The more you try
Mr M sustained serious injury in a road traffic accident overseas, in which his wife was killed. He had worked part time for solicitors who offered to conduct personal injury litigation for him, concluding in his favour.
However, during the course of the retainer the solicitors delayed in forwarding a cheque for an interim payment at a time when an influenza epidemic had swept through their offices and most of the staff was absent for a week or more.
On conclusion of the claim some difficulty arose in reconciling costs. Initially, the solicitors had confirmed that all disbursements were paid, but they later found two minor disbursements still outstanding. The defendant's insurers had met most of the cost and the amount outstanding represented indemnity costs.
Mr M was upset about the position and instructed other solicitors to assist him in obtaining a detailed assessment. He incurred significant additional costs amounting to about £4,000. The costs owed to the original firm amounted to £5,691 and had been significantly discounted because of Mr M's long association with the firm. The solicitors decided to write off the entire £5,691 and the matter was closed.
Some significant time thereafter, Mr M requested the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (as was) to reopen the file. He was dissatisfied with the settlement and said the only reason he had chosen to accept it was that he could not afford to pursue any further costs argument. He sought further compensation.
The solicitors made an additional proposal to pay him £500 to reflect any distress and inconvenience that he had suffered as a result of being given erroneous information about the disbursements, and the delay of two to three weeks before his interim payment. Mr M dismissed the proposal. He sought £4,000 incurred in costs with his new solicitors relating to the detailed assessment.
The adjudicator concluded that the costs incurred by Mr M with his new solicitors were unconnected with the subject solicitors in the case. The inadequacies in which positive findings had been made consisted of a short delay in forwarding an interim payment, a failure to account for the cost of duplicate birth certificates and a delay in dealing with the complaint in the first place. In writing off costs of £5,691 the solicitors had offered more than adequate recompense. Mr M had benefited by a sum that greatly exceeded that which he had incurred with his new solicitors.
The adjudicator concluded that Mr M's expectations were unrealistic. He emphasised that it was not the Law Society's function to punish a solicitor in respect of an inadequacy of service, but to provide a tangible expression of regret where none had been forthcoming in negotiation.
He concluded that Mr M's refusal to accept the offer of £500 had caused the offer to lapse, and directed that his findings of inadequacy be recorded and that no further action be taken.
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
No comments yet