Beware the end of a retainer

Mr M consulted solicitors to assist in his application for rehousing by his local authority.

Mr M was entitled to free advice and the solicitors took certain initial steps on his behalf.

They endeavoured to persuade the local housing authority to reconsider their offer and indicated that a judicial review would be sought and an injunction applied for to prevent eviction of Mr M and his family from their temporary accommodation if the matter did not proceed.

Things did not move as quickly as Mr M would have wished.

He wrote to the solicitors instructing them to take no further action.

Without telling the solicitors, Mr M consulted new solicitors, although it is unclear what the new solicitors were instructed to do.

They did not place themselves on the court record.

Notwithstanding the situation, the original firm took a further set of steps on Mr M's behalf, despite the fact that his letter informing them of his wish for them to do nothing further had been received.

The solicitors later said that they took the action because having earlier registered Mr M's concerns with the court, they would be acting negligently if they had failed to file certain documents.

Whatever the solicitors' duty to the court, they did not tell Mr M what they were doing, and it seems that they did not make any application to remove the firm's name from the record, notwithstanding the clarity of Mr M's termination of the retainer.

Mr M later complained that the solicitors had continued to act for him despite the termination, had failed to respond reasonably to his telephone calls, and had failed to provide him with his file.

The solicitors explained that what they did for Mr M, knowing that he did not want them to continue representing him was, in their considered opinion, in Mr M's best interests.

They said their continued action had maintained Mr M's position, but they had no authority to continue acting, and as a result, inadequacies were identified in all three aspects.

The adjudicator dealt with the matter by way of a compensatory direction.

He noted that although the solicitors had exceeded their duty, they had in fact taken steps to attempt to protect Mr M and that he had suffered no adverse result.

Indeed, his position had been improved.

Nonetheless, Mr M was clearly upset at what had happened and that steps had been taken behind his back of which he had no direct knowledge.

He continued to assert that he felt 'threatened' by the situation generally, but the nature of any instructions given to his new solicitors remained unknown.

A proportionate view was considered essential and he received a modest award of compensation amounting to 250.

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