Conduct and service

Beware of conflictLaw Society practice rule 6 allows a solicitor to act on both sides of a conveyancing transaction where one party is an established client and the other is related by blood, adoption or marriage - provided there is no conflict.That was the essential problem that faced solicitors in a matter which was referred to the Legal Services Ombudsman.

It resulted from a complaint of bad advice - which the ombudsman confirmed was not a matter for the solicitor (or the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS), which declined to handle that aspect of the matter) to deal with.The situation was complicated.

The solicitor was instructed to act in the purchase of a property by Mr C, as a home for himself and Ms B.

Ms B was 17 years old and was the daughter of Mrs A, who had divorced and then married Mr A.

Mr and Mrs A were asked if they could help with the purchase price and agreed to provide about one-sixth of it.

Initially, they were happy to provide the money as a gift.The problem was that as Ms B was only 17, she could not be a joint owner.

It was agreed that the property would be bought in the names of Mr C and his father as tenants in common.The solicitors were asked to act for Mr and Mrs A as well.

They originally told Mr and Mrs A they ought to be separately represented, but failed to explain why, and were prevailed upon to represent them.

They then told Mr and Mrs A that their interests would be best served by registering a caution against the property and by having a declaration of trust executed, confirming their share in the property.Then the relationship between Ms B and Mr C foundered.

Mr and Mrs A sought to recover their money and were persuaded to instruct other solicitors.

Only one-third of their contribution could be recovered and they sought to take negligence proceedings against the solicitors, who denied liability.

Eventually a complaint was lodged with the OSS.The OSS advised it could not adjudicate on the suggestion of incorrect advice, which was tantamount to a claim of negligence.

However, at the time of the purchase the solicitors had breached principle 15.01, in a conflict situation or where there was a serious risk of one.

Because there were mitigating factors the solicitor escaped with a warning, but the moral is clear - when you identify a potential conflict, don't ignore it.l Every case before the adjudication panel is decided on its individual facts.

These case studies are for illustration only and are not precedents.