Close readers of my blog (that’ll be none of you) will have realised I am broadly supportive of QS-style innovation in the marketing and organisation of legal service, so I take something of an interest in new entrants into the increasingly crowded market that is lawyer client intermediation. Today fido4u started following me on twitter, and their tweets link through to “yourlaw4u” . So I followed the bear (sorry, I mean dog) and took a look.
Once one gets past the seemingly obligatory animated identity (having had Pixar-office girl and a talking wig, I suppose I should have expected a dog). Their home page makes this claim which excited my interest:
“At Your Law 4 U we know that finding a solicitor you can rely on in your time of need is difficult. Just choosing one can be a daunting task, that’s why we have done all the hard work for you.
“All our solicitors have vast experience in their specific fields of expertise which ensures you get the best advice possible at the best price. In most cases you have nothing to pay until your problem is resolved to your complete satisfaction and there will never be any hidden fee’s popping out of the woodwork.
“We work for you and are always loyal to you.”
As we say round here, “there’s lovely.” Now the problem I have with this is that it rather beggars belief. All their solicitors are vastly experienced? Every single solicitor working for them, or for their members firms are vastly experienced? Even if it is the latter, every firm is vastly experienced? In all the fields within which it works. Let’s have some details, I thought. The nature of the relationship between fido and his solicitors is not clear on my perusal of the site, though an MoJ registration suggest it must be a claims management company. Furthermore, the website does not provide – on my quick reconnoitre at least – any information against which one can guess at let alone test the experience claims. There is no way for an interested consumer to start verifying these claims of expertise without (it seems) getting in contact with Fido’s pals (and it seems also they may need to ‘become a member’: anyone else thinking gym membership here?). I am whistling for Fido in a minute and perhaps they will be willing to provide a comment to answer my concerns.
As I have been saying for some time, the legal services market needs to take quality seriously if we are not simply to have competition on price and (it seems) the avatar that is ‘customer services’. Not that service is unimportant, but isn’t there is a need for clear and honest signals about experience and/or specialisation?