The legal ombudsman has insisted it is not trying to name and shame errant law firms, despite today publishing ten more decisions with details of mistakes that were made and the punishments meted out.
The complaints handler has been encouraged to use its powers to increase transparency and accountability by giving further details of firms’ mistakes and the consequences they faced.
The first round of three decisions was published earlier this year but the process has been cranked up with the latest set of outcomes involving firms of various sizes and financial redress orders ranging from a few thousand pounds to more than £40,000.
This set of 10 decisions highlights recurring errors over missing deadlines or communications issues, such as failing to provide clear and accurate costs information or acting without a client’s consent. They cover several practice areas including immigration, conveyancing, family and litigation.
The ombudsman said the remedies awarded in these decisions reflect the seriousness and impact of the failings identified. The organisation can publish details of any decision where there is a clear public interest, such as where issues are serious or systemic or where lessons can be learned.
Paul McFadden, chief ombudsman, said: ‘This second round of public interest decisions reinforces LeO’s commitment to using its powers to shine a light on serious service failings. Whether it’s someone left without legal status due to a missed immigration application, a family facing unexpected tax bills during a time of grief, or a homebuyer losing money in a cyber-crime incident, the human impact is clear.
‘Publishing these decisions is part of LeO’s broad programme of work to share insight from its work to help raise standards across the sector. Legal service providers should reflect on these cases and the lessons that can be learned. Transparency is not about naming and shaming – it’s about learning, accountability, and better outcomes for everyone who relies on legal services.’
The new set of decisions names:
- Birmingham firm Allerton & Gladstone Ltd, ordered to pay £16,500 after failing to provide a cost estimate and failing to keep accurate records
- Bridgend firm Anthony & Jarvie, ordered to pay £42,547 to cover a landlord’s lost rent after it was blamed for him being scammed by cyber criminals
- West End firm Bloomsbury Law, ordered to pay £20,500 after refusing to comply with any ombudsman direction, saying its involvement was ‘perverse’
- London-based former solicitor Mr Chandi, ordered to pay around £14,000 for multiple failings on a client’s application to extend leave to remain in the UK
- Barrister Mohammed Latif, ordered to pay £2,230 for failing submit client’s citizenship application
- Barrister Pauline Lewis, ordered to pay around £12,000 after failing to prepare for a costs hearing and failing to communicate with replacement counsel
- Surrey firm Rowe Radcliffe, ordered to pay a client £34,900 after failing to advise about risks of buying a property with a 77-year lease
- St Helens Law, ordered to pay around £27,000 after taking out an ATE policy for a claim that was not needed
- Monmouth firm Twomlows Limited, ordered to pay around £14,000 after causing delays on two property matters and providing incorrect tax advice
- National firm Veale Wasbrough Vizards, ordered to offset around £35,000 from client’s fees after failing to advise client of likely costs, progress her matter or answer her questions.
