Conduct and service

Know when you've been asked to leaveA common accusation from clients is that solicitors fail to follow instructions.

A solicitor often has reasons for this but can be at fault for not communicating these reasons to the client.A less common variation on this theme recently came before the compliance and supervision committee on appeal.Two sisters, having been appointed joint executrices of their mother's will, consulted solicitors.

The firm indicated a charge-out rate of 90/hour plus one per cent of the estate value when that value was ascertained.

Six days later a letter was sent confirming these terms.The sisters thought the one per cent charge excessive in regard to the simple nature of the estate and decided to sort the matter themselves.

Four days after receiving the firm's confirmation letter they faxed a reply terminating the retainer and asking for an account for work to date.Sixteen days later they received a bill of nearly 1,000 together with a schedule of assets.

Unsurprisingly, the clients objected to the amount especially as it included a sum representing one per cent of the known value of the estate.The firm responded by saying they had been obliged to contact all those previously written to informing them they were no longer instructed, and draw up a schedule of assets so the sisters could personally apply for probate.The clients asked the solicitors to apply for a remuneration certificate.

At the same time they sent two cheques - one for half the bill and one for the balance, on the strict understanding this was done solely to prevent interest accruing.The solicitors retorted on three fronts: the request was out of time (it was, technically, by six days); the bill had been paid in full; and the firm would insist on taxation, with the resulting cost consequences, if the matter were pursued.The OSS could not deal with the complaint about the size of the bill.

However, it decided the firm had done unnecessary work after the termination of its retainer, contradicting the instructions to cease work.

It then compounded this by charging for the unnecessary work and prematurely requesting the one per cent mark-up contrary to its own costs' information letter.The OSS adjudicator reduced the bill to 200 and ordered the firm to pay 250 compensation.

It was also noted the solicitor's response to the complaint was foreign to the spirit of r.15.

The firm's appeal against the decision was rejected.l 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.