Most law firms assume that sending a client care letter and getting a signature on the engagement terms means the job is done. Box ticked. File opened. Move on. But the SRA Code of Conduct doesn't just ask you to send information — it asks you to ensure your client can actually understand it and act on it. That's a meaningfully higher bar, and it's one that a lot of firms are quietly failing to meet.
The complaints data makes this clear. The Legal Ombudsman consistently finds that poor communication features in close to half of all legal complaints investigated each year. Not negligence. Not bad legal work. Communication. Which means the problem isn't what firms are doing in court or at the negotiating table — it's what's happening at the point of engagement, before the work even begins.
This blog walks through the specific sections of the SRA Code of Conduct that relate to client understanding, what they actually require in practice, and where most firms fall short. It's not a compliance checklist. It's an honest look at what "good" should look like — and why the gap between what firms think they're doing and what the Code actually demands is wider than most partners would be comfortable admitting.
Section 8.6 of the SRA Code of Conduct states that you must give clients information in a way they can understand, and ensure they are in a position to make informed decisions about their matter. Read that carefully. Not "send information." Not "make information available." Give it in a way they can understand.
There is a significant difference between those two things. Sending a 12-page engagement letter written in formal legal English meets the first interpretation. It does not necessarily meet the second. If a client receives that letter, skims it, and signs at the bottom without truly understanding the fee structure, the scope of work, or the circumstances under which costs might increase — has the firm complied with 8.6? Arguably not.
This matters because a signature is not the same as informed consent. It never has been. But for a long time, firms have been able to point to a signed engagement letter and treat that as sufficient evidence that the client was informed. The Code suggests otherwise, and the Legal Ombudsman's decisions increasingly reflect that view. When a client says they didn't understand their fee agreement, the question isn't just whether they signed it — it's whether the firm took reasonable steps to ensure they could understand it before they did.
Plain English summaries, short video explanations of key terms, the ability to ask questions before confirming agreement — these aren't extras. For many clients, they're what Section 8.6 actually requires. Voice and video consent methods are increasingly being used by firms that take this obligation seriously, precisely because they create a record of what was explained and how the client confirmed they understood it.
Section 8.7 requires that clients receive the best possible information about the likely overall cost of their matter — both at the time of engagement and as the matter progresses. That second part is often overlooked. It's not a one-off obligation at the start; it's an ongoing one throughout the life of the file.
Fee disputes are the single largest source of Legal Ombudsman complaints. Not because law firms are deliberately overcharging, but because clients routinely reach the end of a matter and feel that the final bill bears no relation to what they were told to expect at the start. Sometimes that's because the matter became more complex. But often it's because the original costs information was either too vague to be meaningful ("costs will depend on the work required") or buried deep in a document the client never properly read.
The SRA's own guidance on client care letters makes clear that cost information must be specific, realistic, and presented in a way the client can actually use to make decisions. A range of £5,000 to £25,000 is not meaningful information. Neither is a reference to an hourly rate without any estimate of the time involved. Firms that take the path of least resistance on costs disclosure — and many do — are storing up complaints for later.
Reducing complaints and disputes starts at engagement, not when the bill arrives. Clients who understand from day one what they are likely to pay, and under what circumstances costs might increase, are far less likely to be shocked at the end of the matter. That means being specific, being honest, and making sure the client has genuinely absorbed the costs information — not just received it.
Section 3.4 of the Code requires solicitors to consider and take account of their client's attributes, needs, and circumstances. This is the vulnerability obligation, and it's one that many firms apply inconsistently.
The obvious cases are straightforward — a client with a cognitive impairment, someone in acute distress following a bereavement, a person for whom English is not their first language. Most firms would recognise those situations and adapt accordingly. But vulnerability is broader than that. Low financial literacy is a form of vulnerability when the matter involves complex fee structures. High stress is a form of vulnerability when a client is facing litigation or a property transaction that has gone wrong. Unfamiliarity with legal processes is a form of vulnerability for any first-time client.
The Code doesn't say "adapt your communication for clients who are obviously vulnerable." It says consider and take account of each client's attributes, needs, and circumstances. That implies an active assessment, not a passive one. It means thinking about how this particular client will receive and process the information you're giving them — not just sending the same document you send to everyone.
This is where behavioural science and contract comprehension become directly relevant to legal practice. The production effect — the well-documented finding that people retain information significantly better when they engage with it actively, rather than reading it passively — applies to every client, not just vulnerable ones. But it matters most where there is a genuine risk that a client will sign something they haven't properly absorbed. Presenting information through multiple formats — plain text, spoken summary, video explanation — dramatically improves comprehension across a wide range of client profiles, including those who would never self-identify as vulnerable.
Sections 8.2 to 8.5 of the Code set out what firms must have in place to handle complaints. You must have a written complaints procedure. You must notify clients about their right to complain at the outset and at key stages. You must respond to complaints within eight weeks and tell clients about the Legal Ombudsman if the complaint isn't resolved to their satisfaction.
These are minimum standards, not aspirational ones. Most firms have the paperwork in place. What many don't have is an understanding of where most complaints actually originate — and therefore what would genuinely reduce them.
The Legal Ombudsman's annual review data is consistent: the majority of complaints that reach the Ombudsman relate to communication failures at the point of engagement. Clients who felt they didn't understand the costs. Clients who felt key terms were never explained to them. Clients who felt the scope of the work changed without proper notice. In most of these cases, the underlying legal work was fine. The complaint was about how the relationship was set up — and that happens before the matter is even underway.
The practical implication is that investing in better client communication at the front end of a matter is far more effective than having a well-drafted complaints procedure at the back end. When clients genuinely understand what they are agreeing to, the volume of complaints that make it to the formal stage drops substantially. Prevention is cheaper, faster, and better for client relationships than process.
Section 7.2 requires that you are able to justify your decisions and actions. In the context of client communication, this has a specific and practical meaning: if a client or regulator ever asks you to demonstrate that a client was properly informed before they agreed to your terms, you need to be able to show that.
A signed PDF is limited evidence. It shows the client put their name on a document. It doesn't show what they were told before they signed it, whether they had the opportunity to ask questions, whether they understood the fee structure, or how they confirmed their understanding. If the Legal Ombudsman asks you to evidence that a client gave informed consent to a 30% conditional fee agreement, pointing to a signature isn't going to be enough if the client credibly argues they had no real idea what they were agreeing to.
A comprehensive consent audit trail changes that picture entirely. A timestamped record showing what summary the client was presented with, what video explanation they watched, what questions they submitted, what answers they received, and how they verbally confirmed their understanding — that's evidence. That's what Section 7.2 is actually asking for, even if most firms haven't yet interpreted it that way.
The direction of travel is clear. As the SRA and Legal Ombudsman continue to scrutinise engagement practices, particularly in high-volume areas like motor finance claims and personal injury, the standard expected of firms for evidencing informed consent is rising. Law firms that invest now in documented consent processes will be significantly better placed than those that rely on a signature and hope it doesn't come up.
Translating these Code obligations into day-to-day practice doesn't require a complete overhaul of how a firm operates. It requires thinking about the client experience at the point of engagement more carefully than most firms currently do.
Good practice under 8.6 looks like this: the client receives a plain English summary of the key terms — scope of work, fees, what happens if costs change, how to raise a concern — before they are asked to sign anything. That summary is brief, clearly written, and uses language a non-lawyer would naturally understand. It is accompanied by a short explanation of the most important points, whether written, spoken, or on video. The client has the opportunity to ask questions before confirming, and those questions and answers are logged.
Good practice under 8.7 means the costs information is specific, realistic, and presented with enough context for the client to make a meaningful decision. It means flagging explicitly the circumstances under which costs might increase, not burying that in a general disclaimer. And it means revisiting costs information at appropriate points in the matter — not waiting until the bill arrives.
Good practice under 3.4 means the firm has thought about who this client is, not just what the matter involves. It means the engagement process is flexible enough to accommodate clients who need more time, more explanation, or a different format. It means not assuming that because a client hasn't asked a question, they have understood.
The common thread across all of these is active, documented communication — not passive information delivery.
The gap between what firms think they're doing and what the Code requires tends to show up in the same places.
Legal language in client care letters. Most client care letters are drafted by lawyers, for lawyers. The language is formal, the sentences are long, and the fee explanations often assume a level of familiarity with legal billing that most clients simply don't have. Sending this document and treating receipt as evidence of understanding is not compliant with 8.6.
No record of client understanding. Even where firms communicate well verbally — in a first meeting, on a call — there is often no record of what was discussed, what the client confirmed they understood, or what questions they asked. If a complaint arises six months later, that conversation might as well not have happened.
Costs information that doesn't inform. Fee ranges wide enough to accommodate almost any outcome. Hourly rates without time estimates. References to disbursements "as incurred" without any indication of what those might be. These satisfy the letter of 8.7 without coming close to its purpose. A client who has received this information is not in a position to make a meaningful decision about costs — which is exactly what the Code requires.
No documented response to client questions. Many firms handle pre-engagement questions informally — a quick call, an email exchange that isn't added to the file. If the client later raises a complaint based on something that was allegedly explained verbally, the firm has no evidence to rely on. Every question a client asks before signing, and every answer given, should be logged.
None of these failures are deliberate. They are the product of processes designed around efficiency rather than understanding. The answer isn't to make engagement slower — it's to make it smarter. Informed consent doesn't have to be complicated. It just has to be genuine.
The SRA Code of Conduct doesn't ask law firms to do anything unreasonable. It asks them to communicate clearly, to ensure clients are properly informed before they commit, to adapt for those who need more support, and to be able to demonstrate that they did those things if challenged. That is a fair standard.
The problem is that many firms are meeting a much lower bar — one they have set themselves based on habit and historical practice rather than what the Code actually says. A signed client care letter is a starting point, not an endpoint. It is evidence that a document was sent. It is not evidence that the client understood it.
The firms that treat Section 8.6 as a genuine obligation — and invest in the processes to meet it — are not just protecting themselves from complaints. They are building client relationships on a foundation of genuine understanding and trust. That has commercial value as well as regulatory value. Clients who understand what they agreed to, and who felt respected in the process of agreeing to it, are more loyal, less likely to dispute their bills, and more likely to recommend the firm to others.
Compliance and quality are the same thing here. Meeting the Code properly is just good practice.
See how