Journal

First Tier Complaints

On 26 June 2025, CIPA submitted its response to IPReg’s consultation[i] on First Tier Complaints (‘FTCs’) and proposed changes to the IPReg Core Regulatory Framework to comply with new requirements set by the Legal Services Board (‘LSB’). CIPA’s response, set out below, was prepared by the Regulatory Affairs Committee with particular thanks to Chris Mercer and Estelle Senior.

As a preliminary remark, we are always keen to ensure that any changes to the regulatory environment for registered patent attorneys are proportionate, as required by the Legal Services Act. We know that from the statistics on complaints about registered patent attorneys that there are very few in number and so there is no need to impose any further regulation on them. We therefore consider that the regulations for other legal professions where there are many more complaints should not be applied without thinking to the patent attorney profession.

In the following, we refer to the entities who could become a relevant complainant, as defined in Office for Legal Complaints Scheme Rules as ‘relevant entities’ because, as shown below, most of them are not complainants.

Question 1 – For IPReg regulated private practice firms and/or sole traders: Do you have clients who can complain to the Legal Ombudsman? If you do, please tell us (confidentially):

1. approximately what percentage of your client base falls into this category;
2. if known, percentage of fees generated by these clients;
3. anything else you consider pertinent?

As the representative body, we cannot comment about any individual firm or its business. However, we are well aware that our members operate in a large number of different environments. Many of the larger private practice firms have comparatively few relevant entities as clients. Some even have a policy of not having relevant entities as clients. Some of the smaller firms and many of the sole traders do have relevant entities as clients. However, even in such practices, the number of such clients is low. Most practices work on a business-to- business basis and the businesses to which they provide services are larger than micro- enterprises. Thus, overall, the percentage of fees charged to relevant entities by the private practice profession will be very low.

Question 2 – For all stakeholders: What do you think are the factors that contribute to the:

1. low numbers of first-tier complaints reported by IPReg registered firms; and
2. very few complaints escalated to the Legal Ombudsman?

We consider that the low number of complaints is due mainly to the fact that registered patent attorneys are very well aware of the requirements to ensure that all clients, and in particular relevant entities, are properly informed about all the matters relating to the business between the client and the registered patent attorney. For many years before IPReg was set up, CIPA provided clear guidance about client relationships, including providing ongoing information to any client, especially about charges. The effective regime which IPReg now has in place follows on from this practice established by CIPA over many years. The present regime keeps registered patent attorneys fully aware of this requirement for clear and effective communication with clients, especially relevant entities and especially about charging matters. Thus, registered patent attorneys routinely operate in such a way as to minimise the chances of a complaint arising.

We also consider that the low number of complaints which are escalated to the Legal Ombudsman are even lower partly for the reason given immediately above and partly for the reasons given in answer to question 1. As there are relatively low numbers of relevant entities as clients, there is a lower chance that there will be cases the Legal Ombudsman can consider. However, it is also the case that those practices which have more relevant entities as clients have developed very effective systems for establishing good relationships with, and dealing with complaints from, such clients and so the chances of there being any complaint escalated to the Legal Ombudsman are very small.

Question 3 – For all stakeholders: What are your views on the proposed changes? What are your views on the ‘lift and shift’ approach to incorporate the LSB’s drafting into the CRF? Do you think any other changes are required?

In principle, CIPA has no objection to the ‘lift and shift’ approach adopted by IPReg. However, we would emphasise that section D.6.a) of the LSB’s section 112 Requirements specifically refers to the need for approved regulators to have regard to the principles of transparency, accountability, proportionality and consistency and to target only cases in which action is needed. As noted by IPReg in the consultation document and by CIPA above, there is a very low incidence of complaints within the patent attorney community and an even lower incidence of escalation. Thus, there is only a very small target to aim at and even this target must be treated proportionately. Thus, if IPReg does, as agreed, take the lift and shift approach, it should take proper account of the requirements for targeting and proportionality. As long as IPReg follows this Section of the Requirements, CIPA considers that no further changes are required.

On a few particular points, when a client is irritated about something, it is sometimes difficult to work out when this ‘tips over’ into a ‘complaint’, even with the LSB section 112 definition. It would be helpful if IPReg could provide scenarios or case studies to illustrate any changes IPReg considers are introduced by the new LSB requirements.

The new FTC categories are helpful but have not been widely publicised and so should be part of a communication campaign if IPReg expects firms to already be logging cases using this categorisation?

We consider that the requirements of section 5.2.4 a-d look onerous unless implemented in a proportionate way. We consider that a proportionate way would be to allow a notice on the website and in the firm’s terms of business covering all these points to be sufficient

We would point out that the effects of sections 5.11 and 12 will heavily dependent on the size of the firm and so will need to be implemented in a way which does not significantly affect smaller firms and sole practitioners.

Question 4 – For all stakeholders: What do you think will be the benefits of these new FTC requirements? Do you think there will be any negative impacts? Do you foresee a cost to you or your practice to implement these changes?

CIPA considers that there will be no added benefit of these new requirements. Registered patent attorneys have had in place for many years before IPReg came into existence – and IPReg has taken over and formalised – good systems for dealing with relevant entities, which accounts for the very low numbers of complaints and the fact that there are also very few escalations. This seems to be a case of ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. The risk is that, if a proportionate and targeted approach is not taken, unnecessary burdens will be placed on all practices, especially those having a higher proportion of relevant entities as clients, and additional costs will be incurred to no benefit for anyone. The regulatory burden is already high and so any increase in the burden would risk losing members of the regulated community.

Question 5 – For IPReg registered firms and/or sole traders: What do you think will be the likely impacts on you of implementing the new requirements? How will it impact on the way you deliver services to clients who can complain to Legal Ombudsman? What benefits do you think the new requirements will have for the clients that you have who are eligible to complain to Legal Ombudsman?

The answer to this question is similar to the answer to Question 4. As long as IPReg takes a targeted and proportionate view, there will be no need for any registered patent attorney to change the way they deliver services or their present complaints procedures. This will apply to relevant entities as well as to other clients. The new requirements will have no benefit as they do not go beyond what registered patent attorneys already do.

Question 6 – For IPReg registered firms and/or sole traders: what would you consider an appropriate timescale for implementing the new FTC requirements?

As to timescale, CIPA believes that the implementation, as long as it is targeted and proportionate, could be implemented very quickly. All that would be needed would be for IPReg to give sufficient notice and communicate to registered patent attorneys anything which IPReg considers is new. If there is nothing new, this is easy. If, however, IPReg considers that there are new requirements, then it will need to be explained clearly what they are, why they are being introduced and what effect they will have. If this is the case, then a longer time for implementation will be required.

Question 7 – For IPReg registered firms and/or sole traders: What are your views on these plans? How long will it take to be able to provide this data?

IPReg’s suggestion to deal with the capture of data is reasonable. As to how long it will take to provide the data, the problem is that there is not much data to provide and so it may take some time before IPReg has enough data to be statistically significant. Any registered patent attorney about whom a complaint has been made should be able to provide all the necessary data from the record of the handling of the complaint and so it should be possible to make an analysis of the data after the annual returns have been processed.

Question 8 – For all stakeholders: What are your views on this approach? If you consider that additional guidance from IPReg is needed, please say what it would be helpful to include in that guidance.

We agree that the approach suggested by IPReg is appropriate. Guidance towards the documentation to be provided by Legal Ombudsman is to be welcomed. A review after three years may be appropriate. However, we wonder whether this may, in practice, be too short. As IPReg notes, there are very low numbers of complaints and even lower numbers of escalations. We wonder whether there will be enough statistically significant information after three years to make a review worthwhile or effective. Perhaps a longer period would be more appropriate.

[i] IPReg’s consultation paper can be seen at https://ipreg.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-05/ipreg-ftc-call-for-evidence-may-2025.pdf.