The complaint

Mr M instructed the firm to represent him during child arrangement proceedings as he wanted to obtain contact with his son. The firm represented him until the case was concluded. Mr M got his desired outcome as he was able to have contact with his son overnight and on alternate weekends.  

However, Mr M felt that he was not provided with enough information about the costs. He also thought that the matter could have progressed quicker if the firm did not experience staffing issues.  

Mr M complained that:  

1. The firm failed to provide a cost estimate at the outset of the retainer;  
2. The firm caused delays as they took a long time to appoint a new solicitor after the first one had left during the proceedings; and  
3. The firm did not provide any bills until the end of the case.   

The outcome

We concluded that the firm’s service was reasonable for complaint one and two.  

The evidence showed that the solicitor provided Mr M with appropriate cost information, including a cost estimate, at the start of the retainer.  

The law firm took over one month to appoint a new solicitor to Mr M’s case and whilst we recognise that this is a long time, the evidence showed that the file had been progressed by other file handlers. These file handlers also kept Mr M updated on the progress of his case. Because of this, we concluded that the firm acted reasonably.   

We found that the firm’s service was unreasonable for complaint number three. The solicitor’s terms of business said that they would raise bills monthly which they did for the first five months of the retainer. The evidence showed that the solicitor stopped sending bills to Mr M following this. The solicitor did not send Mr M copies of the outstanding bills until approximately 10 months later. We found this to be unreasonable as the firm did not do what they said they would, which meant that Mr M was unaware of how much he owed.  

We recognised that Mr M hadn't been aware of the total costs until he got the final bill - but he was aware that costs were being incurred from the outset. As Mr M was not provided with the relevant information about his bills for a long period of time, we proposed a bill reduction of 15% as a remedy. We did not propose a higher percentage reduction as we considered this to be a minor failing in the solicitor’s service, which did not reduce the value of their work.  

Guidance:

An ombudsman's view of good costs service | Legal Ombudsman

Guidance: Our approach to determining complaints | Legal Ombudsman

Guidance: Our approach to putting things right | Legal Ombudsman