Hadaway and Hadaway talk about their Lexcel Experience
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.