Conduct and service

For the avoidance of doubt

A basic rule in avoiding complaints is to ensure that clients know what is going on, what they are expected to do and what the solicitor is going to do.

The best way of making oneself understood is to have a face-to-face conversation.

Even then misunderstandings can arise.

For that reason important issues should be confirmed in writing.

This week's case illustrates how much difficulty can be avoided by a single letter.

The solicitors were instructed to transfer a property from the sole name of the owner into the joint names of the owner and his partner and, at the same time, enlarge their share of the property, which was owned jointly with a housing association.

The owner had applied to his building society and it sent instructions to the solicitors who had already been instructed.

A week or so later the clients saw the solicitor.

What happened at that meeting was not only the subject of two conflicting accounts, but also led directly to a matter, that should have been concluded within three months, taking more than a year.

The clients left the meeting thinking that everything was in hand and all they had to do was wait for the solicitors to deal with the formalities.

Conversely, the solicitors said they told the clients that they had to arrange for a joint life policy to be taken out and to apply to the housing association for consent to the transfer.

They sat back and waited for developments that, of course, never came.

By the time the clients, wondering why they had heard nothing, chased the matter up, time limits had expired and the whole process had to be re-started.

To make matters worse, the solicitors appear to have assumed that the clients had been sent a copy of the mortgage instructions.

Of course, this would normally have been the case.

If the clients had been sent a copy, it had gone astray, so it was less than helpful, when the clients queried something that was actually covered by the instructions, to be told to obtain a copy from the mortgagees.

Whatever the truth, it is obvious that had the solicitors done what they should have done, and confirmed, in writing, what they were expecting the clients to do, any misunderstandings would have been avoided - and so would the consequent complaints.

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