The legal ombudsman has signalled a new era in transparency by publishing details of upheld complaints against individual firms. The three firms were named today after the ombudsman exercised its powers to publish decisions in when it is in the public interest to do so. At least one of them vigorously contests the watchdog’s findings. 

Previously, the ombudsman has usually limited publication to naming firms and giving just the outcome the complaint. It has not published further case details for several years, but the Gazette understands it will publish decisions more regularly in the future. 

The complaints handler insists that this increased level of transparency will drive up standards and improve accountability.

Future publication will be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it is fair. Those given greater exposure will be cases showing systemic failures affecting many clients, those with an exceptional or severe impact on a complainant, cases with very serious service failures or those where there was a significant lack of cooperation with the ombudsman.

The three cases are highlighted for service issues in different areas of law: litigation, employment and wills and probate. According to the ombudsman:

  • Southampton firm Underwood & Co* had been instructed to draft a client’s will in 2005 with provision for his long-term partner to receive one-fifth of his estate and continue to live in his house for as long as she needed. When the client died, the partner received none of the £21,600 cash assets due to her and got no explanation for this, before she died two years later. Following a complaint from her family and after an extensive investigation, the Legal Ombudsman found that Underwood & Co had paid four other residuary beneficiaries £21,600 each a number of years prior but had withheld the partner’s share. The ombudsman also found that the firm failed to respond to numerous requests from the family for information about the estate, the original will, the estate accounts and interim payments, and the legacy that was due. It also failed to respond to any requests for payment of monies and failed to deal with any of the family’s complaints. The ombudsman awarded the partner’s estate £60,962.99, including the interest and refund of fees.
  • Harrow-based Ansham White was ordered to pay around £25,000 after 19 issues of complaint from a litigation client were upheld. Service failures were found in the preparation of the case for trial, representation at the hearing and advice to embark on what was ultimately a costly and unsuccessful appeal. The ombudsman said this outcome could have been avoided had the firm either provided the barrister advising on the merits of the appeal with an accurate note of the hearing, or if the firm had obtained a transcript of the hearing. In a statement, the firm’s director Omair Butt said: ‘While we are naturally disappointed that the matter progressed to a formal finding, we respect the role of the ombudsman and have reviewed the outcome carefully. We take all complaints seriously and are committed to maintaining high standards of client care. Where issues are identified, we take proactive steps to learn from them and ensure that our practices are continuously improved.’
  • London firm Scornik Gerstein was ordered to pay around £39,000 to clients who had wanted to make employment claims. The signatories to a funding agreement had been unhappy with the firm deducting 35% of the damages they secured and complained the firm had charged twice, taking fees from both the losing employer and from them. The ombudsman said the firm offered no cost information to support its account that the clients should have understood that they would be charged separately to any money recovered from the employer for legal fees. The funding agreement the firm drafted did refer to the possibility of charging for additional work to the employment claim, but it said the firm would tell the clients if that happened, and the ombudsman saw no evidence that the firm did so.

Scornik Gerstein told the Gazette the decision was unfair as no poor service was identified. The Solicitors Regulation Authority had looked into the matter and found no misconduct.

Managing partner Antonio Arenas said: ‘The clients complained because they considered we had charged fees twice and we argued that we did not and that we had charged them in accordance to the CFA terms. They stated that the fee agreement was changed orally before trial at the employment tribunal and the LEO was satisfied that they were telling the truth but no such change was ever discussed let alone agreed.

‘The LEO asked us to provide evidence in the contrary but as you will understand, such a request was diabolic as no evidence of a non existent fact can be provided. They just preferred to believe their word rather than ours.’

*London firm Underwood & Co has no connection with its namesake in the ombudsman's list.