UK: The Legal Ombudsman – A Fine Line Between "Fair And Reasonable" And Irrationality?

The Legal Ombudsman ("LeO") for England and Wales was set up by the Office for Legal Complaints in October 2010, under the auspices of the Legal Services Act 2007. LeO is "an independent, consumer focused ombudsman scheme set up to resolve complaints about lawyers in England and Wales", and provides a free complaints resolution service to consumers such as members of the public, small businesses, charities and trusts.

Although LeO has been running for almost four years, there have been only four legal challenges to its decisions in that time – three of them in the last six months. In this Legal Update, we focus on the successful challenge in R (Crawford) v The Legal Ombudsman (2014), in which the High Court has confirmed that, although LeO is afforded a wide discretion to decide what is fair and reasonable (based sometimes on limited evidence), decisions will be overturned if an applicant shows that the decision making process is not logically capable of supporting the conclusion.

The Applicant, Lincoln Crawford OBE (a barrister), sought to challenge by way of judicial review, LeO's decision in respect of a complaint by a former client of Mr Crawford, Mr Noor. Mr Noor initially complained via the complaints system of Mr Crawford's chambers, but his complaint was rejected and he pursued matters through the ombudsman. The complaint was reviewed by a LeO caseworker, who advised that it should be dismissed on the grounds that a reasonable level of service had been provided. Mr Noor challenged this decision and it was referred to the Deputy Chief Legal Ombudsman for review.

LeO final decision

The Deputy held that the advice provided at a conference between Mr Crawford and Mr Noor was limited and that, as a result, Mr Crawford should return half of his fee to Mr Noor. This decision was based on the fact that Mr Crawford had failed to provide LeO with a copy of his note of the conference with Mr Noor (Mr Crawford argued that it was for Mr Noor to provide evidence in support of his claim).

The Deputy's expectation was that Mr Crawford would have taken notes at the conference, including details of any advice provided, and would then have followed up the conference with a written note, so there could be no confusion as to what advice had been given. In the absence of such a note, the Deputy was unable to say with any certainty what was discussed at the meeting and whether any advice was provided. As Mr Crawford had had ample opportunity to produce evidence to the contrary the Deputy found that it was reasonable to infer that Mr Noor was provided with little substantive advice.

In reaching this decision, the Deputy accepted that, as Mr Noor had prematurely left the conference while Mr Crawford was out of the room, Mr Crawford did not have an opportunity to provide any kind of summation of the advice given. Further, he worked on the basis that Mr Crawford would have done some preparatory work/reading before the conference. In light of the fact that some advice was deemed to have been given and some work carried out, it was appropriate that, although there had been poor service which required a remedy, Mr Crawford was only required to return half of his professional fee.

It is important to note that the final finding of poor service did not relate to the legal content of the advice given but rather to the failure to provide more than limited advice, having accepted instructions to provide initial advice and having been paid by Mr Noor to do so.

Mr Crawford sought to challenge LeO's decision by way of application to the High Court for judicial review.

The High Court decision

In determining the application, the Court first examined the scope of LeO's remit, by reference to the relevant statutory provisions under Part 6 of the Legal Services Act 2007 ("the Act"), namely:

  • Section 113(1) the purpose of the LeO scheme is to enable complaints to be resolved quickly and with the minimum formality and by an independent lay person (legally qualified or not)
  • Section 137(1) a complaint to is to be determined "by reference to what is, in the opinion of the ombudsman making the determination, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case"

The court also referred to the following Scheme Rules ("the Rules") pursuant to the Act:

  • Rule 5.24 – which provides that, amongst other things, LeO may include/exclude evidence which would be inadmissible/admissible in court, make a decision based on what has been supplied, and draw inferences from any party's failure to provide information requested
  • Rule 5.37 – which provides that, in determining what is fair and reasonable, LeO will take into account (but is not bound by) a) what decision a court might take b) the relevant Approved Regulator's Rules of Conduct and c) what the ombudsman considers to have been good practice at the time of the act/omission

The Court concluded that LeO is intended to resolve complaints swiftly and informally such that individual ombudsmen will often have to do the best they can on limited material and without hearing detailed evidence. To assist in these objectives, LeO may therefore rely on evidence which would not be admissible in court and may draw adverse inferences from a failure to provide information or documents, and is afforded considerable latitude of discretion when he assesses what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. It is notable that LeO is not bound by the Approved Regulator's Code of Conduct (although he must take account of it) and he may apply his own standards of what he considers to have been good practice at the time.

Ground of Judicial Review

Mr Crawford submitted that LeO's decision was unreasonable within the meaning of the principles laid down in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948). In particular, Mr Crawford maintained that the decision was irrational in the proper sense of the word, namely that LeO's reasoning was so illogical as to be incapable of supporting the conclusion reached. The Court reiterated that this was a high threshold, especially in the context of a scheme intended to resolve complaints swiftly and informally, and where the decision maker was afforded wide discretion.

The Honourable Mr Justice Popplewell held that the decisions of LeO "are to be read with a degree of benevolence" and were not to be construed as if they were statements or judgments or "subjected to pedantic exegesis". However, he found it impossible to read the final decision of LeO in any other way than as adopting an illogical process of reasoning as the sole basis for its conclusion.

The court found that LeO had taken an adverse inference from the absence of a contemporaneous note of the conference while also recognising that Mr Crawford was entitled not to have made such a note, and that no such note may have been taken in any event (as claimed by Mr Crawford).

Therefore, the court held that, as LeO had recognised the possibility that Mr Crawford had not taken a note at the conference, no inference could logically be drawn from the failure of Mr Crawford to provide a note to LeO as to a) what a note would have revealed had one been taken (or as to what occurred at the conference) and b) the extent of the advice actually given by Mr Crawford. As LeO had used the failure to provide a note as the only ground for concluding that the advice was limited, the decision was therefore irrational and failed under the test of Wednesbury reasonableness.


There have been two further judicial reviews of LeO decisions since Crawford: R on the application of Hariz & Haque Solicitors v Legal Ombudsman & Tahira Quereshi (2014), and R (on the application of Rosemarine) v The Office for Legal Complaints [2014].

In Hariz & Haque the decision of LeO was overturned in relation to a dispute over solicitor's fees going to the standard of service the interested party had received. In this case, there was a dispute as to whether attendance notes seemingly supporting the solicitors' position had been received by LeO. The Court held that, in the absence of any evidence to indicate that the attendance notes had not been received by LeO (and LeO had not provided a witness statement confirming the position), the Court would assume that LeO had received the notes, on the balance of probabilities. The Court held that the attendance notes supported the position of the solicitors as to what services were agreed with the client within the fixed fee arrangement, and found LeO's decision to be contrary to those attendance notes. As such the decision was irrational and illogical, and failed the test of Wednesbury reasonableness.

In Rosemarine, a barrister alleged bias by LeO in considering a complaint, and challenged the reasonableness, fairness and jurisdiction of LeO's decision. LeO had actually dismissed the substantive complaint over Mr Rosemarine's handling of an immigration matter, but found that he had provided poor service in refusing to respond to the complaint pending receipt of various papers from his client, which LeO found to be "unnecessary and obstructive" and amounting to poor service, in light of a straightforward complaint.

Further, LeO said the final response Mr Rosemarine did eventually send was "offensive and unprofessional in tone" and included "repeated allegations of illegality and criminality", and also amounted to poor service. The Court found that the final response could be read in two ways, either as concealed allegations of fraud and criminality or as innocent observations. Because there were two possible ways of construing the response, the Court found that the decision of LeO could not be outside a range of reasonable conclusions and, therefore, failed the test of showing irrationality or illogical decision making. It is interesting to note that a similar decision was reached in the first judicial review of a LeO decision; in R (Layard Horsfall Ltd) v Legal Ombudsman [2013], whilst it was acknowledged that a Court may find a decision by LeO irrational if there is a misunderstanding or incorrect analysis as to the facts, in the circumstances of the case, the ombudsman's decision was not wrong, let alone irrational.

The more recent decisions confirm that the discretion conferred on LeO by the "fair and reasonable" jurisdiction is a broad one, which accords with its primary objectives, being the quick and informal resolution of disputes by an independent layperson. However, this discretion is not unlimited and, if the sole basis for a decision is founded on illogical reasoning, it can be overturned for irrationality.

It is, perhaps, only to be expected that there should be challenges to the decisions of a relatively youthful organisation in its early years, although four judicial reviews in a matter of months may be something of a record – in contrast, there have been just two judicial reviews of the decisions of the Financial Ombudsman Service ("FOS") in the last 12 months. This may of course be a result of FOS casehandlers being more practiced and secure in their decision making - LeO has only been in existence for a relatively short length of time and its case-handlers and decision makers are still adjusting to their role and remit, and to the exercise of their wide discretion. In such circumstances, it is notable that only two of the four judicial reviews have successfully overturned the LeO decisions. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen how long the process of adjustment and bedding-in will take, and we await judicial review number five with interest.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.