Conduct and service

Paying the billMost firms are keen to render a bill and get it paid as soon as possible after the conclusion of a client's matter.

But not S & Co, which neglected to send its client a bill until about a year after completion of his conveyancing matters.To make matters worse, the firm had obtained from the client the money it needed to make up the balance of the purchase price, telling him that the amount requested was what it needed to complete the purchase.Whether or not the client realised that S & Co had not included its costs in the sum requested may be immaterial.

It had asked for the proportion which represented the Stamp Duty, Land Registry fees and other disbursements payable, so that, as the sin was compounded by the failure to supply a completion statement, it was likely that the client could justifiably have thought, as time passed without a bill being rendered, that he had discharged all his liabilities.When, after a year's silence, and out of the blue, the firm rendered its bill, it was hardly surprising that the client sent a letter of complaint to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS).The matter was referred back to the firm to resolve under its own complaints procedure.

S & Co duly reported that it had been able to resolve the matter, and copied to the OSS its letter to the client giving its response to the complaint.

This indicated that the client had, presumably, not been expecting his work to have been done for nothing.It suggested that he had, in effect, had a year-long interest-free loan from the firm and that the saving of interest should be adequate compensation.It was surprising that the report to the OSS was sent without S & Co apparently having checked that their client was happy with the response.

What was not surprising was that the client did not consider his complaint to be resolved.

He wrote saying so, in forthright terms.The OSS agreed with the client and also took a dim view of S & Co's supposed efforts to resolve the complaint.

S & Co was subsequently ordered to pay compensation to the client, the sum being enhanced because of its failure to deal reasonably with the complaint.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.