Legal Ombudsman, R (on the application of) v Young

A court may enquire into an alleged failure to comply with a Legal Services Act 2007 notice and, where the failure is without reasonable excuse, may deal with the defaulter as if in contempt. The appropriate response is fact-sensitive. The court may adopt a pragmatic and provisional course, including accepting undertakings and adjourning the matter so that compliance can be monitored. A general tariff for sanctions should not be stated, although the court may indicate that non-compliance is likely to attract a sanction and that practical steps needed to make the Ombudsman’s process effective must be taken promptly.

The Legal Ombudsman applied for relief against a solicitor who had failed to comply with a notice under section 147 of the Legal Services Act 2007 and had also failed to engage with earlier procedural steps. The application concerned files relating to complaints by Mr and Mrs Weston and the defendant’s co-operation with the Ombudsman’s investigation. Rather than determine the application finally, the court considered whether it should enquire into the matter, whether the defendant could be dealt with as if in contempt, and what practical order should be made.

The court made provisional observations and adjourned the Ombudsman’s application for restoration after 28 days. The defendant gave undertakings to search for and locate the outstanding files, to co-operate with the Ombudsman’s investigation of the Westons’ complaint and any other complaint, and to notify the Ombudsman of changes of contact details.

1. The court was prepared in principle to enquire into the alleged default.
2. Under section 149(4) of the Legal Services Act 2007, where a defaulter has failed without reasonable excuse to comply with a section 147 notice, the court may deal with him as if he were in contempt. The defendant’s belief that the substance of the complaint had already been addressed did not, provisionally, appear to provide a reasonable excuse for failing formally to respond to the notice.
3. The court considered both a suspended prison sentence and proceeding by undertakings. At this stage, undertakings were preferable because they allowed the situation to remain under review without a final conclusion on the application. The approach should be pragmatic.
4. A failure without reasonable excuse to comply with a section 147 notice was provisionally likely to attract a sanction. The court declined to indicate a general tariff because each case turns on its facts, but emphasised the need for timely and effective practical steps.

The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs to date, summarily assessed at £11,053. The matter was listed before the same judge on the first available date after 28 days, with liberty to either party to apply on 48 hours’ written notice.