The complaint

Miss K initially instructed the firm to represent her in her defence against criminal charges. Miss K was convicted and received a custodial sentence. Miss K said she requested that the firm keep her file safe as she wanted to appeal those charges in future.  

Miss K later approached the firm for representation on more criminal matters, but the firm declined to take the cases on. Miss K also requested her file but was told that it had been destroyed. Miss K complained to the firm but did not receive a response.  

Miss K requested that we investigate that:  

1. The firm failed to retain Miss K’s previous file;   
2. The firm failed to respond to Miss K’s letter asking for representation on other criminal matters; and 
3. The firm failed to respond to Miss K’s complaint.  

Miss K advised us that she wanted a response to her complaint and compensation for the stress the firm had caused her by destroying her file. Miss K also stated that she was caused frustration as the firm failed to respond to her complaint. 

The firm later sent a response to Miss K’s complaint and apologised for the delay in replying. They also offered to instruct and pay a sum towards the cost of a barrister to provide Miss K with advice about her other criminal matters. 

The outcome

We concluded that the firm’s service was reasonable for complaint one. This is because there was no evidence that Miss K requested for the file to be retained for longer than the law firm would usually keep it. The firm’s policy was to destroy the file after six years, which they did.  

We will propose a remedy if we identify that there has been poor service and this poor service has directly led to a loss or disadvantage to the customer. We therefore could not consider compensation for complaint one as K requested, as we found the firm’s service to be reasonable.  

The evidence showed that while the firm did respond to Miss K’s letter and complaint, there was a significant delay in doing so which we found to be unreasonable. However, we decided that the firm’s offer and apology were sufficient remedies. This is because the contribution towards the barrister’s costs would have exceeded the compensation for the emotional impact. The proposed compensation would have been within the modest category as the impact of the firm’s unreasonable service was minimal and did not cause Miss K repeated or significant inconvenience.  

Guidance:

Guidance: Our approach to determining complaints | Legal Ombudsman