A former complaints handler for a law firm has been fined £4,000 and ordered to pay £10,000 towards the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s costs for repeated failings to deal properly with the legal ombudsman.

Gary Jonathan Glover, solicitor and manager with now-closed Midlands practice Garner Canning Ltd, admitted he failed to provide a prompt response to various complaints coming into the firm.

Glover was not the subject of the complaints himself, and he had resolved other complaints that came in, but said he was ‘swamped’ by the amount of work he faced and he put in extra hours to fix problems.

Glover had agreed with the SRA to pay a £4,000 fine and £15,000 costs, but the tribunal ruled that a costs order of £10,000 was more reasonable and proportionate given that proceedings were neither document heavy nor complex.

The tribunal heard that Glover, a solicitor for 20 years, was the complaints partner for the predominantly conveyancing firm from 2018 until 2021.

A complaint was made to the firm in May 2019 on behalf of two clients involved in a dispute over a parking space. Glover acknowledged the complaint, but despite being chased for a substantive response – and the firm emailing to apologise for the delay – none was ever received.

The matter was escalated to the legal ombudsman in May 2020 and a final decision taken by the body in November that year, finding that the firm had not properly responded to the original complaint. The firm’s own complaints procedure pledged to respond within 21 days.

In another matter, a property client complained about the firm to the ombudsman, who told Glover that unless a response was received promptly a referral would be made to the SRA. Glover replied indicating that a substantive response would be forthcoming, but this was never received.

The ombudsman later told the firm to pay around £9,300 on the first matter, but enquiries three months later by the SRA found the money was still outstanding.

Glover told the tribunal he had moved to another firm and had no managerial role or responsibility for complaints handling, and it was ‘very much his intention’ that should remain the case. There was nothing in the papers which called into question his competence as a solicitor and he emphasised that he tried to meet the challenge of his role as complaints handler.

Agreeing the fine, the tribunal added: ‘The operation of reliable and timely complaints system is an important element of practice. The further, repeated, failures to cooperate with the legal ombudsman risked bringing the profession into disrepute and undermining public confidence.’