Mrs N instructed the service provider in a family matter.
The service provider reviewed Mrs N’s circumstances, and the issue she was raising, and provided her with some initial advice. They then sought further advice from a barrister at Mrs N’s instruction.
The barrister’s advice was that Mrs N’s prospects of succeeding in her claim were low. As a result, Mrs N withdrew from the proceedings.
Mrs N was unhappy that the barrister’s advice differed from that initially given by the service provider, and she raised a complaint about it.
In her complaint to the service provider, Mrs N raised the following issues:
That she was unhappy with the firm’s initial advice, and
That she did not consider the instructions to counsel reflected that advice.
The service provider considered Mrs N’s complaint and provided a full and detailed response explaining their approach and the reasons for the advice given. The service provider did not uphold the complaint.
As the service provider did not uphold her complaint Mrs N escalated her complaint to LeO.
Mrs N’s complaint was reviewed on receipt and following that review her complaint passed to the Early Resolution team for consideration.
The senior ombudsman who reviewed the complaint took the view that the service provider had clearly explained the reasons for their advice, and that when the matter was reviewed by the barrister, they had the benefit of additional information.
For LeO to find a service failing in respect of legal advice, it needs to be obvious to us that the advice was wrong. The fact a barrister gives different advice, especially where that is based on additional information, does not mean any advice given by the service provider was wrong.
Mrs N’s complaint was passed to an Ombudsman to consider dismissal under our Scheme Rules; on the basis the complaint lacked any reasonable prospects of success and would not be upheld.
The Ombudsman decided to dismiss Mrs N’s complaint because we would not take the view that the advice provided was obviously wrong, and so the complaint lacked any reasonable prospects of success.
As the complaint was dismissed under Scheme Rule 5.7, no case fee was payable.
A clear and detailed final response improves the prospects of a complaint being suitable for Early Resolution.
When considering complaints about advice, LeO considers whether there is evidence the advice is obviously wrong. Where a service provider can show that they have reasonably exercised their professional judgement and provided reasonable advice based on the information available to them, then it is unlikely LeO will uphold that complaint.
