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

90% information, 10% perspiration

Around one in ten complaints to the ombudsman concern costs information.

Most of these complaints could have been easily avoided if the firms concerned had kept their clients adequately informed about their legal costs.

This is just as important for clients in receipt of public funding.

The rules and regulations governing such funding are not straightforward, and solicitors will often need to take extra care to ensure that their clients understand how the rules will affect them.

Travelling second class

Ms C's annual summer holiday was a disaster and, in her view, this was the fault of the travel company through which she had booked it.

Accordingly, she consulted T Solicitors for advice and assistance under the 'legal help' scheme.

In due course, Ms C made a number of complaints to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) about the service the firm had provided to her, most of which the OSS dealt with perfectly adequately.

However, one of her concerns related to the information she had been given about her legal costs and, in that regard, the OSS maintained that, in view of the fact that T Solicitors had acted for her under the legal help scheme, she had not been entitled to 'the same level of costs information as under full legal aid' (as the OSS's caseworker put it).

The ombudsman's understanding of the rules which govern solicitors' conduct and practice is that they do not provide for clients in circumstances such as those which prevailed in this case to receive a poorer standard of service in connection with matters relating to costs.

In the circumstances, she was not satisfied that the OSS's decision to take no action stood up to scrutiny, and recommended that Ms C's complaint should receive further consideration.

Small print, big surprise

Mr H instructed K & Co to handle his divorce proceedings.

He had been in receipt of income support for many years and so his case was publicly funded.

When the case concluded, the firm advised him that the statutory charge would apply in respect of its costs, which amounted to almost 3,000.

Mr H did not understand this.

He had thought that, because he was unemployed, public funding would meet all of his legal costs.

He complained to the OSS.

The OSS asked the firm to provide it with evidence that Mr H had been advised about the statutory charge.

The firm supplied a copy of the letter which it had sent to Mr H at the start of the retainer, and copies of attendance notes and letters which it had written to him after the case was finished.

The OSS concluded from this material that the firm had given Mr H adequate costs information.

The ombudsman was not satisfied that the OSS's conclusion was reasonable.

The firm's letter was a standard letter, of considerable length, and many of its paragraphs were irrelevant to Mr H's circumstances.

The firm did not appear to have given Mr H any advice about the statutory charge other than what was contained in this letter.

Nor had the firm demonstrated that it had given Mr H costs information as his case progressed.

Therefore, the ombudsman recommended that the OSS reconsider the matter.