Conduct and service

The heart of the problemOften, complaints are referred to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) in which the firm's complaint handler has failed to identify the true nature of the problem and consequently has failed to address it.

The complaint handler is then indignant when the complainant refers the matter to the OSS and it, having discerned what the complaint is really about, makes a finding of inadequate service against the firm.Such problems arise because clients can put their complaints only as they perceive them, and their perception is sometimes flawed because they know little or nothing about legal practice and procedures.What happens then is that the complaint handler looks at the complaint as it is put, decides it is unjustified and rejects it.

This does nothing to resolve the issue.

Actually, it only escalates it because now, not only has the client still got the complaint, but he also feels fobbed off by the firm's response.Similar problems arise when an unhappy client can't put his finger on the cause of the problem and expresses concern in terms the solicitor cannot follow.What the complaint handler should be doing is talking to the client to try to get to the bottom of what's causing the dissatisfaction.

After all, if there are circumstances making one client unhappy, the same thing may be happening to others.

The sooner something is done to remove the cause, the better.A typical example involved a client who had been arrested and charged with affray.

By the time the case came to trial, the charge had been reduced to one of assault on a police officer, but the client still wanted to plead not guilty.

The client had previously told his solicitors he wanted to call certain witnesses in his defence.

When the witnesses didn't appear on the day of the trial, the client sacked his solicitors.

The trial went ahead anyway - the client was acquitted - and then complained that the solicitors had failed to follow his instructions to interview and call the witnesses.In fact, the solicitors had interviewed the witnesses, but decided they would be of no help and decided not to call them.

The complaint handler took the complaint at face value.

Stating, quite correctly, that the firm had interviewed the witnesses and that witness selection was a matter of professional judgement (not subject to review by the OSS), he rejected the complaint.Unfortunately, the complaint had been taken literally and at face value.

The real problem was that the firm hadn't explained to the client why it had decided not to call the witnesses.

One can imagine the client's concern when he turned up for his trial expecting certain witnesses to be there to give evidence for him, only to find they weren't there.

Perhaps it was fortuitous that the client was acquitted, but it still cost the solicitors 250 in compensation to him.

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.