Stories from our annual report...
However important the issues involved, the sorts of cases we have reviewed in this report so far represent a small – albeit significant – minority of those we have considered. The vast majority of our work has been about committed, professional lawyers working to provide services to individuals who are grappling with very important issues in their lives. Where mistakes have been made – and in many cases our investigations uncover no such mistakes – both lawyers and complainants are responding quickly and positively to the possibility of informal resolution. Where this is not possible, our decisions have been clear and simple, with the remedies relatively modest in scope (in no case have we yet to order over £10,000 in compensation). Given the fact that most of the issues we have been asked to look at involve matters such as delay and overcharging, this is scarcely a surprise..- Contact us
- Our publications
- Stories from our annual report
- - Introduction
- - Geographical boundaries
- - The blurred edges of regulation
- - A new regulatory maze?
- - Mixing, matching and confusing
- - Alternative Business Structures
- - A positive response
- - Routes to redress
- Our vision and values
- Our scheme rules
- Our board and committees
- Our team
- Our official documents
- Our policies
- Our work with other official bodies
- Our consultations
- Our response to external consultations
- Measuring our performance
- Research and statistics
- Information for suppliers
- Useful links
Some of our early cases did, nonetheless, involve more serious matters. Again, we have yet fully to test out the limits of the remedies we can order for the loss caused by poor service. Some complainants, such as Mr H quoted above, would want us to order remedies that are beyond our powers (in his case, assessing whether a criminal conviction is safe or should be overturned is for the Court of Appeal rather than the Legal Ombudsman). Other complainants want disciplinary action to be taken against the lawyer involved. In these cases, our role is to act as a referral route to the relevant regulators, who retain the responsibility for policing the conduct of those they regulate. Where the lawyer's behaviour is so difficult that it requires stronger action, we can use certain powers under the Act if we so choose. We have only had to do so in one case thus far:
Mr and Mrs N had taken on a solicitor to help with two separate matters - an employment tribunal and the other to do with their mortgage insurance. They were clearly not happy with aspects of his work and felt that the lawyer had not taken their concerns seriously. After trying to raise their concerns with him, they complained to us.
We first contacted the solicitor in October 2010. He repeatedly failed to respond to or comply with our requests for documents and information. Mr and Mrs N now saw the solicitor ignore the Ombudsman – and were again left waiting for an outcome to their complaint. Eventually, after seven months had gone by, we decided to take enforcement action against him as he had repeatedly failed to produce documents or provide information – even when he received a formal notice requiring him to. There were some eight prior letters, phone calls or emails from the Ombudsman, plus a formal notice and a letter from the Solicitors Regulation Authority, before proceedings were issued.
The court first dealt with the case in May, but the solicitor failed to attend the hearing and so the judge ordered his arrest. A few days later, the solicitor surrendered to the court and was brought before the judge, when he was released after a court date had been set.
At the formal court hearing, the solicitor promised the High Court that he would cooperate with an investigation into a complaint against him – or risk being punished by the court. The judge emphasised to the solicitor that it was "absolutely essential" he communicate with the Ombudsman and cooperate to a high professional standard. Failure, said the judge, was "likely to attract the sanction of the court".
The lawyer gave an undertaking to the court that he would do everything he could to help find the files needed by the Ombudsman, to cooperate with the investigation into the complaint and any others against him, and keep the Ombudsman updated with his contact details. He was also ordered to pay the Ombudsman's costs in the case so far of just over £11,000. At the time of writing, we are still waiting for the information we need to resolve this case – but there is another court date set, so, while it is disappointing to have had to go to these lengths, there is an end in sight for Mr and Mrs N.
At the same time as we were dealing with this case, which ended up in the High Court, we were having similar issues with another solicitor.
This one - a busy sole practitioner with a general practice - had failed to respond to our correspondence about Mr O's complaint. So he was also served with a notice requiring him to produce the relevant documents and other information. When he ignored it, we reported him to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. When more time passed again without hearing from him, we also said that we had the power to ask the High Court to compel him to cooperate. At the last minute, when faced with having to explain his non-compliance to a judge, the lawyer reconsidered his position. He provided us with the information we needed, reconciled with Mr O and continued to represent him.
We are grateful for the co-operation of the regulators in taking forward the matters we have referred on to them, and we look forward to hearing about the results of their considerations.