Conduct and service

Face the facts

Complaint handlers at the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) never cease to be amazed by the number of complaints where the solicitor concerned stoutly denies the validity of the complaint - which turns out to be fully justified when the file is examined.

There are probably many reasons for this.

Some solicitors regard a service complaint as a claim against the firm, to be resisted at all costs.

Others view a complaint as a personal insult and a slur on the firm's integrity.

Such an approach is, of course, totally inappropriate and does nothing to resolve the issue.

It simply aggravates matters.

What the firm's complaint handler should be asking is: 'If I think this complaint is unfounded, why does the client think he's got grounds for complaint? Something has gone wrong and I ought to find out what it is.

If it has happened with one client, it may happen with others.'

While the inappropriate approach is to be deplored, it is even worse when the solicitor maintains a flat denial, not only in the face of the evidence, but without having bothered to find out what evidence there was - even once the complaint has been referred to the OSS.

One firm's client, fed up with what she perceived as slow progress, filed a complaint of delay and added that the firm had ignored her requests to return to her a certain document that she urgently required.

The firm simply denied there was any delay and also said it had never received requests for the document concerned.

The client wasn't going to be fobbed off like that.

She referred the matter to the OSS, which sent for the solicitor's file.

This showed there had been several periods of months at a time when nothing had happened in the matter, with no apparent reason.

However, what was even worse was that, there were two letters from the complainant on the file asking for the document and explaining why the matter was urgent.

There was also a telephone note of a call from the client, repeating her request, when the letters had failed to produce any response.

Obviously, when denying the complaint, the solicitor had not even bothered to look at the file.

To cap it all, when the client transferred her instructions to another firm, the solicitors took three months to transfer the papers, despite their bill having been paid.

The whole issue cost the solicitor 600 in compensation.

The conduct unit of the OSS then investigated what appeared to be a deliberately misleading statement to the client.

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