Patent litigators hit by mystery complaint

"Well", said CIPA, "it was either this
or the Ombudsman ..."

A UK-based friend of the IPKat has anxiously contacted him to ask him:

"Have you seen the final report from the Legal Services Ombudsman, whose work is now subsumed in that of the Office for Legal Complaints (Legal Ombudsman)? You will see from the attached summary (here) that she praises the work of the smaller regulators.

She refers to having reviewed one case from the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) -- but nobody knows which one it was, as the Institute has only ever dealt with one case that was within her jurisdiction (restricted to complaints against patent attorney litigators) and for that case there is no record that she was ever sent any papers on which she could assess its actions".

The IPKat can quote the relevant extract: from the report, which states (at page 3):

"I have also overseen the performance of other Approved Regulators; the Institute of Legal Executives Professional Standards Ltd, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, the
Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys and the Association of Law Costs Draftsmen. I am delighted to say that I have only investigated one complaint which was in respect of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and resulted in no recommendation being made".

The Kat supports the principle that no profession should be able to provide services without an appropriate form of supervision or regulation, but he also wonders who supervises and regulates the activities of those who do the regulating.  He also finds it strange that there is apparently a phantom complaint here: can anyone who is "in the know" clear this mystery up?  It's not necessary to name names, and no-one need be placed in an embarrassing position -- but this is a matter of public interest and the public, as well as the professions, are entitled to an assurance that regulatory and complaint mechanisms are in good working order [adds Merpel, and, as the European Court of Justice likes to say, they should be proportional].