Youth justice

J was 12 and his parents had divorced.

He lived with his father and grandmother.

His sister resided with her mother and her mother's new partner.

J and his sister had been close when they had all lived together, and he wanted to see her.

He made contact by telephone and by letter on several occasions but despite his sister's apparent willingness to meet him, their plans were thwarted by his mother's refusal to allow contact between her children.

J suggested a meeting at a local museum.

He was there on time but his sister did not arrive.

J maintained his mother's new partner was influencing the position unfairly.

Fed up with the situation, J consulted his grandmother and after her helpful intervention, he went to see a solicitor.

The law firm made initial attempts to secure contact by agreement.

Correspondence passed to and fro but without any formal agreement.

After realising that the matter would not resolve amicably, J decided to make an application to the court for a contact order.

The solicitors did not do much, and his instructions were not followed.

He took the view that the solicitors were not treating him seriously, possibly because of his age.

J wrote letters of complaint to the solicitors, begging them to help him.

He received little or no response from the firm.

J was upset and approached the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors.

On investigation, the solicitors conceded that things had not been progressed as well as they would have liked, and that in part their service in J's interests had not been of the best.

They offered a nominal sum in compensation, which J found insulting and refused.

The adjudicator decided that J's age was immaterial and that he was in no different position from any other client.

Some of his correspondence had been ignored, delays had taken place and generally his interests had not been addressed properly.

He had not been told that a court application, which he had been led to believe was being made, had not been pursued.

He had acted openly and sincerely at all times, wanting no more than to see his little sister and he had felt badly let down.

The adjudicator awarded him compensation of 500 and advised him to continue his action, perhaps by taking advice elsewhere.

J subsequently wrote to the office, expressing gratitude for the award and saying that his faith in the justice system had been restored.

With the help of new advisers he had been able to negotiate terms to see his sister.

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