Heads of complaint
Acting in a conflict situation
Acting in area not competent
Acting without or not following instructions
Client not kept updated Delay
Duress
Failure to advise client adequately
Failure to send client care letter/client care irregularities
Financial irregularities
Holding out as solicitor/ reserved activity
Holding out as legal executive/ failure to inform of status
Improper use of membership
Improper/incorrect/ inadequate advice or action taken
Inaccurate information given
Inadequate service
Inadequate or no costs information given to client
Lost files or documents
Misleading client, parties, court or employer
Misleading or inappropriate advertising
Unauthorised disclosure
Unauthorised approaches to employer’s clients
Unprofessional manner
Private or personal disputes
Work or office related disputes
Employment related
Breaches of legislation or other codes
Forgery or theft CLEX/IPS misconduct
2014 %
7 7 3
1 0 0 3
1
3 0
1 1 8 12
0 3
0 12 1 1 0
11 1
4
3 5
1 11 0 5
0 5
0 5
0 0 0
5 0
0 0 10 5 40
2013 %
5 5 0
0 5 0 0
0
5 5
0
2012 %
0 2.5 1 0
1.75 1 0
1
1.75 13
4 1 14 0 1 2.5 0 14 6 1 1
9 0
1 7 2.5 1 13 1 3 19 3 1 22 1
1 4
2 9 29 4
1 4
2011 %
0 1 1
1 5 1 1
0
1 8
1 - 27 9
1 2
0 5
- 0 1
6 0
6
2010 %
1 - 4
5 3 1 1
4
4 3
1 - 8 -
12 7
0 8
- 3 3
7 0
0
2009 %
1 - 4
6 4 1 7
6
7 6
1 - 22 -
4 6
4 7
- 0 0
0 0
4
2008 %
2 - 13
2 7 2 9
0
2 4
2 - 7 -
2 0
4 4
- 0 0
0 0
0
2007 %
1 - 14
11 7 0 5
6
4 0
1 - 13 -
5 5
1 11 - 0 0
0 4
3 0 – 3
months 4 – 6
months 7 – 9
months
10 – 12 months
Over 12 months
2.1.5 Timescales
An analysis was undertaken of the time taken to consider complaints. The table below sets out the time taken to deal with allegations of misconduct, measured from receipt of the allegation at IPS to determination of the case by the Panel or under the delegated decision procedure (see 2.2).
IPS key performance indicators set a target of 80% of cases being referred to the Panel within 6 months and 100% within nine months. The information below indicates that there has been a reduction in IPS meeting its KPI target with regard to the 6 month and 9 month time scale. This has largely been in part to the nature of the complaints and the complexity of them as a result of them being about Probate. There have also been some complainants who have required and requested additional time within which to respond to IPS correspondence or provide information. In one case a complainant was allowed further time to seek legal advice due to the information request made by IPS and in another case due to a language barrier additional time was given to the member to ensure that they understood the procedures. In addition there have been a number of exam misconduct cases where student members of CILEx have been given more time to deal with providing responses due to their inexperience’s. IPS has marginally missed its KPI target for cases being referred to the panel within 9 months.
Timescale 2014 1 (5%) 9
(42%) 16
(76%) 21
(100%) 0
2013 0
12
(86%) 1
(93%) 1
(100%) 0
2012 9
(17%) 17
(48%) 25
(94%) 1
(96%) 2
(100%) 2.2 Delegated decisions
Determination by consents were entered into in 4 cases; all 4 resulted in a Reprimand. The conduct of 2 members was referred directly to the Disciplinary Tribunal.
These powers have only been available since 2010. The table below presents a year on year comparison of numbers of delegated decisions made.
Delegated decision
Determination by consent Complaints rejected
Referrals to Disciplinary Tribunal
2014 4 0 2
2013 2 3 1
2012 3 4 2
2011 3 5 1
2010 0 6 0
Number of cases 2011 7
2010 19
(15%) 24
(67%) 13
(96%) 1
(98%) 1
(100%)
(46%) 5
(58%) 9
(80%) 4
(90%) 4
(100%)
2009 4
(22%) 7
(61%) 3
(78%) 2
(89%) 2
(100%)
2008 9
(35%) 5
(54%) 3
(65%) 6
(89%) 3
(100%)
2007 7
(24%) 8
(52%) 10
(86%) 0
(86%) 4
(100%)
28 Professional standards for specialist lawyers
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42