Howlers and Horror Stories
Attempted actions against solicitors often fail, not because they are inherently flawed but because complainants become entangled in a web of incompetence and sometimes deliberate deceit spun by those who should be helping them.
CASIA is interested in learning about recent problems with the OSS as matters at the OSS are claimed to have improved.
Anonymised short case histories will appear on this site.
Undertakings: One complainant was told that his case would not be investigated unless he put in writing an undertaking never to sue the solictors concerned. He refused. The OSS closed his case but subsequently was forced to re-open it because it was in the wrong.
Files: One complainant, with difficulty, obtained his files from his first solicitor. He gave these files to a second solicitor that he had consulted about action against the first. He believed that the second solicitor was needlessly pessimistic and had actually done very little investigation at all. When there was a dispute about the bill, he complained about both these solicitors to the OSS who asked for both the second firm's files and the original files held by them.
The remuneration matter was resolved in the complainant's favour. The second firm's files were returned to the second firm, although the complainant wanted them and worse, instead of simply returning the original files which the complainant owned to him, the OSS wanted to send them to a solicitor in the town where the original solicitors were so that they would have access to refresh their memories of the case. This would have meant that the complainant would have been caused gross inconvenience and expense by travelling about thirty miles to see the considerable number of files & papers.
He refused and suggested that the original solicitors could have copies. The OSS said that the complained of firm must have access to the originals and again threatened to close his case. He still refused as he feared that the original files might be tampered with and, after further attempts by the OSS to keep the files, he forced their return to himself and later obtained the second firm's files also.
Solicitors Indemnity Fund: A Client Relations Officer at the OSS wrote to a complainant, "There is no question of avoidance of our juridiction but where a matter is referred to the Solicitors Indemnity Fund, it may be that the Office will hold its investigation in abeyance until the outcome of the action with the Fund has been determined, especially if this would have an effect upon the Office investigation and/or eventual decision. Each case would have to be judged on its own particular circumstances and, whilst a matter may be held in abeyance, once the case has been decided by the Solicitors Indemnity Fund, if there are any issues still outstanding, these would be dealt with by the Office."
The trouble is that a complainant will not be told the result of investigations by other sections of the OSS. These investigations are of value to the profession and presumably help safeguard the Solicitor's Indemnity Fund but the feeling of being denied the results of other investigations arouses resentment in the complainants.
Ex-complainants are sometimes astonished to discover later that, although their complaint had not been upheld, the firm, or even the very same solicitor, received a simultaneous investigation which led to the firm being taken over and even to a solicitor receiving a prison sentence.
Recent changes are likely to make more work for lawyers, not less. The changes will not ensure that justice sought is justice won so effectively as the setting up of a truly independent body to investigate and adjudicate complaints between solicitors and their disillusioned clients.
Swat the spider with your mouse!
Join the fight.