The main motivator of change to office procedures is regulation.
The introduction of transaction criteria by the Legal Services Commission necessitated our Firm determining whether or not it was to continue undertaking publicly funded work. As we were a high street practice located in an area of some deprivation it was not uncommon for us to administer a range of legal services.
Our systems were robust enough that we were able to achieve accreditation in all of the areas in respect of which we applied. This was not without considerable effort on the part of all members of staff. The experience of applying when accreditation was first introduced and thereafter by way of annual audit was not one that was well received by the Firm. The reason for this was the ever changing regulations and the different way in which annual audits were carried out by different auditors.
We did not consider it appropriate to apply for Lexcel accreditation when it was first introduced as it was believed that this would increase our administrative burden.
Due to our professional indemnity insurers requirements we did undertake application for Lexcel accreditation in September 2008. We contacted the Law Society and determined the procedure involved and made contact with Assessment North East.
The alternative methods of applying for accreditation were outlined to us in a comprehensive manner and we were supplied with details of the costs involved and what would be expected of us.
Although we considered that our systems were sound and operational to the level of Lexcel standards it was believed to be prudent to select the method of application that permitted us to be subjected to a pre-application assessment. It was explained to us that such would be the same as a full application but the outcome would not determine either pass or failure.
We were assured by Assessment North East that the process of the audit would be one that would be sympathetic but firm.
The Lexcel literature is detailed and helpful.
The audit was conducted in accordance with a pre-arranged timetable so that all members of staff who were to be interviewed were aware of the time of their appointment and what was required of them.
Malcolm Lawson’s (the auditor) philosophy of giving value on audit was adhered to. We gained from it, not suffered by it. We accepted all that was set out and launched into post report alterations to our procedures where they had not been as compliant as we thought.
We were provided with many useful tips in our debriefing with Malcolm who gave us the benefit of his vast experience of undertaking audits home and abroad. We were never told what we should do, we were simply afforded examples of how things could be done and we were left to determine what was appropriate for us.
The full audit of our systems was recently carried out and again this was done on time and in the manner indicated with all members of staff involved being aware of what was expected of them before the event.
Even though the recommendation for our Firm is that Lexcel accreditation be awarded we were provided with useful information, guidance and examples of operational practices that have enabled us to improve the systems that we already have in place. Rather than the regulatory audit that we have been accustomed to experiencing through our Legal Services’ accreditation the positive and pro-active manner in which the Lexcel application and audit has been carried out has enabled us to make progress in giant steps rather than small stuttering steps previously experienced.
The above sets out that we came late and somewhat unwillingly to embrace Lexcel but that having done so that experience has been positive and rewarding.