Conduct and service

A catalogue of failuresThe maximum compensation the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) can award in cases concerning inadequate service was raised from 1,000 to 5,000 for decisions made after 3 September 1999.

The OSS uses this increased power, especially if there is a catalogue of inadequacy and even more so when the firm has failed to operate a satisfactory complaints-handling procedure.This was exemplified in a case where the firm had handled a personal injury claim, which for part of its life had been legally aided.

Indeed, it was that aspect that was the basis for one of the most serious complaints: that the firm had never properly explained the nature and effect of the statutory charge - a highly significant factor with a total bill approaching 50,000.While the firm had given the client the Legal Aid Board's leaflet, it offered no explanation of its own to the client until the end of the case.

There were also further deficiencies relating to costs.

The solicitors failed to give proper costs information and neglected to consider whether the benefit the client was likely to gain was worth the financial risk.

They failed to inform her about accumulating costs during the life of the claim and failed to explain fully the implications of a payment into court, forgetting to tell her the consequences of failing to beat the amount paid in.The client could not be paid any of the damages due to her until the amount of costs due to the solicitors had been determined.

Unfortunately, the solicitors were instrumental in delaying that process.

More than a year after the judgment, a bill had still not been submitted to the court for assessment.The firm also ignored many telephone calls made by the client to find out what was causing the delay.To cap everything the firm failed to deal properly with the complaints when they were made by the client and when the OSS became involved.

The firm was ordered to pay the client 3,500 compensation.This disgraceful case highlights common aspects of this type of complaint.

The firm failed to explain two relevant aspects of costs information - the statutory charge and the payment into court (which must be done in writing and in language that the client will understand).

Second, it did not appreciate the need, even though the client was legally aided, to keep her informed as to how costs were accumulating.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.