Explain the procedures

Mr and Mrs H very much wanted to see their grandchildren, but frictions within the family had made this difficult. Reluctantly, they instructed the solicitors to make a contact application to the court. They saw it as the only way forward.


The solicitors attempted to negotiate contact terms with the children's parents, who were also represented by solicitors. A great deal of disharmony existed. The solicitors did not initially explain to Mr and Mrs H that court procedures required them to go through a period of attempted negotiation, and to enlist the help of welfare officers if appropriate, before seeking a full court hearing.


As a result, a period of time passed before formal action was taken and, while practitioners dealing with topics such as this will be familiar with the situation, it was clear that Mr and Mrs H were not.


The solicitors later explained the position to Mr and Mrs H, who were uncertain as to what action they wished to take. There were several matters to consider, not the least of which was heightened family friction. An attendance note of an interview with Mr and Mrs H confirmed their uncertainty and when the file was examined no evidence was presented to demonstrate that the solicitors had been instructed to file an application by a specific date. It was a matter for the solicitor's professional judgement as to when best to commence proceedings.


Subsequently Mr and Mrs H complained of delay. The adjudicator confirmed that to make a positive finding, an alleged delay must be 'unreasonable'. In this case it would be inappropriate to make a finding. There was no unreasonable delay on the part of the solicitors but rather an understandable period of indecision, for about two months, while Mr and Mrs H decided what they wished to do and what was in the best interests of their grandchildren and family harmony. Mr and Mrs H took a view that the solicitors had prevented them from seeing their grandchildren. There was no evidence to support such an allegation and the adjudicator could not second-guess what might have been the position had earlier steps been taken.


The service provided by the solicitors in this case had been adequate, and it would have been inappropriate for any finding of inadequate professional service to be made. There was a lack of clarity in the available evidence relating to the complaints and a lack of certainty in the family circumstances that were presented.


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