Peer Review: A Cautionary Tale

There appears to be a serious attempt underway to breath life back into the Peer Review scheme. I have a number of objections to this not least that it was conceived at a time before the massive cuts in fees made participation in a file beauty parade utterly unviable. But that’s not important right now.

We have worked with hundreds of firms over the years, many very closely indeed. Although we don’t, we could grade them against the PR 1-5 scale on a far more definitive basis. The acid test however is this; “If you were in trouble with the law who would you instruct?”

When, last year one of us needed some help on a private client basis on motoring matters, one of our retained clients was instructed, with a very successful outcome.

That firm, this week, got a Category 4, “below competent” PR rating. That is all you need to know.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedIn
About Author: SP

3 comments on “Peer Review: A Cautionary Tale

  • We were dropped from a PR 2 to a PR3 in the recent peer review. All were technically irrelevant points and did not reflect the clear satisfaction of the clients.

    • Yes we were the same, and there is no right of appeal if you are a PR3. The points made to put us to a level 3 were factually incorrect and contradicted themselves, but we were told by the LAA that there was nothing we could do to argue against it. It was a very frustrating process and they took six months to actually do the peer review.

  • It is broken in my view – and there is no method for the scheme to correct itsself on the issues you raise.

    Why they are wasting money reviewing firms a second time when the majority have NEVER had a PR?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *