Arenas: Punitive act
One of the law firms named by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) in the first three full findings it has published has described the decision to do so as “egregious”.
Antonio Arenas, managing partner of Anglo-Spanish firm Scornik Gerstein, said he considered publication to the “unfair as no poor service was identified”.
As we reported yesterday, LeO said yesterday that publication marked “a renewed commitment to using the powers granted under part 6 of the Legal Services Act 2007, which allow publication of final decisions where there is a clear public interest in doing so”.
Scornik Gerstein was accused of effectively charging two employment clients twice under a damages-based agreement (DBA) by recovering £36,200 in costs from the other side and then deducting the same sum from the damages.
The firm argued that the costs recovered were separate under the DBA, arising from the defendant’s poor behaviour, but LeO found this was not communicated to the clients and the firm was ordered to repay £36,200, plus interest of £2,400 and £600 for the inconvenience and upset caused.
Mr Anenas said: “The clients complained because they considered we had charged fees twice and we argued that we did not and that we had charged them in accordance to the [DBA] terms.
“They stated that the fee agreement was changed orally before trial at the employment tribunal and the LeO was satisfied that they were telling the truth.” Mr Anenas said the firm disputed that this happened but could not prove that something did not happen: “They just preferred to believe their word rather than ours.”
Mr Anenas suggested that LeO’s aim was really to discuss the so-called Ontario model for DBAs, which it said in its explanation of what happened was that “the winning claimant’s lawyer shouldn’t recover more than the percentage fee and the losing defendant shouldn’t pay more than the assessed costs”.
LeO made a point of saying that, in this case, it had to consider the law on DBAs, rather than just focus on the service provided.
Mr Anenas went on: “In fact, the clients were rather satisfied with the service provided since their case was won twice, first at the employment tribunal and then at the Central London County Court with awarded costs and without the clients having to spend any monies as we acted under a [DBA]…
“It was only because the clients did not accept the LeO’s findings that the matter was revised and to our surprise, they changed their decision. So this further punitive act from the LeO, in the circumstances, is rather egregious.”
He added that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) had investigated and cleared the firm.
North-West London firm Ansham White was one of the other firms named for its conduct of a litigation matter.
Director Omair Butt said: “While we are naturally disappointed that the matter progressed to a formal finding, we respect the role of the ombudsman and have reviewed the outcome carefully.
“We take all complaints seriously and are committed to maintaining high standards of client care. Where issues are identified, we take proactive steps to learn from them and ensure that our practices are continuously improved.
“As with all firms regulated by the SRA, we recognise that transparency is important and we support fair and constructive scrutiny of legal services. That being said, we do not consider it appropriate to comment on the details of individual cases, however, we remain committed to providing high-quality, client-focused legal advice.”
The third firm, Southampton-based Underwood & Co, has not responded to a request for comment.
Transparency and accountability are often seen as impediments to profit by many law firms. A culture of smoke and mirrors continues to fuel waves of financial gain, while the true interests of clients are frequently sidelined.
Within this system, skilled solicitors swiftly assess each client not by the merits of their case, but by their potential worth. The feeing structure is crafted accordingly—success becomes secondary. The fee is the goal; a win merely a bonus.