Reply to the regulator

Solicitors sometimes forget that if they fail to respond promptly to reasonable correspondence from the Law Society, their conduct may be called into question under the terms of principle 30.04 of The Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors 1999 (8th Edition). The principle imposes an obligation on a solicitor to reply promptly and fully when asked to do so.



Mr X had complained to his solicitor following the conclusion of a retainer. His complaints were numerous and involved matters both substantial and less so. The solicitors had taken reasonable steps, pursuant to their obligations under practice rule 15, to address all the issues. The correspondence, later examined, indicated that they had properly attempted to conciliate the complaints and had treated their client entirely reasonably.


However, it was one of those cases where the clients' expectations were greater than the solicitors' proposals to compromise, and it was clear to both parties that an amicable solution would be unlikely.


The client complained to the former Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) and raised a total of 18 matters. The caseworker entered into extensive correspondence with the solicitors who became frustrated at the situation. They took a view, and voiced it openly, that having responded at all times to their former client and having written promptly to the OSS, they did not intend to take any further active part in the matter.


As the matter was incapable of resolution, a full report was produced by a caseworker. In addition to the inadequate professional service complaints raised by the client, the report directed the adjudicator's attention to the solicitors' decision not to respond to further correspondence from the OSS. The caseworker had warned the solicitors that if a response was not received to several pieces of correspondence, such a referral would be made. The solicitors chose to ignore the warning.


In the event, most of the service complaints were not substantiated. Of those in which positive findings were made, a modest compensatory direction followed that turned out to be rather less than the solicitors had originally offered to their former client during the course of negotiations.


However, it was clear that there had been a breach of principle 30.04 and as the case report had been produced on a hybrid basis, the adjudicator was left with no option but to consider a conduct sanction in addition.


The adjudicator took a view that the solicitor would be unlikely to forget the circumstances of the case should any future similar set of facts arise, and would not allow a repetition of his failure to communicate with his professional regulatory body. The adjudicator expressed disapproval at the solicitor's misconduct and reminded him of his obligations. He warned the solicitor that a more severe sanction would follow if any repetition was brought to his attention.



Every case before the adjudication panel is decided on its individual facts. This case study is for illustration only and should not be treated as a precedent