Deputy Chief Ombudsman, R (on the application of) v French

Where a solicitor wilfully fails to comply with a statutory information notice issued by the Legal Ombudsman, the court may treat the default as contempt of court and impose imprisonment. The seriousness of the default depends on matters including the importance of the information, prejudice caused, culpability, and the solicitor’s professional obligations. Personal mitigation may justify suspending an otherwise appropriate custodial sentence. The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction is determined by the solicitor’s status and conduct when the underlying acts or omissions occurred; later suspension from practice does not remove jurisdiction.

The Deputy Chief Legal Ombudsman applied under section 149 of the Legal Services Act 2007 concerning Mr French’s admitted failure to comply with a section 147 notice requiring information and documents relating to a client complaint. The notice warned that non-compliance might constitute contempt of court. Mr French had been suspended from practice before the proceedings began, and the court first considered whether that affected jurisdiction. Having found jurisdiction established and the default proved, the central issue was the appropriate sanction.

1. Jurisdiction. The defendant’s later suspension did not deprive the Ombudsman of jurisdiction. Under sections 125 and 128 of the Legal Services Act 2007, jurisdiction existed because the acts and omissions complained of occurred when the defendant was not suspended. The court therefore had power to act on his subsequent failure to comply with the notice.
2. Default and power to sanction. The defendant had ignored repeated requests for information and failed to respond to the formal notice despite its clear warning about contempt of court. The default was admitted and proved. It was appropriate for the court to enquire into it and to deal with the defendant as if he were in contempt of court under section 149.
3. Sanction. The conduct involved substantial culpability. The information was relevant to a legitimate complaint, its absence prejudiced the investigation, compliance was readily possible, and the defendant was a solicitor and officer of the court. Imprisonment was justified both as punishment and to mark the seriousness of wilfully ignoring statutory obligations.
4. The appropriate sentence, taking account of the admission and full apology, was four months’ imprisonment. The sentence was suspended for twelve months because of the defendant’s age, personal and financial difficulties, previous long and proper professional career, and other mitigation. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs, assessed in the sum claimed.