Conduct and service

Former clientsSeveral common misconceptions prevent solicitors from dealing with complaints in an appropriate way.

One of the most common, which crops up repeatedly when the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) asks why a solicitor did not respond to a complaint, arises when the client has terminated the retainer and transferred his instructions to another firm.

Invariably, the explanation given is that the solicitor could not respond to the complaint because this would have involved communicating with what was now another firm's client.However, if that were the case, it would make a nonsense of the requirements of Law Society practice rule 15 relating to a solicitor's obligation to deal with complaints from a client.

The whole purpose of rule 15's complaints handling provisions is to ensure that as many complaints as possible are dealt with quickly at source, affording the best chance of resolving any issues that arise.

Where that does not happen, by the time the complaint drops through the OSS's letter box, the complainant's attitude has often hardened to the degree that an amicable resolution is made much more difficult, if not impossible.

The client, who was probably annoyed to begin with, has now become incensed at what he perceives as unacceptable off-hand treatment by the solicitor in ignoring his concerns.The solicitor's retainer with the client includes dealing with any complaints that might arise from it.

Just because the client, for any reason, later decides to transfer his instructions elsewhere, thus terminating the retainer as the work itself is concerned, does not mean that the retainer as far as complaint handling is concerned, is also terminated.Of course, it may be both sensible and courteous to write to the complainant's new solicitors to tell them what has happened and that it is intended to correspond directly with the former client about the issues that have been raised.

No one at the OSS would criticise a firm for doing so.The OSS has taken a fairly lenient attitude when it has appeared that firms genuinely thought they could not communicate with their former client about a complaint.

But ignorance is a poor defence - the OSS's tolerance has a limited lifespan.

The sooner this particular misconception is laid to rest, the better for all parties.l Every case before the adjudication panel is decided on its individual facts.

These case studies are for illustration only and should not be treated as precedents.