A formula for compensation

Many firms of solicitors are extremely efficient at conducting in-house complaint-handling procedures and attempting to conciliate their client's concerns pursuant to their obligations under practice rule 15. From time to time, it is clear that a client's expectations are for rather more than an apology or a costs reduction where an acceptance of an inadequacy of professional service has been agreed. The principle of compensatory awards is well known and is an established part of the conciliation process.


In such circumstances, it is not uncommon for both parties to experience some difficulty in assessing the extent of realistic compensation. Understandably, both solicitors and clients are unlikely to be familiar with the extent of awards made by adjudicators in cases that do not earlier resolve.


It must be clearly understood that there is neither scale nor tariff for compensatory awards made by adjudicators, and that each case is taken on its own merits. Adjudicators will always consider as a priority the extent to which a client has been distressed or has suffered inconvenience, or has been placed in anxiety by a particular inadequacy or series of inadequacies. In the majority of cases, rather less account is taken of the number of inadequacies in which positive findings are made in any particular case.


However, there are guideline examples that have been put together as a result of a detailed assessment of awards made during the past several years. They are no more than guidelines and are collated from awards based on comparable inadequacies of professional service that fall within definable brackets. The information can be found in the compliance section of the Law Society's Web site.


It may well be that complaint-handlers at firms large and small will be helped by a perusal of the information. It should assist them to address their in-house procedures with both confidence and assurance. It may also be the case that when a reasonable offer is made to compensate a client's concerns, and the offer falls within the parameters of the guidelines and is clearly evidenced, a complaint later referred to the consumer complaints service may not have to be pursued. That would result in both a saving of time and cost.


It must be stressed that the information contained within the available data is at best broad-brush and should not be considered as a form of precedent. It is there entirely as an aide- mémoire and to assist in the in-house resolution of complaints and is wholly discretionary.


This column is written by a Law Society adjudicator