The unnamed lawyer also misplaced notes with clients’ instructions
A standards committee has ordered a lawyer to pay a $4,500 fine and $500 in costs for being slow to act on instructions regarding clients’ wills.
The committee found that Mr A breached his duties under the Lawyers and Conveyancers (Rules of Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 by not actioning amendments to clients’ wills in a timely manner, misplacing notes with clients’ instructions, and failing to adequately advise clients of any progress. Mr A admitted that his conduct had failed to meet the set standard.
Two clients had instructed the lawyer to change their wills and enduring power of attorney documents. The clients sought an update from Mr A after he did not update them on his progress for almost six months.
Mr A admitted that he had neglected the task and had misplaced his notes containing their instructions. The clients reissued the instructions and the lawyer drafted the wills, which were neither sent to the clients nor executed.
A year from the time they first provided their instructions, the clients engaged a new solicitor and filed a complaint to Mr A’s firm, addressing it to Mr B. Mr A acknowledged that he was responsible for the file and apologised for the quality of his service; he also informed the clients that Mr B had retired from the firm five years previously.
The clients filed a complaint indicating that Mr A’s legal services were unsatisfactory and that his response did not tackle their concerns or explain why the firm’s website was out of date when it came to complaint information.
The standards committee determined that Mr A violated rule 3 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers (Rules of Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. Mr A claimed he had not known that the clients’ amended wills were not presented for execution or that the clients had not been updated; however, the committee said this was irrelevant as he was in charge of ensuring that the actions had been taken. The committee pointed out that the clients’ instructions should not have been logged as completed until they had been fulfilled in full and added that Mr A’s firm should have implemented systems to avoid such a situation.
The committee added that a negligence claim could have been filed against Mr A if either of his clients had passed away before the changed wills were presented for execution. The committee also determined that the lawyer violated rule 11 by misplacing the notes with the client instructions since it affected his ability to complete his duties, therefore negatively affecting the legal profession’s reputation.
Moreover, Mr A’s failure to communicate progress breached rule 7.2 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers (Rules of Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. The committee also found that the lawyer did not provide a letter of engagement to the clients, noting that he may not have misplaced his notes otherwise as they would have been detailed in the letter.
The committee considered Mr A’s conduct to be of a moderate level of seriousness. It considered that there was no prejudice to the clients and that a fee was not charged. Mr A’s admission of his service being below standard was a mitigating factor as well. Per the committee, the ruling served as a reminder for lawyers to act quickly on instructions.
