Client relations

Suggestions on how best to deal with a formal complaint

The Journal, April 2003, page 56

Last month, I wrote about effective communication with clients; now I turn to the question of dealing effectively with the Client Relations Office (CRO) if you face a formal complaint.  Most of the complaints received by the Law Society relate to inadequate professional service (IPS); the relatively low numbers of complaints about ‘conduct’ pays tribute to the high professional standards which most solicitors impose upon themselves.

The first response of the CRO to complaints about IPS is to see whether there is any realistic prospect of conciliation between the Complainer and the Solicitor.  Where a complaint clearly raises issues of professional conduct, the scope for conciliation is quite limited since the Law Society’s statutory obligations  require the upholding of professional standards. A true conduct complaint is an issue of public interest, not simply one between solicitor and client.  Nevertheless, unless the complaint is clearly so serious that a formal investigation is inevitable, there will always be a preliminary informal enquiry to the solicitor to see whether the matter is capable of being resolved without formal procedures. Experience shows that some complaints which appear to raise issues of professional conduct are really allegations of IPS when the circumstances are fully understood.

So, the first letter you receive from the CRO should be seen as your opportunity to put your side of the story.  An effective response at this stage can bring the matter to an end or, at least, focus further investigation in the right direction.  Despite the high standards that we solicitors set ourselves, the reality is that we are human beings – we are not infallible; we do make mistakes, we do sometimes give our clients reasonable cause to complain.  On the other hand, we live and work in an increasingly litigious society; people are much more willing to complain than they used to be, and some of the complaints that the CRO receives either concern matters with which the Law Society cannot deal or are without merit.

The CRO has the task of separating the wheat from the chaff. Last month, I urged solicitors to be realistic and pragmatic in dealing with complaints.  If you can see that the job you did was not as good as it might have been, you will only make matters worse by denial or prevarication. Engage constructively in the CRO’s attempt at informal resolution of the complaint, and that will maximise the prospects for dealing with the matter quickly and amicably.  Of course, some Complainers (but they truly are a minority) will not settle an issue amicably however realistic and pragmatic you are.  With them, the complaint will inevitably go to a formal adjudication; but constructive and prompt responses will ensure that the matter is processed both fairly and within a reasonable time.

Against that background, what do you do with the first ‘green letter’?  It will invite you to comment on the complaint within 14 days.  Ideally, you should provide a substantive response within that period; but the reality is that the file might have been archived or sent to a costs draftsman.  Always reply within the time prescribed, either with a full response to the complaint or with an indication as to when you will be able to respond. Delay, especially unexplained delay, does not serve your own interests, or those of your firm or the wider profession.

It is well established law that Solicitors have a duty to respond to complaints (and, more generally, to all correspondence from the Law Society).  Equally, it is clear that the Law Society has a statutory duty to investigate complaints and to do so effectively. If you prevaricate, a simple complaint about IPS may become an issue of professional misconduct based on your failure to reply to correspondence.  The Discipline Tribunal has made it clear that it regards failure to reply to Law Society correspondence as a serious issue.

I suggested, above, that you should provide an ‘effective’ response to a complaint.  It is not ‘effective’ to say that you deny the complaint.  The onus is on the Complainer to establish the complaint, but a bare denial is not usually a helpful response.  The result will be that the Complainer will reject your response and there will be a formal investigation.  

On the other hand, if you say (for example) that you deny failing to keep the client informed because your file shows that you wrote to the client on specific dates; that is much more helpful and might actually persuade the Complainer that the complaint should not be pursued.  If a formal investigation does follow, your letter will also direct the attention of the Reporter to the specific material in your file which answers the complaint.

The bottom line is the same as last month: Communicate effectively; communicate promptly; keep a record.