Case studies
Faculty of Advocates cases
These cases concern complaint handing where complaints have been lodged against members of the Faculty of Advocates.
Case 1 — Absence of proper reasons
In all cases I investigate where the Faculty of Advocates has considered a complaint has been against an advocate I study the quality of administration and the handling of decision making. I always consider time taken as well as whether issues have been properly identified and Faculty procedures properly followed.
When Mrs T complained to me she forwarded 4 large files which she said explained her complaint. It was clear she had raised a series of complaints with the Faculty. It was also clear her complaints were complex and arose from a long running court case. I requested the files from the Faculty and noted that the letter telling her the complaint was not to go through to investigation stage comprised simply three short paragraphs. It was not clear to me why the complaint was not to be investigated from the letter. I could however see that usual procedures had been followed and a Complaint Committee of two advocates and two non advocates had considered the case. I could also see why it may not proceed to investigation stage. Many of the complaints comprised criticism of an advocate for matters that were not within the advocate’s control, such as court dates, or a matter for the advocate’s judgment such as order of witnesses, or not wrongdoing by the advocate even if proved, as example the advocate’s unwillingness to discuss fees directly with Mrs T.
It was very clear to me Mrs T simply felt the Faculty had overlooked her files due to the short letter containing inadequate reasoning. I was unsure however if my understanding of reasoning was correct. It is not my role nor would it be appropriate for me to set out the Faculty’s reasoning. I therefore recommended that the Faculty provide much more detailed reasons for their decision to Mrs T and clearer records on their files of Committee meetings for me to ascertain what had occurred. The Faculty accepted my recommendations.
Case 2 — Time bar
Ms T complained that the Faculty of Advocates had refused to consider a complaint about actings of an advocate in his private life some 5 years previously. When I considered the file it was apparent Mrs T had known of the advocate’s actions for five years. There was no reason why the complaint could not have been brought earlier. The matter had also been investigated at the time as someone else had lodged a similar complaint. I did not therefore uphold Mrs T’s complaint to me that the Faculty should have taken action.
There are duties on complainers as well as complaint handlers and it is not unreasonable to expect complaints will be lodged timeously. Clearly if a complaint was lodged about a potentially significant wrongdoing it would be expected time limits may be waived. There was however nothing to show there had been significant wrongdoing and clear evidence the complaint could have been lodged at earlier date.
© 2001–2008, Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman. All rights reserved.
Source: http://www.slso.org.uk/cases-advocates.shtml