Failure to supervise


Inadequate supervision of staff can lead to serious consequences for principals in practice. Errors or misjudgements by staff, admitted or un-admitted, often lead to complaints against firms, which can range from minor allegations of inadequate service to serious allegations of professional misconduct.



As well as the rules as to supervision and management of offices laid down by the Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors (8th edition) 1999, principle 3.07 imposes a general duty on solicitors properly to supervise the activities of all employed staff and independent contractors engaged to carry out work on behalf of a firm.



In a recent case, solicitors contracted by the Legal Services Commission (LSC) to carry out immigration work received instructions to represent an unaccompanied minor claiming asylum. The case was allocated by a partner to an un-admitted caseworker who was experienced in such matters.



However, in the preparation of her claim, important errors were made that resulted in the claim for asylum being rejected by the Home Office. Insufficient care was taken in the preparation of the child's statement, resulting in important evidence being omitted. The need to obtain the services of an appropriate interpreter was not handled properly. In particular, a Home Office request to provide medical evidence to support the child's claim was not heeded.



The Law Society adjudicator considered not only the allegations of inadequate service but also an allegation against the supervising partner that, as a matter of professional conduct, he had failed to comply with principle 3.07 by properly supervising the caseworker.



The partner pointed to his firm's documented procedures, which complied with LSC contractual requirements. However, no evidence was produced to show that the caseworker had been supervised in what was known to be a sensitive and complex case. There was also evidence to show that the firm was aware that the caseworker had personal difficulties that diverted her from her work and that led, ultimately, to her dismissal.



In these circumstances, the adjudicator found that the supervising partner had not acted in accordance with principle 3.07 and he was reprimanded for his professional misconduct.



Mistakes happen, and not all mistakes by firms amount to inadequate professional service. However, when mistakes occur that do have serious consequences, principals cannot evade responsibility for the actions or inactions of staff simply by referring to their supervision policy, however well written.



They will be expected to demonstrate that their policies have been implemented in an effective way if they are to avoid the risk of exposing themselves to allegations of professional misconduct.



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