Conduct and service

Dealing with complaints earlyToo often, a matter that could have been dealt with simply when it arose is neglected.

It then becomes a full-blown complaint to which other issues are added.

By the time it reaches the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) it has grown out of all proportion.The problem is accentuated when the solicitor fails to respond properly to the complaints because he thinks they are unjustified.

Had the initial complaint been identified and dealt with at an early stage, the others would never have arisen.

However, when they do, it is imperative that they are properly addressed.

If they are not, any penalty imposed will reflect the solicitor's failing to apply Law Society practice rule 15.A typical example was the case of Mr Z, who consulted AB & Co.

with a litigation matter.

He did not like the advice given by counsel and was anxious to establish that counsel had been fully instructed, as he felt the advice given was at variance with the facts.

He asked AB & Co to supply a copy of the instructions.

Mr Z had to write two letters of request, but a copy was not sent until seven weeks after the initial request.The matter was not helped by the fact that AB & Co had earlier been six weeks late in complying with directions and that the firm then failed, after its initial response to the complaint which was then raised by Mr Z, to take, or return, six telephone calls from him in the space of two weeks.Insult was added to injury when Mr Z requested the return of some photographs and the firm sought to exercise its right to a lien in respect of its unpaid bill.Mr Z complained to the senior partner.

Four days after receiving Mr Z's letter of complaint he replied - but he did not deal with the matters raised and merely stated that he was satisfied with the way in which the matter had been dealt with.

Mr Z replied by return, listing several issues that he insisted the firm had not addressed.

He received a response baldly advising him to take any course of action he deemed appropriate.

It was then that Mr Z made his phone calls.

The reason the firm gave for not responding was that by that time, Mr Z had terminated his retainer.The OSS was not impressed.

Although the complaint relating to the photographs could not be upheld, and neither were several others not mentioned above, those relating to the copy instructions and late compliance with directions were.

The solicitors' bill was reduced by about one-third and the firm was ordered to pay Mr Z 250 compensation, an award that was enhanced by the firm's failure to consider and address the complaints properly.

X Every case before the compliance and supervision committee is decided on its individual facts.

These case studies are for illustration only and should not be treated as precedents.