Conduct and service

Rule 15 has continuing responsibilities

It would appear that many firms, while complying with Law Society practice rule 15 at the start of the retainer, completely overlook the fact that the requirements are ongoing.

This particularly applies to accumulating costs and changes in the person conducting the client's matter or supervising it.

Another vexed question arises from the requirements of principle 3.07 of the Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors, 1999, eighth edition, relating to the supervision of staff.

When the client is not happy with the outcome of the case, or the advice that was given, combined with misleading information about the status of the fee-earner, it can only lead to complaints about the client being misled and inadequate supervision.

Such were the circumstances in a complaint that was aggravated by the firm's failure to ensure that standard letters were amended to suit the individual under whose name the letter was written.

The fee-earner was a legal executive.

The client care letter failed to state the fee-earner's status, and was, in fact, an amended version of the letter used by the supervising partner, whose identity and standing was given in the letter.

This gave the client the impression that the fee-earner was a solicitor.

Before the matter was concluded the supervising partner retired and another took over that role - but the client was not told of the change.

Matters went wrong and climaxed with the client becoming dissatisfied and alleging she had been mis-advised.

She perceived her case as being complicated and required a solicitor to deal with it, and, as a knock-on, the fee-earner had not been properly supervised.

The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, having seen evidence of the systems that the firm had in place to alert it to any problems, were satisfied that staff were adequately supervised.

However, there was no evidence that the firm had kept its client advised about the change in the identity of the supervising partner.

It was also clear that the fee-earner had not taken sufficient care, when amending the standard client care letter, to ensure that no misleading statements remained.

There were other service complaints that were found to be justified, but the factors set out above certainly contriubted to the award of 500 compensation that the solicitors had to pay.

Every case before the adjudication panel is decided on its individual facts.

This case study is for illustration only and should not be treated as a precedent

LawyerlineFacing a service complaint? Need advice on how to handle it? Contact Mike Frith at LAWYERLINE, the support service offered by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, tel: 0870 606 2588.