One of the unexpected difficulties in doing the press and publicity around the recent publication of our annual report was the issue of how we brought the bare statistics alive by ­giving real examples of our work. For the annual report itself that was easy – we simply used the sort of anonymised case studies that regular readers of this column (assuming such beings exist, of course, which I admit is a pretty heroic assumption) have got used to.

Already in our first few months of operation, we have ­accumulated a pretty decent stock of those.

The problem came not with the ­formal written stuff but in the interviews. Finding real Legal Ombudsman customers willing to go in front of the cameras and microphones to tell their stories was easy. One of the nice discoveries in what we do is the fact that some of the people we deal with - lawyers and complainants - genuinely feel at the end that we have helped (others have very different views, but we always expected that to be the case).

The problem was, though, in working out how we would handle it if a complainant started using the coverage as an opportunity to warn other potential clients about a particular, named, law firm. The issue is that we have not yet completed our consultation to decide in what circumstances we will actually ever name the lawyer or firm involved in a complaint. That is not because we are reluctant to make decisions: decisions are our stock in trade. It is just because it is one of the most contentious areas of our set-up.

There is a general belief, though, on all sides that the public has a right to know about firms which genuinely pose a threat to them, either because they have done something awful or have accumulated a large number of complaints, and that these firms should be named; good lawyers can only benefit from the bad ones being known.

However, after two rounds of consultation, we have still not managed to reach agreement on the criteria by which we can sort the good from the bad, the wheat from the chaff, the dangerous from the squeaky clean.

The real problem here is that, in the area of complaints, the usual binary judgements which the law encourages do not apply. Lawyers want us to arrive at a guilty or innocent verdict, to uphold or dismiss complaints. That is difficult. In many cases, even where the complaint is founded on a real error on the part of the firm, the problem is not as great as the complainant thinks it is or the impact as profound.

Conversely, even when the complaint does not seem to be rooted in any obvious piece of poor service, it is rarely the case when people complain to us that there is absolutely no ­reason for them to be upset. There is usually something which one can spot as a root cause: even if the service provided was exemplary, as it in many cases is, you can usually see points where the lawyer could have done more to manage the client’s expectations or deal more sensitively with their initial complaint. Take the ­following case examples.

Mr C’s aunt died, leaving him her house and naming a number of other beneficiaries in her will. Naturally enough, he wanted the firm appointed as executors to get on with it. They needed to make sure the house was sold as quickly as possible and ­transfer the proceeds to Mr C without delay.

Mr C waited, but saw no apparent progress. He could not understand why things were taking so long. What was the problem with the sale of the property, and why were the solicitor’s bills so high? In the midst of all this, the lawyer named as the executor retired, but no one else had taken on the job after he left. The firm itself was still functioning perfectly normally, but everything seemed to have got stalled. Frustrated by the lack of any progress and poor communications with the firm, Mr C came to the Legal Ombudsman for help.

Our ombudsman looked into this aspect of the complaint and concluded that there had indeed been some problems with the way the firm had handled the administration of the will. But that was not the only issue for Mr C. He had also complained that the work done to sell the house was of a poor standard. Although there was some disagreement between Mr C and the firm about how the work had been done, the ombudsman decided that the firm had tried to explain all the whys and wherefores to Mr C in a letter.

But they also accepted that the firm could have been clearer in how it explained the process to Mr C - the risks and benefits of the different options available to him, and so on. The way the firm approached the case was confusing and resulted in delays and inconvenience to Mr C. The LeO decided that the firm should reduce its overall bill.

Another part of the problem as it turned out was poor office admin by the firm. It had not separated its charges for sorting out the estate as a whole from any costs associated specifically with the house sale, which would be down to Mr C alone to cover. This meant that its bills got muddled up, so it was harder to work out who was being charged for what.

The ombudsman acknowledged that there was an ongoing debate about whether a lease extension to do with the property itself was valid. But this was not something we could resolve. This was a legal matter and nothing to do with the standard of service provided by the firm.

The LeO was also asked to consider whether the way the work was done acted as a barrier to selling the house in the future. We could not say one way or the other - it would all depend on what any future buyer might want.

Mr C said the firm had been slow to pay some fees owing to a nursing home, and that the outstanding work needed to finish the administration of the estate still had not been done. The ombudsman agreed, and decided that the firm should take immediate practical steps to manage the handover properly, all at its own expense, and get on with bringing the administration to a swift conclusion.

Finally, the ombudsman decided there was no evidence that Mr C had suffered any financial loss. There had been a few problems, but nothing to suggest that he had lost any money as a result.Nevertheless, because of the delays and confusion, the ombudsman awarded Mr C £300 as a goodwill payment. If the ombudsman’s decision was accepted by Mr C, the firm would also be told to reduce its final bill and complete the work at its own expense.

Lawyers blamed for loss

Mr W had run a reasonably successful shop for some years from leased premises in a traditional high street. But the area was beginning to show signs of planning blight. A long-running but contentious redevelopment proposal to demolish the street and build a huge new commercial centre put Mr W’s business at risk. He was getting on a bit and could not face the upheaval, so decided to get out while the going was good, shut up shop and not renew his lease. But the landlord claimed he owed back rent, which he disputed.

According to Mr W, he tried a couple of times to gain access to the premises after he had stopped trading, but on at least one occasion was denied access. Mr W found himself locked out of the shop with all his equipment still inside. So he hired a lawyer in the hope of forcing the ­landlord to allow him in to recover his goods.

Things did not go well and he failed to win the argument, which he blamed on his lawyer. His complaint was that the firm had not kept him updated, had caused delays in progressing the work, failed to follow instructions in issuing a power of attorney and, ultimately, failed to get his equipment back. Mr W wanted all of the £2,200 he had paid the firm refunded because he said it not done any of the work he had asked for.

The firm offered to write off the remaining £559.89 that it was still owed, acknowledging that it had caused some delay. But it refused to take responsibility for losing the case. Mr W rejected the firm’s offer and brought his complaint to the LeO.The ombudsman decided that the firm’s original offer was reasonable, given the delay it had caused by its own admission. The remaining issues, however, were not accepted as grounds for a complaint of poor service.

‘Prohibited steps’ order application

Ms N employed a firm of lawyers to get a ‘prohibited steps’ order. These prevent one parent organising certain events or making specific trips with their children without the express permission of the other parent. Ms N complained that she was not given sufficient information about costs and that the firm had not arranged meetings with the court’s advisory and support service. She also complained that the firm had not followed her instructions to arrange other meetings she had asked for. And she thought the firm’s costs were excessive for the work that was carried out.

The LeO’s investigation found that the firm has acted reasonably in the way it had set about obtaining the prohibited steps order. Ms N did not provide sufficient evidence to show there had been any delay in how the case progressed, and the LeO’s investigation found that costs had been clearly explained to her.

The issue of applying for legal aid had been discussed, but Ms N asked the firm to work for her on a private fee basis. The firm explained to Ms N that costs would increase if the case was contested and, as several court appearances followed, their charges were justified.

The ombudsman concluded that there was no poor service and no remedy was offered.

Given the grey areas at the heart of complaints like these, sorting lawyers into two categories - those to be named and those to be given the cloak of anonymity - is not easy. The debate goes beyond the legal sector. We are also conscious of the pressure elsewhere from the government, and the pressure on the Financial Ombudsman Service in respect of banks and financial advisers, for example, to move rapidly towards complete openness.

We are very conscious, though, of the particular nature of the legal ­market and the issues facing so many more traditional firms.

But we are not standing still. The consultations may not have fully resolved the naming issue, but they did enable us to agree and start publishing other details of our work. We have begun to publish data about the sorts of complaints we receive. We have also continued to build our stock of anonymised case studies and disseminate them via columns like this.

And, more recently, from the beginning of July we began to publish anonymised summaries of all ombudsman decisions we have made. These decisions are on our website for anyone who wants to see them and we hope, in time, to make them searchable, so that you can begin to build a picture of the patterns of decision-making and the sorts of remedies we order in particular sorts of cases.

It is all there. Just not the names.

A monthly column featuring practical advice and anonymised case ­studies from chief ombudsman Adam Sampson and his team