An underlying theme

There is common ground between complaints and claims against solicitors - not least the fact that a complaint, if not handled effectively, may turn into a claim. Firms are aware of the need to react quickly and effectively where an allegation of negligence is made against them. Sadly, this is not always the case where there is a complaint.


This is often because a client's expression of dissatisfaction with the level of service that he has received is not recognised by the solicitor for what it is - a complaint. Like a claim, if a complaint is handled quickly and efficiently it may often be settled amicably. The longer it is left the more difficult it becomes to resolve. Attitudes harden as the likelihood and opportunity for compromise reduces.


Anyone who has been involved in a service complaint knows the feeling when you believe that you are being stonewalled, or not getting a fair hearing from your supplier. It simply makes one more determined to pursue the matter.


It follows that in most cases there must be a failing on the part of the service supplier if the client does not feel he has received the level of service that he is entitled to. Hence, the need to manage clients' expectations effectively at the outset of the retainer, and to continue to do so.


Effective complaints handling is an integral part of any firm's risk management procedure. Keeping the clients happy and doing a good job makes sound business sense. Failing to do this may have far-reaching consequences.


For example: Andrew had been instructed to prepare a tenancy agreement on behalf of a client. It was a minor instruction and not high on Andrew's list of priorities. He delayed, and the client rang on three separate occasions chasing Andrew, who failed to respond. The client's calls to the senior partner initially went unanswered, and then the senior partner advised he would have a word with Andrew, and 'chivvy' him along.


There followed a period of silence before Andrew received a letter from the Consumer Complaints Service, which had been contacted by the client. He also received a letter from a firm of solicitors who had been instructed to claim damages for losses sustained by reason of Andrew's failure to complete the tenancy agreement in the correct tax year, which had been the initial reason for the client's calls to the office.


Had Andrew taken the calls, or made the effort to ring back, and kept his promises to the client, then he might not have faced the prospect of both a complaint and a claim. The senior partner's failure to deal effectively with the client's attempt to complain merely compounded the problem.


This column was prepared by AFP Consulting, a division of Alexander Forbes Risk Services UK