Hadaway and Hadaway
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.