Editorial: answering the client shouldn't need a law

This is an editorial by the AGENTE LEX newsroom. It expresses the portal's opinion.

Law 10/2025, on customer service, whose adaptation period ends on 28 December 2026, sets rules any user will welcome: service by a person on request, a key for each procedure, reply in the same language and a maximum period of fifteen working days to resolve queries, complaints and claims (Article 17.1).

The law is aimed at basic services and companies that sell mainly to consumers and exceed certain thresholds: 250 workers, 50 million euros in turnover or 43 million on the balance sheet (Article 2.2). A firm that does not meet those conditions is not obliged.

But the question that interests us is another: does the legal profession need a law to treat clients well?

What the Statute already requires

The General Statute of the Spanish Legal Profession already contains a duty that goes in the same direction. Its Article 48 obliges the lawyer to inform the client of the status of the matter they are handling, in addition to its viability, fees and the consequences of a possible order to pay costs.

The duty exists. What the Statute does not set is how and when to meet it: it does not say how quickly an email must be answered, nor how a query should be documented. And that is where the new law offers useful ideas.

Five ideas from the law that a firm can adopt

1. A known response time. The law sets fifteen working days to resolve. A firm can commit to something simpler: acknowledge receipt of each query within a short period and say when the answer will arrive.
2. A reference for each procedure. The law requires an identifying key (Article 11). A file number given to the client from the start serves the same function.
3. Talking to a person. The law prohibits automatic answering machines as the only means (Article 8.1). At a firm, the client should always know who handles their matter and how to contact that person.
4. Replying in the client's language. The law requires it for the languages in which the query was submitted (Article 7.2). In territories with co-official languages, it is also a form of respect.
5. Measure satisfaction, but afterwards. The law prohibits surveys before the incident is resolved (Article 18.2). The idea of asking the client when closing the matter, and not before, is equally sensible for a firm.

Why do it without an obligation

Because trust is a lawyer's main asset. A client who gets no reply does not know whether their matter is moving, and that uncertainty damages the relationship even when the technical work is good.

Because it avoids conflicts. A well-informed client disputes fees less and understands results better. It fits with what we argued about the engagement letter in the editorial "The engagement letter should be the rule".

Because corporate clients already live it on the other side. Companies bound by the law know these standards, and it is reasonable that they expect something similar from their advisers.

What we propose

• To each firm, to publish its service commitments: response times, channels and contact person.
• To bar associations, to offer templates for service charters and client information protocols, as the General Statute already asks of them for the engagement letter.

The law does not require it. Good professional practice does.

The details of the new rule are in our guide to the customer service law. More editorials in Opinion.