Why Solicitors Should Take Note of Court of Appeal’s Aina Khan Law Ltd v Legal Ombudsman

 For law firms, the message is clear: client care, vulnerability assessments and cost transparency are no longer peripheral administrative matters. They sit at the centre of regulatory and complaint risk management.

The Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Aina Khan Law Ltd v Legal Ombudsman is a timely reminder that the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) possesses significant powers to intervene in disputes concerning service quality, costs and client care.

 For many firms, the most striking feature of the decision is not simply the outcome, but the Court’s endorsement of the breadth of the Ombudsman’s role. The Court reaffirmed that the Legal Ombudsman is not confined to determining strict legal rights. Instead, under section 137 of the Legal Services Act 2007, the Ombudsman determines complaints according to what is “fair and reasonable in all the circumstances”. The Ombudsman may limit fees, require refunds, order compensation and direct other remedial action where service has fallen below an acceptable standard.

 In this case, the Ombudsman concluded that the firm had failed adequately to address concerns regarding the client’s vulnerability and mental capacity and had also failed to keep the client properly informed about escalating costs. The Ombudsman ordered compensation exceeding £51,000, including substantial reductions to recoverable fees.

 Perhaps most importantly, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Ombudsman was entitled to consider not only legal capacity in the strict Mental Capacity Act sense but also the broader concept of vulnerability reflected in Law Society guidance. The Court emphasised that solicitors must consider whether clients require additional support even where they may still technically retain capacity.

The judgment demonstrates that LeO will scrutinise not only what a solicitor knew, but what a solicitor ought reasonably to have recognised and acted upon. Mental health concerns, erratic behaviour, difficulty processing information and signs that a client may struggle to make informed decisions can all become relevant factors when assessing whether a reasonable service was provided.

There is also a significant warning for the profession. The Ombudsman expressly stated that there was a “strong argument” that none of the firm’s fees (£113,963) were recoverable because the client may not have had the capacity to enter into the retainer. While the Ombudsman ultimately reduced rather than eliminated the fees, the decision illustrates a potentially severe financial consequence when vulnerability and capacity issues are not addressed appropriately.

Technology can assist. Systems such as The Legal Lexi can help firms identify warning signs, maintain contemporaneous records of discussions, track client communications and demonstrate that appropriate steps were taken when concerns about vulnerability arise. However, no technology replaces professional judgment and the need for active engagement with client needs.

 The decision serves as a reminder that the cost of getting vulnerability wrong may be far greater than the cost of addressing it properly at the outset.

How The Legal Lexi can help

The Legal Lexi transforms client onboarding by delivering clear, accessible cost explanations that clients genuinely understand. By simplifying complex information into consistent, plain-English guidance, it strengthens compliance, secures informed consent and protects your fees—reducing disputes, improving transparency and building lasting client trust from the very first interaction.

Contact us to find out more and to book your free demonstration.

Click here to preview The Legal Lexi

Company

About Us

Contact

Company number:

13928925

Registered address:

Knoll House

30 Macclesfield Road

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 2AF