Conduct and service

The case of the missing papers

The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) received a curious complaint in which the complainant, a serving prisoner, sought to raise various complaints against the solicitors whom he had initially asked to pursue his appeal.

They were not the solicitors who had acted for him when he had been convicted.

He complained that the solicitors took too long to do anything, and they never told him what was happening.

The alleged timetable of events indicated that the solicitors had first been approached to act in June.

He was seen by someone from the firm at the start of August but then heard nothing until January the following year.

The matter was then further complicated by the fact that the complainant's file was lost, although not, as we shall see, by the solicitors.

However, this did not prevent the complainant raising it as a complaint.

By that time, the relationship had deteriorated so far that the complainant did not believe anything the solicitors told him.

The OSS took up the complaints with the solicitors.

It was relevant to know when the solicitors were actually instructed, when they asked for the file, and when it was received.

However, the solicitors said they had no record that they had ever, for instance, requested the file, and even suggested that the client may have told his former solicitors to send the file to him and that he then sent it on to them.

They did not have any evidence of when the file was received.

Therefore, it was embarrassing for them when the complainant produced to the OSS letters that the solicitors had written to him, sending him an authority for them to obtain the file, and confirming they had received the file at the end of July.

Then, in late October, the solicitors said they were reviewing the papers and would be in touch again about mid-November.

In fact, the client was not seen until the start of February.

Ultimately, the solicitors sent the papers to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).

It said it could not trace having received them.

The complainant then suggested that either the solicitors had not sent them or they had lost them.

The CCRC found the file in its office.

However, this case reflects how easily one can distrust everything once service standards have been allowed to slide.

The inadequacies of service identified eventually cost the solicitors 350 in compensation.

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.