Below Competent ?

Peer Review is quickly becoming the issue of the month this trend continuing with my viewing of a second “Below Competent” outcome. The files, in a civil category, seem perfectly competent to me.
It seems worth briefly commenting upon three themes this reveiw has in common with this case.
The “feel” of the negative comments in both was that the reviewer worked in an entirely different jurisdiction and context.
The degree of recording and communication sought, especially of advice, implies a counsel of perfection. This also seems completely contradictory to the explicit PR requirement of tailoring communication to the needs of the client and their ability to comprehend this. The lengths this latter reviewer required involved a number of highly “academic” issues practically immaterial to the real issues in the case. There also seems a denial that there is a continuum of practice in which there will be genuine and acceptable approaches adopted by different lawyers.
The use of generic client care letters (especially those which have slipped slightly out of date) is seriously frowned upon.

The other factor which struck me was that these were highly subjective, unnecessarily aggressive assessments. Lets hope that as these cases are monitored a more realistic standard emerges.

About Author: SP

Comments are closed.