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

Under the microscope

When people make complaints to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) about the service they have received from their solicitors, the OSS is required to undertake a thorough investigation.

Solicitors should not be surprised by its attempts to get to the bottom of the matter, since, if the ombudsman considers that there are questions left unanswered, she will recommend that the OSS reopen its investigation.

It only takes a minute

Mr R approached a solicitor's firm for some preliminary legal advice following separation from his wife.

He believed that the meeting with the solicitor lasted 30 minutes; however, he was charged for 42 minutes.

The OSS obtained a copy of the firm's ledger, which showed that the meeting had lasted for 42 minutes.

It told Mr R that, because there was a conflict of evidence over the length of the meeting, it could not pursue the matter.

The ombudsman observed that visiting a solicitor is not like taking a taxi, where the meter is on display.

Nor was it like visiting a dentist, where you are charged for the work done, rather than the time taken to do it.

The way in which the system operates is based on the assumption that solicitors' time records are accurate; ultimately, there is little that clients can do about this, short of tape-recording their meetings with solicitors - which would be rather extreme.

Nevertheless, the ombudsman considered that the OSS could have investigated the matter with a little more rigour.

It should have sought an explanation from the firm about the disparity.

Had the 42 minutes included the time taken to write up an attendance note? Had it been due to the practice of breaking time up into units? Depending on the precise start and finish times of the meeting, this could have led to the client being billed for the disputed 12 minutes.

The ombudsman recommended that the OSS reconsider the matter, and seek an explanation from the firm for the disparity.

She also observed that, as matters stood, it was unlikely that Mr R would want to use that firm again in the future, or to recommend its services to anyone - indeed, quite the opposite.

A relatively minor dispute about 12 minutes' billing time (which, incidentally, had taken the firm more than 12 minutes to deal with) had resulted in a potential loss of future business.

The client wears the trousers

Mr H was involved in a road traffic accident, in which he was knocked off his motorcycle by a lorry.

He instructed a firm of solicitors to pursue his claim for damages against the lorry driver's insurance company.

The claim was settled for a lower amount than Mr H had expected, and he made a number of complaints to the OSS about the way in which the firm had handled his case.

Chief among these was a complaint that his solicitor had advised him to continue wearing his damaged motorcycle clothing.

The insurance company then refused to award him damages for this part of his claim.

The OSS did not seek a response from the firm to this allegation.

It told him that it was not empowered to question the advice that solicitors give to their clients.

The ombudsman observed that, if Mr H's allegation was true, then the solicitor's advice might well have been so unreasonable that no solicitor should have given it.

Therefore, this was a matter which the OSS ought to have investigated.

The ombudsman recommended that the OSS reconsider this aspect of Mr H's complaint.