The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has published the next round of its public interest decisions as part of efforts to create ‘greater transparency and accountability’ in legal services. In the latest naming and shaming, complaints relating to pricing transparency, poor advice, holding on to client monies, and a barrister who had failed to provide an outline of costs and failed to properly prepare for a case.
LeO published the first three cases in July which related to a litigation matter, a wills and probate matter, and an employment matter. It warned at the time it would continue to publish decisions ‘where there is a clear public interest – such as where the issues are particularly serious, systemic, or where publication may help prevent similar serious failings in future.’
The latest tranche of decisions reflect serious service failings across a range of legal areas, including wills and probate, immigration, conveyancing, family law, and litigation. For LeO, they also highlight several recurring issues.
- risks of missing deadlines or failing to respond to third parties
- the need to provide clear and accurate costs information,
- the consequences of poor communication or acting without a client’s consent or approval.
The ombudsman warned these were issues ‘firms should take seriously’; each of which could lead to ‘significant ‘ and undermine trust in legal services.
In one case relating to wills and probate, Veale Wasbrough Vizards (VWV) was instructed to advise on the ownership of the client’s late husband’s company and to represent her in a potential claim under the Inheritance Act 1975 against his estate, where she acted as one of four executors. VWV ended the retainer for non payment of fees after two years but the client complained the firm had not represented her ‘cost-effectively’ after withdrawing £60,000 from the estate for legal costs related to a mediation that never occurred.
LeO said it considered the complainant’s concerns around lack of cost transparency, failure to progress the case, inadequate invoices, unresponsiveness, and incurring excessive counsel fees finding the client care later had failed to adequately outline costs estimates, and potential add on fees; progress on the matter had been slow; communication with the client was poor; and additional fees were incurred without prior approval.
In total LeO awarded the claimant £24,300 made up of a 30% reduction in outstanding fees owed to the firm, and a refund for ‘unjustified counsel fees.’
The largest award in the 10 published cases was financial redress of £40,000 and £1,000 to acknowledge the exceptional degree of upset and upheaval caused to the complainant. Another case resulted in a £13,000 award after a firm failed to apply to extend Leave to Remain. An unexpected hospital visit left the complainant with over £7,000 in hospital costs which she was not entitled to under the NHS because her status, which she thought had been sorted, had expired. The client then had to instruct another firm to complete the work . The complainant was awarded the hospital bill, the cost of the work of the other firm, some £5,000 to put right her status in the UK, and £400 for shock, frustration and upset.
Commenting on the latest round of decision, Paul McFadden, Chief Ombudsman, said:
“This second round of public interest decisions reinforces LeO’s commitment to using its powers to shine a light on serious service failings. Whether it’s someone left without legal status due to a missed immigration application, a family facing unexpected tax bills during a time of grief, or a homebuyer losing money in a cyber-crime incident, the human impact is clear.
“Publishing these decisions is part of LeO’s broad programme of work to share insight from its work to help raise standards across the sector. Legal service providers should reflect on these cases and the lessons that can be learned. Transparency is not about naming and shaming – it’s about learning, accountability, and better outcomes for everyone who relies on legal services.”
The latest Public Interest Decisions are available now on the Legal Ombudsman’s website.
