We found the service of this barrister to be reasonable but not the complaint handling...
Ms A was concerned about the safety of her and her children and wanted to take legal action to restrict her ex-partner’s contact with her. She instructed a firm to make an application for a non-molestation order and an occupation order.
The firm instructed a barrister to assist with the case and represent Ms A during one of the hearings. Ms A was initially told by the barrister that she had a strong case, so was surprised when the barrister later advised her not to continue with the non-molestation order. Ms A thinks the barrister should have been able to advise her of this sooner. She also said the barrister withdrew the application for the non-molestation order which she did not agree to.
Ms A felt that she hadn’t been provided with a satisfactory service and complained that:
Ms A informed us that she wanted a refund of the barrister’s fees as she felt that she was not represented well.
We concluded that the barrister’s service for complaints one and two were reasonable.
The barrister did initially advise Ms A that she had a strong case, however the evidence showed that the barrister became aware of further information which changed their view. They were acting in Ms A’s best interests by providing updated advice to Ms A. The barrister made Ms A aware of her options and explained the risks of continuing which is what we would expect a legal service provider to do. We therefore found it reasonable that the barrister’s advice changed.
An attendance note showed that Ms A accepted the barrister’s advice and decided that she did not wish to proceed with the non-molestation order. It was therefore reasonable for the barrister to follow her instructions by withdrawing the application.
Lastly, we concluded that the barrister’s service was unreasonable for complaint 3. The chambers’ complaint procedure said they would respond to the complaint within 28 days. However, even though the barrister acknowledged Ms A’s complaint, they did not provide a full response. Ms A had then sent her complaint to the firm and the regulator to try to get a response from the barrister, but this was unsuccessful.
As we had identified that the firm’s service was unreasonable for complaint 3, we had to decide whether this had caused loss or disadvantage to Ms A and, if so, whether a remedy was appropriate.
It was not appropriate to propose a refund of the barrister’s fees, as requested by Ms A, as the barrister’s failure to respond to the complaint did not reduce the value of the barrister’s work. The barrister’s representation was still of benefit to Ms A and they did what they were paid to do.
However, we recognised that Ms A was already going through a difficult time, and she tried to get a response to her complaint from elsewhere which caused inconvenience. We proposed that a payment within the modest award of £150 should be made to Ms A, to compensate her for the emotional impact caused. We decided this was appropriate as the unreasonable service took place over a short period of time and did not affect Ms A’s overall experience with the barrister.
Best practice complaint handling guide | Legal Ombudsman
