Conduct and service

The cost of ignoring a complaint

The power given to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) to impose costs orders of up to 840 on those firms which have findings made against them has been extensively publicised.

The power is discretionary and that discretion is less likely to be exercised where the firm has made a genuine effort to resolve the complaint.

This power has been available in respect of complaints about service referred to the OSS since 1 May 2002.

The first of those cases where costs orders can be made has been concluded.

One of these illustrates not only the power to impose a costs order, but the way in which that power will be used and the factors that will influence its use.

The client had complained to the firm that it had failed to give her adequate costs information, lost the file, delayed in implementing an order and failed to notify her of the identity of a fee earner who took over her file.

Those heads of complaint were found to be justified.

Indeed, the firm accepted the position with regard to most of them.

Given that, it is surprising that the firm appeared to have ignored the complaints when the client first communicated her concerns to the practice.

The client wrote to the firm three times over a month.

Four months later, the solicitors responded.

The client wrote again and this time it took the solicitors three months to reply.

When the matter was referred to the OSS, the solicitors made a belated compensatory offer, which the client refused.

The solicitors decided to increase the offer, but again the client refused.

In fact, the first offer was not unreasonable and might have been accepted had it been made promptly when the client first raised her complaints.

However, such was the delay that the client had become intractable.

The OSS adjudicator fixed a compensatory payment between the two offers.

He also imposed a costs order on the firm.

However, this order was halved to reflect the fact that the solicitors had at least, albeit belatedly, made a reasonable offer in order to try to resolve the complaints they had conceded.

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