The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has begun using its powers to publish detailed decisions where complaints have been upheld, aiming to improve transparency and help clients make better-informed choices.
For law firms, this raises the stakes significantly: reputation damage can follow even a single published complaint, regardless of its context.
The first three published decisions illustrate originate from different practice areas:
- Mr A instructed a litigation firm and raised 25 complaints, of which 19 were upheld by the LeO. The firm was criticised for serious failings at trial and during an ultimately unsuccessful appeal, including poor preparation, delays, and providing inaccurate information to counsel. A key failure was not obtaining and sharing the trial transcript in time, leading to flawed appeal advice and unnecessary costs for Mr A. The LeO concluded that had the firm acted properly, Mr A likely wouldn’t have pursued the appeal. As a result, the firm was ordered to pay Mr A £25,473.10 to cover refunded fees, wasted appeal costs, and compensation for distress.
- Mr C instructed a firm to draft a will leaving one-fifth of his estate to his partner Mrs B and allowing her to live in his house. After his death, the firm acted as executors but withheld Mrs B’s £21,600 cash legacy without explanation, and later refused to engage with her daughter Ms D, who acted as executor of Mrs B’s estate. The LeO found that the firm wrongly concluded, without proper consultation, that Mrs B should not receive her share of the house value, and diverted £51,235 to other beneficiaries. The LeO also found serious service failings, including failure to follow the will, poor communication, and ignoring complaints. Ultimately, the LeO awarded £60,962.99 to Mrs B’s estate to remedy the loss and distress caused.
- Mr A and Ms B instructed a firm to pursue a claim against their former employer under a damages-based agreement (DBA), which set the firm’s fee at 35% of recovered damages. After a successful settlement, the firm deducted 35% from the damages in addition to receiving legal costs from the employer, which Mr A and Ms B argued was effectively charging them twice. The Legal Ombudsman found no clear evidence that the clients had agreed to this extra deduction and concluded that they should not have been surprised by such a significant charge. Applying the principles behind the DBA regulations (the Ontario model), the Ombudsman decided the firm should only have recovered its fees once. As a result, the firm was ordered to refund £36,225 plus interest and compensation, totalling £39,126.53.
These examples highlight some themes familiar to compliance teams: the critical importance of clear communication, proper file management, and prompt complaint resolution. Some issues may have been avoided by managing expectations better, checking advice carefully, and engaging meaningfully with complaints at an early stage.
These are, however, notable findings of substantive legal error and competence — not just service levels, which is usually the LeO’s remit. It was particularly interesting to see them examining the mechanics of costs (DBAs) and looking behind the conclusions of a solicitor acting as a professional executor.
Compliance opportunities
For COLPs, these cases can provide rich material. Consider using them in team meetings or training to illustrate practical lessons. Ask: What failed? Would we have done the same thing? Could we have spotted dissatisfaction sooner? Are we empowering staff to escalate concerns and handle complaints effectively?
There is a risk that consumers will be swayed by a published complaint without understanding the full context. But there’s not much we can do about that – transparency is becoming a regulatory norm, and firms need to prepare accordingly. Settling valid complaints early, before they reach LeO, is often the most pragmatic approach.
It also underscores the importance of robust record-keeping. A well-maintained file not only helps manage the matter properly but can also serve as critical evidence if a complaint arises. Poor or incomplete records make it much harder to refute allegations or show the firm acted appropriately.
Full case summaries are available on the LeO website.
