MEMBERS OF the public should be able to find out whether solicitors have had complaints upheld against them, according to the Law Society’s independent adjudicator.
Publishing her latest annual report, Carol Ann Casey also said many solicitors were still not complying with the need to issue a “Section 68 letter” outlining their fees in advance.
"Solicitors need to be clear with their clients at the outset," she told The Irish Timesin an interview.
Her office examines complaints from members of the public about how the Law Society dealt with their complaints about solicitors.
Her report, which was published on her website and covers the period from October 2008 to September 2009, was also critical of delays by the society in processing complaints from its Complaints and Client Relations Committee to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
She also criticised the fact that there were multiple complaints against certain solicitors, and that costs were not recouped from solicitors who do not co-operate.
Asked whether there should be a central database that would inform people whether solicitors had had complaints upheld against them, she replied: “I agree that is a problem. There should be a way for the public to know about complaints upheld.”
The office of the Independent Adjudicator was set up in 1997 under a statutory instrument. The adjudicator is appointed by the president of the society and paid by the society, but is independent in the conduct of his or her functions, which are to review the way in which complaints are handled by the society. The office is to be replaced by a Legal Services Ombudsman in the new year, whose remit will include the complaints procedure in both the Law Society and the Bar Council.
Ms Casey said she had expressed dissatisfaction in her last two reports with the delays in processing complaints by the society.
“The Law Society’s response is well short of my expectations and I await a constructive solution to this problem, be it through reallocating resources, appointing a person on a fixed-term contract etc,” she said in the report.
There were 146 referrals to her office from October 1st, 2008 to the end of September last of complaints where the complainant was dissatisfied with the outcome, out of a total of 2,129 complaints made to the Law Society.
Of these 24 were inadmissible for various reasons, including that there was still an ongoing investigation, it was out of time, it had not been investigated by the Law Society in the first instance or had been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Twenty-three of the remainder were referred by the adjudicator back to the Law Society for reconsideration.
Conveyancing, family law and probate accounted for the bulk of the complaints, and the basis of the complaint was either inadequate professional service, overcharging or misconduct.
Ms Casey said that, as in her previous reports, she considered that the issue of multiple complaints required a more stringent response from the Law Society.
While some measures existed allowing the society to consider multiple complaints against the same solicitor, the period to be considered was only two years. She said this should be extended to five.
CASE STUDIES: PROBATE DELAY AND MISCONDUCT
INADEQUATE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
The client was aggrieved by the solicitor’s ongoing false promises to complete a probate which was to be completed in eight to 10 weeks but took 1½ years.
Ms Casey commented that the Law Society should have been forceful to ensure the solicitor completed the matter in a more timely manner. She was dissatisfied with the finding of inadequate professional services without further sanction and the failure of the society to refer the matter to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for misconduct.
After she referred the matter back, the complaints committee required the solicitor to write a full, frank and unequivocal letter of apology to the client, stated they wanted to be advised when the matter was completed and required the payment of €500 plus VAT to the client, without prejudice.
MISCONDUCT
A solicitor complained about a colleague failing to comply with an undertaking (relating to title to a property). It took five years for the undertaking to be complied with.
The complaints committee decided to take no further action but gave no explanation for its decision. Following communication between the independent adjudicator and the Law Society, the complainant solicitor received an explanation, that the matter was being resolved with the client.