Ombudsman's casebook

A monthly column of examples from the files of the Legal Services Ombudsman

Will it all end in tiers?

The Law Society recently launched a client care charter, which aims to explain to clients in plain English what to expect from a solicitor and what to do if things go wrong.

While the charter is to be welcomed, if it means that clients better understand the professional obligations solicitors are under, unfortunately the charter and accompanying guides are not mandatory.

So there is a very real possibility that a two-tier system will develop with some clients being given the new literature - described by the Law Society as 'a hallmark of service' - yet others will still be kept in the dark about what standard of service to expect.

As the following cases show, there is a need to ensure that good practice is spread across the whole of the profession.

Molestation aggravation

Ms L had been assaulted and raped by her former partner.

Following his release from prison, he confronted Ms L in her own home, leaving her distressed and shaken.

She instructed a solicitor to obtain an injunction.

The solicitor set to work quickly, securing the services of a private detective to trace the man, instructing counsel, obtaining medical reports and preparing affidavits.

In the meantime, Ms L was alarmed to discover a pile of cigarette butts outside her house.

She believed that her former partner was observing her in the property with a view to carrying out another attack.

Several months passed and Ms L called to see the solicitor about a will.

He then dropped the bombshell.

He had decided not to apply for an injunction because he felt that a judge would not make an order at this stage.

Following a complaint to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS), a report was prepared for an adjudicator who decided that the firm had failed to respond to Ms L's letters; failed to inform her of progress and of the decision not to proceed and failed to follow Ms L's instructions.

The adjudicator awarded 750 compensation - later increased to 1,000 on appeal.

On referral to the ombudsman, she decided that the adjudication panel's decision was reasonable, although she was critical about the OSS's handling of the complaint and awarded Ms L compensation of 400.

Triple trouble

Mr H complained to the OSS about the handling of three contentious property-related cases by his solicitors.

Following an investigation by the OSS, an adjudicator decided that the firm's service had been inadequate.

The solicitors had failed to keep Mr H adequately informed; they withdrew proceedings without their client's authority and had failed to comply with instructions; they had failed to deliver advice in respect of one case; had failed to reply to correspondence and they had neglected to give Mr H a client care letter or any information about costs.

Finally, they had not operated an adequate complaints procedure.

The adjudicator awarded Mr H compensation of 3,000 for the loss of opportunity to recover that sum from one of his opponents as well as 1,000 for inconvenience.

The adjudicator also directed the solicitors not to recover their costs for all three matters as well as return any money paid over by Mr H for disbursements.

The ombudsman was satisfied that, in the circumstances, the adjudicator's decisions were reasonable.

However, she was concerned that the conduct implications of this whole sorry tale had not been considered - the solicitors had not progressed any of the matters for more than a year, nor had they responded to any of Mr H's letters.

The ombudsman recommended that the OSS should reconsider the complaint.