Conduct and service

How far can I go?There's an often-held view among solicitors that amounts to a suggestion that they can get away with anything, provided they can say they're following their client's instructions or acting in the best interests of their client.

However, other considerations have to be taken into account.

Solicitors owe duties, not only to immediate clients but also to third parties in general.The scope of those duties formed the background to a complaint in which the solicitor acted for ground landlords of residential leasehold properties held on a long lease.

There were minimal arrears of ground rent, amounting to a few pounds in each case.Acting on client instructions, the solicitor wrote to each leaseholder's mortgagee demanding payment of the arrears, his own costs (at 125), management fees of 75 and a 16 Land Registry fee.

Forfeiture was threatened if the sums were not paid.It was considered that the facts were enough to constitute a breach of Law Society practice rule 1, as the solicitor had tried to take unfair advantage by writing letters which were misleading and constituted demands for money which were not recoverable under the due process of the law.

The solicitor's conduct was referred to the disciplinary tribunal.At the tribunal, counsel for the solicitor put forward the 'hired gun' defence, suggesting that - if the solicitor acted on his client's clear instructions and what he did was not in breach of the law - it did not matter that the actions were out of proportion to the mischief they sought to remedy.

If the instructions were to take action that was lawful, the conduct could not be described as 'dishonourable' or 'disgraceful.'The tribunal rejected the argument.

It regarded the letters as 'intimidatory' and, as such, went beyond the bounds of acceptability.

How far beyond may be gauged from the aggregate fine of 25,000 imposed.It could also have been suggested that the solicitor, in demanding an outrageously large and dispropor-tionate sum for costs, also breached principle 17.03 - which would also apply to extortionate amounts demanded, for example, by landlords' solicitors for granting consent to an assignment of the lease.The principle states that solicitors should not seek to take unfair advantage of another party for their own benefit by overcharging or by using the client's bargaining position to prevent agreement as to costs on a reasonably informed basis.l Every case before the panel is decided on its individual facts.

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