More firms named as Legal Ombudsman publishes second tranche of complaints decisions

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 relate 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’, and risk undermining trust in legal services.

In one conveyancing case, the LeO outlined how a Bridgend-based law firm had been instructed to handle the conveyancing for the purchase of an investment property by Mr A. Shortly before exchange of contracts was due to take place, Mr A received an email from an address belonging to the firm, which they had used to communicate with him throughout the matter, telling him to pay his deposit to a different bank account.

The firm had not provided Mr A with any information about the dangers of cyber crime or told would never change their bank details, despite this being common practice. Mr A wasn’t able to contact the firm to confirm the account details, so made the transfer. It soon came to light that the money had been paid to fraudsters and the funds were only partially recovered.

After investigating a number of complaints related to the transaction, LeO found that the firm’s email address was the one that was hacked. While acknowledging that this made them victims of a crime, it was not satisfied they had adequate security systems in place, nor had they warned Mr A about the dangers of these sorts of scams. The firm’s response when they were told about what had happened was also criticised, and Mr A was found to bear no responsibility.

Mr A’s bank was able to recover some of the money, but the LeO decided the firm should be responsible for the remainder of the loss. In the specific circumstances of this case, the firm was also told to reimburse Mr A for rent he would have collected for 12 months had the purchase completed. The financial loss came to £41,547.70, and a further £1,000 was directed to acknowledge the exceptional degree of upset and upheaval caused to him.

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.