Conduct and serviceThe unholy trinitySome complaints that reach the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) involve both conduct and service issues, and some concern service and negligence issues, but few embrace all three.

This was the situation in a matter that revolved around a divorce in which the decree proceedings had been resolved some years before the solicitors in question were consulted about ancillary matters.The solicitors were instrumental in issuing proceedings in relation to the sale of the former matrimonial home, and distribution of the proceeds.Unfortunately, the proceedings themselves were not pursued with any urgency.

It was 26 months before a preliminary hearing was listed.

At the hearing the application was dismissed with costs because it transpired that since the decree, not only had the complainant remarried, he had re-divorced!The complainant immediately complained to the solicitors.

He demanded compensation for the stress caused by their negligence in issuing and pursuing what was a hopeless case from the start.

Eventually the matter was referred to the firm's insurers, but they would indemnify the complainant only in respect of the wasted costs order.

The complainant took the matter to the OSS.The OSS then took the point, which had not been raised by the complainant, no doubt because he was unaware of the requirement, that the firm had not advised its client to seek independent legal advice.

The firm protested it had, when the complainant first telephoned it after the hearing, but there was no supporting attendance note and it was not mentioned in any subsequent letter to the client.The OSS found the firm had supplied an inadequate service in that it had failed to take full instructions, and consequently failed properly to advise the complainant.

It then compounded things by delaying in progressing the matter.

It was also held that the conducting solicitor had not complied with principle 29.08 of the Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors, seventh edition.

In that respect disapproval was expressed of his conduct.The relative lightness of the decision reflected the fact the firm had reported the matter to its insurers soon after it came to light.

However, the firm was also ordered to forego any costs and to pay 1,250 compensation to the complainant, in addition to any insurance excess it was also required to pay.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.