left me in tears and upset at the whole injustice of matters. Thank goodness
I appealed and had an extremely experienced panel who dealt with the matter giving me justice and closure.
3. The case officer was extremely efficient and I have no complaint against her. This complaint was completely without merit or grounds and should not
have been entertained. Instead I had four months of unnecessary worry and stress.
4. The whole procedure left me totally disillusioned with ILEX. I have gone from being an advocate to following the ILEX route to the legal world to a
total critic who urges people to do anything but ILEX (four of my students have changed already as a result). I want as little as possible to do with
ILEX now and am still pondering my resignation.
IPS general comments/learning points on questions 20 to 23 summarised at end of this section. Some issues have been commented on elsewhere in this
report.
IPS general comments/learning points on questions 20 to 23:
The Fitness to Practise Procedures Manual was introduced in August 2012. Going forward, if members make use of this tool as they are invited to do at
outset by IPS, they should develop a greater understanding of complaints procedures and outcomes. It has been recognised through the development
work on the Manual and new IDAR that delegated decision making procedures (rejections and consent agreements) are slow. IPS has been reviewing the
process as part of its review of IDAR.
Annex 4 Annex 4
44 45
20. Do you consider that the process was:
2012 2011
Proportionate YES 5 (42%) 6 (100%)
NO 7 (58%) 0
Consistent YES 12 (100%) 6 (100%)
NO 0 0
Transparent YES 2 (100%) 6 (100%)
NO 0 0
Fair YES 8 (68%) 6 (100%)
NO 2 (16%) 0
No response
2 (16%) 0
Impartial YES 10 (84%) 6 (100%)
NO 2 (16%) 0
Timely YES 10 (84%) 6 (100%)
NO 2 (16%) 0
Comments:
1. It was totally against member. I felt unfairly treated as a whole. It was impartial as a whole.
2. No real grounds for complaint so should not have been entertained. 4 months is too long for a spurious complaint.
3. I have not expected the use of lay members but considered this to be appropriate.
4. Desk top exercise should have been enough to show I made a mistake due to stress accepted by my employer, regional employer and police. Consistent
but not in a good way. Process did not allow me to give confidential information in my defence without it being shared publically [with complainant].
5. No process in place to deal with this kind of matter [regulatory settlement agreement with SRA].
6. No assistance in dealing with SRA was given.
7. Time-wasting and uneconomic as a result bearing in mind my full admission. Consistently slow and ambiguous. I cannot comment [on fairness] as I
was asked to propose my own penalty without any guidance and that is hardly a fair and just procedure.
IPS general comments/learning points on questions 20 to 23 are summarised at end of this section. Some issues have been
commented on elsewhere in this report.
21. Overall, how satisfied were you with how we handled your complaint?
2012 2011
Very dissatisfied 1 (8%) 0
Fairly dissatisfied 2 (17%) 0
Acceptable 2 (17%) 1 (17%)
Fairly satisfied 4 (33%) 1 (17%)
Very satisfied 3 (25%) 4 (66%)
Comments:
1. I was left feeling isolated and after in excess of 35 years with no other complaints felt like resigning from my profession.
2. There were no real grounds for this complaint. It was spurious and vexatious and should not have been allowed to go on.
3. My initial call was not easy to make [self-reporting] but I was shown courtesy and respect throughout the process.
4. Apart from the SRA aspect.
IPS general comments/learning points on questions 20 to 23 are summarised at
end of this section. Some issues have been commented on elsewhere in this report.
22. If you could suggest one improvement to the way we handle
complaints what would that be?
1. Nothing springs to mind.
2. Frivolous self-serving complaints should be singled out immediately and fast tracked or
dismissed.
3. I accept a complaint has to be investigated however the member should be provided with more support.
4. Investigator understanding the practice and law of the area in question.
5. Not leave four months before allowing the panel or anyone senior to decide if complaint has any merit.
6. I was informed of the final decision by email which was fine, however I am unclear about the start date of my suspension from membership.
7. Consideration could perhaps be given to consulting/liaising with ILEX as to any exams that the member may have been involved or about to sit, thus
reducing chances of badly timed allegation being received on eve of exams as occurred with myself. Other than that no issues.
8. Follow a procedure which allows confidential information to be shared with hearing but not published.
9. To have ability to look at regulatory settlement matters independently without the SRA agreement not to deny being imposed in ILEX hearings.
10. Complaints procedure booklet needs to provide an explanation about securing a determination by consent and where admission made early procedure
should bypass panel stage to save costs and time and unnecessary stress/booklet to provide guidance on what penalty to propose in such circumstances
to it is not unfairly weighted against the member
IPS general comments/learning points on questions 20 to 23 summarised at end of this section. Some issues have been commented on elsewhere in this
report.
IPS specific comments:
4. This comment indicates that the member did not understand that the jurisdiction of IPS is the Code of Conduct and not what is, or is not, standard
practice.
9. This member had entered into a regulatory settlement agreement with the SRA under which they accepted misconduct and agreed not to deny it.
The fact of the RSA having been made was in itself misconduct.
23. Are there any further comments which you wish to make?
1. I found the staff at IPS very helpful and professional.
2. The complainant was overbearing within the proceedings and it seemed he was able to do the same throughout the complaint. The whole situation
put terrible pressure upon me as a member to such an extent it frequently left me in tears and upset at the whole injustice of matters. Thank goodness
I appealed and had an extremely experienced panel who dealt with the matter giving me justice and closure.
3. The case officer was extremely efficient and I have no complaint against her. This complaint was completely without merit or grounds and should not
have been entertained. Instead I had four months of unnecessary worry and stress.
4. The whole procedure left me totally disillusioned with ILEX. I have gone from being an advocate to following the ILEX route to the legal world to a
total critic who urges people to do anything but ILEX (four of my students have changed already as a result). I want as little as possible to do with
ILEX now and am still pondering my resignation.
IPS general comments/learning points on questions 20 to 23 summarised at end of this section. Some issues have been commented on elsewhere in this
report.
IPS general comments/learning points on questions 20 to 23:
The Fitness to Practise Procedures Manual was introduced in August 2012. Going forward, if members make use of this tool as they are invited to do at
outset by IPS, they should develop a greater understanding of complaints procedures and outcomes. It has been recognised through the development
work on the Manual and new IDAR that delegated decision making procedures (rejections and consent agreements) are slow. IPS has been reviewing the
process as part of its review of IDAR.
Annex 4 Annex 4
46 47
Annex 4 Annex 4
IPS complaints & disciplinary function
customer satisfaction surveys
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES FROM COMPLAINANTS 2012
Number of surveys sent:
2012 2011
10 12
Number of responses received at year end
2012 2011
4 (40%) 4 (33%)
Of the 4 responses received, in 1 case a sanction had been imposed against the member. 2 complaints were rejected and in the final case the complaint
was upheld but no sanction was imposed.
SECTION 1: FINDING OUT ABOUT IPS
1. How did you find out about us?
2012 2011
Internet 2 (50%) 0
Member of ILEX 0 1 (25%)
CAB/Law centre 0 0
Solicitor 0 2 (50%)
Legal Ombudsman 1 (25%) 0
Other 1 (25%) 1
2. How easy was it to find out about our service?
2012 2011
Very difficult 0 0
Fairly difficult 0 0
Acceptable 0 0
Fairly easy 2 (50%) 2 (50%)
Very easy 2 (50%) 2 (50%)
SECTION 2: COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
3. How did you complain to IPS?
2012 2011
By letter 3 (75%) 3 (75%)
IPS complaints form (sent to you by post) 0 0
IPS complaints form (downloaded from website)
1 (25%) 1 (25%)
Other 0 0
4. Was a complaints handling procedure leaflet sent to you?
2012 2011
YES 3 (75%) 4 (100%)
NO 1 (25%) 0
If a complaints handling procedure leaflet was sent to you, how easy was this to understand?
2012 2011
Very difficult 0 0
Fairly difficult 0 0
Acceptable 0 1 (25%)
Fairly easy 2 (50%) 1 (25%)
Very easy 0 0
No response 2 (50%) 2 (50%)
5. Did the leaflet provide a satisfactory summary of the process that would be followed?
2012 2011
YES 2 (50%) 4 (100%)
NO 1 (25%) 0
No response 1 (25%) 0
If no, what was missing?
1. Confirmation that [member] could attend the meeting of the Professional Conduct Panel.
IPS comments/learning points:
1. It is not possible to put this level of detail into the leaflet but will be made available through correspondence.
6. Did the leaflet cover the issues you expected it to cover?
2012 2011
YES 3 (75%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
No response 1 (25%) 0
7. Did we provide you with sufficient information about the procedure we would follow?
2012 2011
YES 4 (100%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
46 47
Annex 4 Annex 4
IPS complaints & disciplinary function
customer satisfaction surveys
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES FROM COMPLAINANTS 2012
Number of surveys sent:
2012 2011
10 12
Number of responses received at year end
2012 2011
4 (40%) 4 (33%)
Of the 4 responses received, in 1 case a sanction had been imposed against the member. 2 complaints were rejected and in the final case the complaint
was upheld but no sanction was imposed.
SECTION 1: FINDING OUT ABOUT IPS
1. How did you find out about us?
2012 2011
Internet 2 (50%) 0
Member of ILEX 0 1 (25%)
CAB/Law centre 0 0
Solicitor 0 2 (50%)
Legal Ombudsman 1 (25%) 0
Other 1 (25%) 1
2. How easy was it to find out about our service?
2012 2011
Very difficult 0 0
Fairly difficult 0 0
Acceptable 0 0
Fairly easy 2 (50%) 2 (50%)
Very easy 2 (50%) 2 (50%)
SECTION 2: COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
3. How did you complain to IPS?
2012 2011
By letter 3 (75%) 3 (75%)
IPS complaints form (sent to you by post) 0 0
IPS complaints form (downloaded from website)
1 (25%) 1 (25%)
Other 0 0
4. Was a complaints handling procedure leaflet sent to you?
2012 2011
YES 3 (75%) 4 (100%)
NO 1 (25%) 0
If a complaints handling procedure leaflet was sent to you, how easy was this to understand?
2012 2011
Very difficult 0 0
Fairly difficult 0 0
Acceptable 0 1 (25%)
Fairly easy 2 (50%) 1 (25%)
Very easy 0 0
No response 2 (50%) 2 (50%)
5. Did the leaflet provide a satisfactory summary of the process that would be followed?
2012 2011
YES 2 (50%) 4 (100%)
NO 1 (25%) 0
No response 1 (25%) 0
If no, what was missing?
1. Confirmation that [member] could attend the meeting of the Professional Conduct Panel.
IPS comments/learning points:
1. It is not possible to put this level of detail into the leaflet but will be made available through correspondence.
6. Did the leaflet cover the issues you expected it to cover?
2012 2011
YES 3 (75%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
No response 1 (25%) 0
7. Did we provide you with sufficient information about the procedure we would follow?
2012 2011
YES 4 (100%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
48 49
8. Did we provide you with sufficient information about how we would deal with your case?
2012 2011
YES 4 (100%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
9. Did we provide you with sufficient information about our disciplinary powers as a professional body?
2012 2011
YES 3 (75%) 4 (100%)
NO 1 (25%) 0
If no, what was missing?
1. There was no information of potential penalties against a member if complaint upheld.
IPS comments/learning points:
1. This information is in the leaflet, which this complainant stated they did not receive, although IPS does ensure it is sent with the first correspondence
with the complainant.
10. We aim to respond to initial complaints within seven working days. Once you made your complaint how satisfied were you with the
length of time taken by IPS to acknowledge your complaint?
2012 2011
Very dissatisfied 0 0
Fairly dissatisfied 0 0
Acceptable 0 1 (25%)
Fairly satisfied 2 (50%) 0
Very satisfied 2 (50%) 3 (75%)
SECTION 3: COMMUNICATION
11. Which method(s) of communication were used during the investigation of your case?
2012 2011
Email 2 2
Letter 4 4
Telephone 1 1
Were you happy with the method(s) of communication used?
2012 2011
YES 4 (100%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
12. Did we keep you adequately informed about the progress of your complaint?
2012 2011
YES 4 (100%) 3 (75%)
NO 0 0
No response 0 1 (25%)
Comments:
1. Excellent communication throughout process, timely and prompt action at all times.
13. We aim to respond to communications within seven working days or to acknowledge within
two working days if there will be a delay in replying. How satisfied were you with the length
of time we took to respond to your letters/emails during the investigation of your complaint?
2012 2011
Very dissatisfied 0 0
Fairly dissatisfied 0 0
Acceptable 0 1 (25%)
Fairly satisfied 2 (50%) 1 (25%)
Very satisfied 2 (50%) 2 (50%)
14. Were our letters easy to understand?
2012 2011
YES 4 (100%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
Comments:
1. Very clear and lucid.
15. If you left telephone messages did we call you back promptly?
2012 2011
YES 1 (25%) 2 (50%)
NO 0 0
N/A 3 (75%) 2 (50%)
16. Our targets for referring complaints to the Professional Conduct Panel are 80% within six months and 100% within nine months. Our
targets for the final hearing in cases referred to the Disciplinary Tribunal are 65% completed within six months and 100% within nine
months of referral. How satisfied are you with these timescales?
2012 2011
Very dissatisfied 0 0
Fairly dissatisfied 0 0
Acceptable 0 1 (25%)
Fairly satisfied 3 (100%) 0
Very satisfied 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
17. How satisfied were you with the overall time we took to deal with your complaint?
2012 2011
Very dissatisfied 0 0
Fairly dissatisfied 0 0
Acceptable 1 (25%) 1 (25%)
Fairly satisfied 1 (25%) 0
Very satisfied 2 (50%) 3 (75%)
Annex 4 Annex 4
48 49
8. Did we provide you with sufficient information about how we would deal with your case?
2012 2011
YES 4 (100%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
9. Did we provide you with sufficient information about our disciplinary powers as a professional body?
2012 2011
YES 3 (75%) 4 (100%)
NO 1 (25%) 0
If no, what was missing?
1. There was no information of potential penalties against a member if complaint upheld.
IPS comments/learning points:
1. This information is in the leaflet, which this complainant stated they did not receive, although IPS does ensure it is sent with the first correspondence
with the complainant.
10. We aim to respond to initial complaints within seven working days. Once you made your complaint how satisfied were you with the
length of time taken by IPS to acknowledge your complaint?
2012 2011
Very dissatisfied 0 0
Fairly dissatisfied 0 0
Acceptable 0 1 (25%)
Fairly satisfied 2 (50%) 0
Very satisfied 2 (50%) 3 (75%)
SECTION 3: COMMUNICATION
11. Which method(s) of communication were used during the investigation of your case?
2012 2011
Email 2 2
Letter 4 4
Telephone 1 1
Were you happy with the method(s) of communication used?
2012 2011
YES 4 (100%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
12. Did we keep you adequately informed about the progress of your complaint?
2012 2011
YES 4 (100%) 3 (75%)
NO 0 0
No response 0 1 (25%)
Comments:
1. Excellent communication throughout process, timely and prompt action at all times.
13. We aim to respond to communications within seven working days or to acknowledge within
two working days if there will be a delay in replying. How satisfied were you with the length
of time we took to respond to your letters/emails during the investigation of your complaint?
2012 2011
Very dissatisfied 0 0
Fairly dissatisfied 0 0
Acceptable 0 1 (25%)
Fairly satisfied 2 (50%) 1 (25%)
Very satisfied 2 (50%) 2 (50%)
14. Were our letters easy to understand?
2012 2011
YES 4 (100%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
Comments:
1. Very clear and lucid.
15. If you left telephone messages did we call you back promptly?
2012 2011
YES 1 (25%) 2 (50%)
NO 0 0
N/A 3 (75%) 2 (50%)
16. Our targets for referring complaints to the Professional Conduct Panel are 80% within six months and 100% within nine months. Our
targets for the final hearing in cases referred to the Disciplinary Tribunal are 65% completed within six months and 100% within nine
months of referral. How satisfied are you with these timescales?
2012 2011
Very dissatisfied 0 0
Fairly dissatisfied 0 0
Acceptable 0 1 (25%)
Fairly satisfied 3 (100%) 0
Very satisfied 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
17. How satisfied were you with the overall time we took to deal with your complaint?
2012 2011
Very dissatisfied 0 0
Fairly dissatisfied 0 0
Acceptable 1 (25%) 1 (25%)
Fairly satisfied 1 (25%) 0
Very satisfied 2 (50%) 3 (75%)
Annex 4 Annex 4
50 51
18. Did we summarise your complaint to your satisfaction?
2012 2011
YES 2 (50%) 4 (100%)
NO 2 (50%) 0
Comments:
1. I felt it slightly favoured [the member] in the way in which it was written.
IPS comments/learning points:
1. Complainants are required to agree the complaint summary to ensure that IPS fully understands the complaint.
19. Did you feel that we fully understood your complaint?
2012 2011
YES 4 (100%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
Comments:
1. Although we did feel it necessary to duplicate various issues during the correspondence ie we felt it necessary to make clear certain points which
seemed to get lost as the matter progressed.
20. Did our report provide a satisfactory summary of your complaint?
2012 2011
YES 2 (50%) 4 (100%)
NO 2 (50%) 0
Comments:
1. Written slightly in favour of [the member] in our opinion.
2. I did communicate at the time as I felt there was a bias towards the member and some of her “hearsay” and comments were presented as statements
of fact.
IPS comments/learning points:
The report is an analysis of the issues evidence and may appear to be biased towards the member if the evidence is in their favour. The report restates
the complaint summary agreed with the complainant. This question could be usefully reworded.
SECTION 4: OUTCOME
21. Did we let you know about the decision in your case promptly (we normally have 5 working days to inform you of the decision)?
2012 2011
YES 4 (100%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
22. Did we make you aware that our investigation had come to an end?
2012 2011
YES 4 (100%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
23. Were you made aware if you could appeal and the time limits for making
an appeal? (NOTE: Appeals are only available in cases where the complaint has
been rejected under the delegated decision procedure.)
2012 2011
YES 0 2 (50%)
NO 3 (75%) 0
N/A 0 (25%) 2 (50%)
Comments:
1. I was informed there was no right of appeal and I find this unsatisfactory.
2. Not clear if we could appeal.
IPS comments/learning points:
None of the complainants had a right of appeal in these cases therefore information about appeals was not given, although complainants are always
informed there is no right of appeal.
24. Was an appeal form sent to you, if you had indicated that you wished to appeal?
2012 2011
YES 0 0
NO 3 (75%) 0
N/A 1 (25%) 4 (100%)
Comments:
1. I am of the opinion that the decision not to uphold the complaint was biased in favour of the member. More importantly, I could not understand why
there was no right of appeal.
IPS comments/learning points:
None of the complainants had a right of appeal in these cases therefore a form would not have been sent. A separate form could be produced for
delegated decisions and therefore these questions about appeals could be removed.
25. Overall, how satisfied were you with how we handled your complaint?
2012 2011
Very dissatisfied 0 0
Fairly dissatisfied 1 (25%) 0
Acceptable 1 (25%) 0
Fairly satisfied 2 (50%) 1 (25%)
Very satisfied 0 3 (75%)
If you were dissatisfied, please give details:
1. I am of the opinion that the decision not to uphold the complaint was biased in favour of the member. More importantly, I could not understand why
there was no right of appeal.
2. Initially I felt the process was fair but felt the end report was very one sided.
IPS comments/learning points:
Both comments were made by complainants whose complaint had not been upheld: however the question is about the handling of the complaint and
not the outcome. As for the members’ form, it is suggested that the survey be refined to distinguish between comments on service, and comments on
policy, IDAR and outcomes. Again as for members, the survey results demonstrate that dissatisfaction is at an IDAR/policy level and not with the service
provided by case officers.
Annex 4 Annex 4
50 51
18. Did we summarise your complaint to your satisfaction?
2012 2011
YES 2 (50%) 4 (100%)
NO 2 (50%) 0
Comments:
1. I felt it slightly favoured [the member] in the way in which it was written.
IPS comments/learning points:
1. Complainants are required to agree the complaint summary to ensure that IPS fully understands the complaint.
19. Did you feel that we fully understood your complaint?
2012 2011
YES 4 (100%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
Comments:
1. Although we did feel it necessary to duplicate various issues during the correspondence ie we felt it necessary to make clear certain points which
seemed to get lost as the matter progressed.
20. Did our report provide a satisfactory summary of your complaint?
2012 2011
YES 2 (50%) 4 (100%)
NO 2 (50%) 0
Comments:
1. Written slightly in favour of [the member] in our opinion.
2. I did communicate at the time as I felt there was a bias towards the member and some of her “hearsay” and comments were presented as statements
of fact.
IPS comments/learning points:
The report is an analysis of the issues evidence and may appear to be biased towards the member if the evidence is in their favour. The report restates
the complaint summary agreed with the complainant. This question could be usefully reworded.
SECTION 4: OUTCOME
21. Did we let you know about the decision in your case promptly (we normally have 5 working days to inform you of the decision)?
2012 2011
YES 4 (100%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
22. Did we make you aware that our investigation had come to an end?
2012 2011
YES 4 (100%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
23. Were you made aware if you could appeal and the time limits for making
an appeal? (NOTE: Appeals are only available in cases where the complaint has
been rejected under the delegated decision procedure.)
2012 2011
YES 0 2 (50%)
NO 3 (75%) 0
N/A 0 (25%) 2 (50%)
Comments:
1. I was informed there was no right of appeal and I find this unsatisfactory.
2. Not clear if we could appeal.
IPS comments/learning points:
None of the complainants had a right of appeal in these cases therefore information about appeals was not given, although complainants are always
informed there is no right of appeal.
24. Was an appeal form sent to you, if you had indicated that you wished to appeal?
2012 2011
YES 0 0
NO 3 (75%) 0
N/A 1 (25%) 4 (100%)
Comments:
1. I am of the opinion that the decision not to uphold the complaint was biased in favour of the member. More importantly, I could not understand why
there was no right of appeal.
IPS comments/learning points:
None of the complainants had a right of appeal in these cases therefore a form would not have been sent. A separate form could be produced for
delegated decisions and therefore these questions about appeals could be removed.
25. Overall, how satisfied were you with how we handled your complaint?
2012 2011
Very dissatisfied 0 0
Fairly dissatisfied 1 (25%) 0
Acceptable 1 (25%) 0
Fairly satisfied 2 (50%) 1 (25%)
Very satisfied 0 3 (75%)
If you were dissatisfied, please give details:
1. I am of the opinion that the decision not to uphold the complaint was biased in favour of the member. More importantly, I could not understand why
there was no right of appeal.
2. Initially I felt the process was fair but felt the end report was very one sided.
IPS comments/learning points:
Both comments were made by complainants whose complaint had not been upheld: however the question is about the handling of the complaint and
not the outcome. As for the members’ form, it is suggested that the survey be refined to distinguish between comments on service, and comments on
policy, IDAR and outcomes. Again as for members, the survey results demonstrate that dissatisfaction is at an IDAR/policy level and not with the service
provided by case officers.
Annex 4 Annex 4
52 53
26. Do you consider that the process was:
2012 2011
Proportionate YES 3 (75%) 4 (100%)
NO 1 (25%) 0
Consistent YES 3 (75%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
No response 1 (25%)
Transparent YES 4 (100%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
Fair YES 0 4 (100%)
NO 4 (100%) 0
Impartial YES 0 4 (100%)
NO 4 (100%) 0
Timely YES 4 (100%) 3 (75%)
NO 0 1 (25%)
Comments:
1. We felt the summary and report was written slightly in favour of [the member].
2. I felt ultimately the system favoured the member rather than a member of the public affected by the actions of the member
IPS comments/learning points:
See comment at question 25.
27. If you could suggest one improvement to the service we offer what would that be?
1. Please clarify why there is no right of appeal especially as the complaint was a justifiable one and of merit. The panel’s report did not adequately address
the issues raised.
2. Invite complainant to hearing as well as member. I could have provided context to the situations and statements.
3. Making clear that the member subject to the complaint could attend the meeting. It is unlikely that any complainant will have to fully understand the
IDAR. Therefore the key elements should be drawn out more clearly.
4. I felt it would have been fairer if I could have been present at the hearing as [the member] was present herself or at least been allowed an advocate
to represent me
IPS comments/learning points:
The Fitness to Practise Procedures Manual is also aimed at complainants and addresses some of these issues. It is clear that complainants’ expectations
need to be more overtly managed, for example making it clear that by accepting their complaint IPS does not necessarily agree it has merit. It may be
appropriate to signpost complainants to particular sections of the Manual at each stage of the process.
The proposed new IDAR removes the right of the member to appear before PCP and also distances the complainant from the investigation process.
28. Are there any further comments which you wish to make?
1. We were pleased that the panel decided the misconduct was proven and that there had been a breach of the Code of Conduct. We were therefore
disappointed that no further action was deemed necessary.
2. I would have liked the opportunity to speak in person at the hearing as I presume [the member] was allowed.
IPS comments/learning points:
See comments at question 27.
Action points arising Completed
2011
Notify member at outset (once consent received from complainant) and send copy of complaint P
On M1 form, amended question 9 to say “We aim to respond to correspondence within seven days…” P
Explain to members why complaint is sent to home address and not employer’s P
Inform members and complainants whether there is or is not a right of appeal once a decision is made P
2012
Review complaints handling leaflet on introduction of new IDAR
Inform CILEx that members have expressed dissatisfaction with level of support available from CILEx
Take customer satisfaction feedback into account as part of development work of new IDAR and Fitness to Practise Manual
On C1 form, reword question 20 to say “Did our report provide a satisfactory summary of the issues?” OR remove this question as the answer is dependent on whether the report agrees with the complainant or not.
Produce individual feedback forms for different types of decision to remove anomalies in the forms:
• Rejections – complainant only
• Determination by consent – member and complainant (where applicable)
• Rule 22 investigations (no complainant) – member only
• Referral by PCP to DT – at this stage the investigation ends and proceedings begin, therefore is appropriate point to get feedback about investigation (present form not suitable where there have been DT proceedings)
Consider reducing number of question: a shorter form might prompt more responses
Consider need to send equality & diversity form with survey: however, additional questions may further reduce the number of forms returned
The forms are a mix of questions about service and policy/procedures: consider separating these and emphasising to members/complainants that feedback on service is distinct from feedback on policy/IDAR or the outcome in the case. Consider whether IPS wants feedback on policy/IDAR or simply on performance of case officers.
Annex 4 Annex 4
52 53
26. Do you consider that the process was:
2012 2011
Proportionate YES 3 (75%) 4 (100%)
NO 1 (25%) 0
Consistent YES 3 (75%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
No response 1 (25%)
Transparent YES 4 (100%) 4 (100%)
NO 0 0
Fair YES 0 4 (100%)
NO 4 (100%) 0
Impartial YES 0 4 (100%)
NO 4 (100%) 0
Timely YES 4 (100%) 3 (75%)
NO 0 1 (25%)
Comments:
1. We felt the summary and report was written slightly in favour of [the member].
2. I felt ultimately the system favoured the member rather than a member of the public affected by the actions of the member
IPS comments/learning points:
See comment at question 25.
27. If you could suggest one improvement to the service we offer what would that be?
1. Please clarify why there is no right of appeal especially as the complaint was a justifiable one and of merit. The panel’s report did not adequately address
the issues raised.
2. Invite complainant to hearing as well as member. I could have provided context to the situations and statements.
3. Making clear that the member subject to the complaint could attend the meeting. It is unlikely that any complainant will have to fully understand the
IDAR. Therefore the key elements should be drawn out more clearly.
4. I felt it would have been fairer if I could have been present at the hearing as [the member] was present herself or at least been allowed an advocate
to represent me
IPS comments/learning points:
The Fitness to Practise Procedures Manual is also aimed at complainants and addresses some of these issues. It is clear that complainants’ expectations
need to be more overtly managed, for example making it clear that by accepting their complaint IPS does not necessarily agree it has merit. It may be
appropriate to signpost complainants to particular sections of the Manual at each stage of the process.
The proposed new IDAR removes the right of the member to appear before PCP and also distances the complainant from the investigation process.
28. Are there any further comments which you wish to make?
1. We were pleased that the panel decided the misconduct was proven and that there had been a breach of the Code of Conduct. We were therefore
disappointed that no further action was deemed necessary.
2. I would have liked the opportunity to speak in person at the hearing as I presume [the member] was allowed.
IPS comments/learning points:
See comments at question 27.
Action points arising Completed
2011
Notify member at outset (once consent received from complainant) and send copy of complaint P
On M1 form, amended question 9 to say “We aim to respond to correspondence within seven days…” P
Explain to members why complaint is sent to home address and not employer’s P
Inform members and complainants whether there is or is not a right of appeal once a decision is made P
2012
Review complaints handling leaflet on introduction of new IDAR
Inform CILEx that members have expressed dissatisfaction with level of support available from CILEx
Take customer satisfaction feedback into account as part of development work of new IDAR and Fitness to Practise Manual
On C1 form, reword question 20 to say “Did our report provide a satisfactory summary of the issues?” OR remove this question as the answer is dependent on whether the report agrees with the complainant or not.
Produce individual feedback forms for different types of decision to remove anomalies in the forms:
• Rejections – complainant only
• Determination by consent – member and complainant (where applicable)
• Rule 22 investigations (no complainant) – member only
• Referral by PCP to DT – at this stage the investigation ends and proceedings begin, therefore is appropriate point to get feedback about investigation (present form not suitable where there have been DT proceedings)
Consider reducing number of question: a shorter form might prompt more responses
Consider need to send equality & diversity form with survey: however, additional questions may further reduce the number of forms returned
The forms are a mix of questions about service and policy/procedures: consider separating these and emphasising to members/complainants that feedback on service is distinct from feedback on policy/IDAR or the outcome in the case. Consider whether IPS wants feedback on policy/IDAR or simply on performance of case officers.
Annex 4 Annex 4
