The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has published its latest raft of Public Interest Decisions, revealing “serious failings in the delivery of legal services”.
The six new Public Interest Decisions reveal failures to provide clear advice, carry out essential checks and manage cases effectively have led to tangible and, in some instances, irreversible consequences for the individuals involved.
All six cases resulted in compensation for financial loss, reimbursement of costs, and payments for distress and inconvenience.
Chief Ombudsman, Phil Cain, said: “These decisions point to serious failings in the delivery of legal services by the firms involved, where fundamental aspects of good practice have not been met.
“Consumers place trust in their legal provider to guide them through complex processes, to protect their interests and to ensure that critical steps are handled properly. When that does not happen, the consequences can be profound.
“Legal service providers should take the learning from these decisions seriously. Reflecting on where things have gone wrong – and taking steps to strengthen processes, service delivery and communication – will be critical in preventing similar failings in future. Public interest decisions are an important part of that process, helping to reinforce expectations and drive improvements across the sector.”
Of the six recent decisions, one related to family law, resulting in compensation of £13,000:
Ms A instructed Guildford based law firm England & Derbyshire LLP to pursue a professional negligence claim against her former divorce solicitors. When Ms A’s former solicitors closed, the firm sought to enter into a standstill agreement with a view to protect Ms A’s potential claim against limitation date.
However, the firm entered into the standstill agreement with the wrong party and did not identify or explain this error to Ms A for a prolonged period. The mistake was only discovered after the limitation period had expired and Ms A had lost the chance to pursue her claim.
The Ombudsman found that entering into a standstill agreement with the wrong party fell significantly below reasonable standards of service. The firm should have identified the correct party at the outset and ensured the agreement achieved its intended purpose. The firm also failed to keep Ms A reasonably informed once the error became apparent.
The Ombudsman concluded that as a result of the firm’s unreasonable service Ms A had lost out on the likely outcome of her claim. The Ombudsman calculated that, after introduction fees and insurance premiums would have been deducted from any award paid to Ms A, she would likely have received around £12,250 as a settlement of her claim.
The Ombudsman directed the firm to compensate Ms A for that loss. The Ombudsman also reflected on the distress the firm’s poor service had caused Ms A and directed them to pay a further £750 to compensate Ms A.
The total compensation amount payable to Ms A was £13,000.
Last month the LeO launched a call for input on its draft Model Complaints Resolution Procedure (MCRP), a new framework aimed at improving the consistency and quality of how complaints are handled by legal service providers.
