Ombudsman's casebook

A monthly column of examples from the files of the Legal Services Ombudsman Back to basicsAs the President of the Law Society said recently in his column in the Gazette, 'Good client care is not rocket science'.

Perhaps not, but - as the ombudsman observes in her annual report published this week - even a basic understanding of the principles of good client care still seems to elude far too many solicitors.

The following cases are typical of the shortcomings in client care and communication that the ombudsman's office sees regularly.Bolt out of the blueIn 1990, Ms C instructed solicitors to pursue a negligence claim.

In 1997, her solicitors wrote to say that they had not sent her a bill since 1994 and that, given the enormous amount of work they had done, they thought they had better get in touch to prepare her for the shock of receiving a bill, of possibly up to 9,500 - later reduced to 7,250 out of sympathy for their client, because of the bombshell they had dropped.After trying to reach an agreement about the fees, Ms C and the solicitors together contacted the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) in October 1998 asking for advice on what they should do.

After some delay, the OSS launched an investigation in April 2000.

Eventually, an OSS adjudicator found that the solicitors had failed to give timely advice about how costs would be calculated; had failed to tell Ms C about the escalating costs; had not done a cost benefit analysis; and had not produced a bill within a reasonable period of the case coming to an end.

For these inadequacies, the adjudicator directed the solicitors to reduce their bill to 6,000 and pay 1,000 compensation to the complainant.

Ms C, dissatisfied at the outcome of the OSS's investigation - which she thought had taken far too long and come to the wrong decision - complained to the ombudsman.

The ombudsman decided that, while the redress awarded by the OSS was adequate in the circumstances, it should have advised Ms C to ask for a remuneration certificate at the outset, and afterwards, consider the service inadequacies.

This approach would have resulted in a much faster resolution of the problem from Ms C's point of view and a much easier job for the adjudicator.

The ombudsman recommended that the OSS pay Ms C 500 for the distress and inconvenience she had been caused by the way it handled her complaint.Hidden chargesMs T instructed solicitors to act for her in ancillary relief proceedings.

Subsequently, she complained to the OSS about several aspects of the service she had received, including billing procedures and the solicitors' failure to tell her that she could attend the assessment of costs hearing.

However, her main complaint, was that the solicitors failed to explain how she would be affected by the Legal Aid Board's statutory charge.

She, unaware of this hidden cost, had spent money she might have used to reduce the amount owing to the Board.Following an investigation, the OSS decided that the solicitors' service had been inadequate because they had failed to supply Ms T with information about the statutory charge and her liability to pay interest.

The OSS directed the solicitors to pay Ms T 500 compensation for distress caused by the poor service she had received.

Following an unsuccessful appeal against the decision, Ms T complained to the ombudsman about the OSS's handling of her complaint.The ombudsman decided that the OSS's approach to the complaint about the statutory charge was reasonable.

However, she was less impressed with the way in which the OSS had considered the remaining aspects of Ms T's complaint - particularly the failure to address important aspects of her concerns and the absence of reasons for dismissing her appeal.

The ombudsman recommended that the OSS should reconsider the complaint.In both these cases the shortcomings of the solicitors were subsequently compounded by less than impressive complaint handling by the OSS.

Client care may not be rocket science - but it is still an art that far too many solicitors have yet to master.