Complaints to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA).

On an increasing basis I am being asked to help colleagues who are the subject of complaints to the LSRA. Unfortunately, complaints can even be made by complainants who are not even clients of the legal practitioner.?

I have been the subject of a complaint myself, where a solicitor colleague working in-house in a financial institution made a complaint to the LSRA against me, alleging fraud and misconduct likely to bring the legal profession into disrepute, as a result of having asked colleagues to help me with my doctoral research, a complaint which took the LSRA eight months to decide was inadmissible!

Complaints against legal practitioners are dealt with under Part VI of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 ("the 2015 Act"). There are effectively three categories of complaints.

Section 51(1)(a) provides for the making of complaints to the Authority by the client of a legal practitioner, where the client considers that "the legal services provided to the client by the legal practitioner were or are of an inadequate standard".?

Section 51(1)(b) provides for the making of complaints where the client considers that "an amount of costs sought by the legal practitioner in respect of legal services provided to the client by the legal practitioner was or is excessive".

The third category of complaint is one made pursuant to s.51(2), which permits any person to make a complaint to the Authority in respect of a legal practitioner where the person?"considers that an act or omission of the legal practitioner constitutes misconduct".?The term?"misconduct"?is defined by s.50 of the 2015 Act which reads as follows:

“For the purposes of this Act, an act or omission of a legal practitioner may be considered as constituting misconduct where the act or omission—

(a) involves fraud or dishonesty,

(b) is connected with the provision by the legal practitioner of legal services, which were, to a substantial degree, of an inadequate standard,

(c) where occurring otherwise than in connection with the provision of legal services, would justify a finding that the legal practitioner concerned is not a fit and proper person to engage in the provision of legal services,

(d) consists of an offence under this Act,

(e) in the case of a solicitor, consists of a breach of the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2015 or any regulations made under those Acts,

(f) in the case of a solicitor, consists of an offence under the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2015,

(g) in the case of a barrister, is likely to bring the barristers’ profession into disrepute,

(h) in the case of a solicitor, is likely to bring the solicitors’ profession into disrepute,

(i) in the case of a legal practitioner who is a managing legal practitioner of a multi-disciplinary practice, consists of a failure by him or her to comply with his or her obligations under this Act as a managing legal practitioner (within the meaning of Part 8),

(j) consists of the commission of an arrestable offence,

(k) consists of the commission of a crime or offence outside the State which, if committed within the State, would be an arrestable offence,

(l) consists of seeking an amount of costs in respect of the provision of legal services, that is grossly excessive,

(m) consists of a breach of this Act or regulations made under it, or

(n) consists of a contravention of section 215 (1).

(2) In determining whether an act or omission referred to in paragraph (l) of subsection (1) should be considered as constituting misconduct, the Authority, the Complaints Committee, the Disciplinary Tribunal or, as the case may be, the High Court may have regard to—

(a) the amount by which or the extent to which the amount claimed in the bill of costs was found to be excessive,

(b) whether in the particular circumstances of the legal services performed the amount of the bill of costs appears to be unconscionable, and

(c) whether or not a Legal Costs Adjudicator has found the costs charged to be grossly excessive.

(3) In this section “arrestable offence” has the same meaning as it has in the Criminal Law Act 1997”.

The perils to which a practitioner can be exposed on foot of the foregoing are exemplified by the facts and chronology documented in the recent Court of Appeal decision handed down by Ms. Justice Faherty on the 19th day of October 2023 in Connolly v LSRA [2023] IECA 252 https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECA/2023/2023IECA252.html (Costello J. and Noonan J. concurring), where a solicitor handling an estate had extreme difficulty with an unhappy co-executor / beneficiary in an estate who made no less than 45 complaints against the unfortunate solicitor.

The 45 complaints were categorised broadly in the Determination as complaints of inadequate service and excessive costs against the Legal Practitioner, summarised as follows:

· ? ? ? ? The Legal Practitioner failed to communicate or answer questions.

· ? ? ? ? The CA24 form was misleading.

· ? ? ? ? There were mix-ups on the assets of the estates.

· ? ? ? ? There was failure to publish attendance notes.

· ? ? ? ? The Legal Practitioner paid three party invoices but failed to pay the complainant's expenses.

· ? ? ? ? The Legal Practitioner repeatedly failed to act on or over-ruled the complainant's instructions and facilitated one executor over another.

· ? ? ? ? There was a conflict of interest between the executors and as such the Legal Practitioner could not act for both executors.

· ? ? ? ? The Legal Practitioner failed to issue a Section 68/150 letter.

· ? ? ? ? The hourly rate of €367 was excessive.

· ? ? ? ? The Legal Practitioner failed to bring s.63 advancements to the complainant's attention.

· ? ? ? ? There may have been undeclared income from assets.

· ? ? ? ? The Legal Practitioner did not follow the complainant's instructions to redraft the Will (post mortem).

· ? ? ? ? The Will did not to make sufficient provision for a household pet.

· ? ? ? ? The Legal Practitioner did not acknowledge complaints against the estate.

· ? ? ? ? The Legal Practitioner threatened legal proceedings,

· ? ? ? ? The Legal practitioner sought opinion of counsel on the of progression of the grant of probate.

My personal favourite is the one highlighted above.

Thankfully, the LSRA both in its initial Determination and in a subsequent Determination of the Review Committee came down on the side of the legal practitioner. The Complainant however was unhappy and sought leave for judicial review which was refused by Meenan J. The Complainant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal.

If you fancy some teeth grinding, then read the judgement: - https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECA/2023/2023IECA252.html.