regulations and rules


By Trevor Hellawell

In a recent blog I asked:


“Is the time soon arriving where we can reduce the number of regulators to say two – one for the unreserved business sector and another for the reserved business sector? That way we can have a clear set of rules depending on the levels of protection clients want – a cheap and cheerful high street ‘property shop’ model, or a better-protected (if more expensive) high-end version. Competition is not always a good thing.”


It seems the Legal Services Board (LSB) has a similar view.


Last week it published a paper entitled “Delivering better outcomes for consumers and citizens” in which it suggests that simpler regulation (than the confused mass of various bodies with subtly different regulatory frameworks) was ultimately good for clients.


Sir Michael Pitt was even moved to comment that if these proposals were to presage the end of the LSB itself, then so be it.


In outline, what is proposed is one regulator (without the overarching LSB – a product of the since discredited banking model that Clementi envisaged) for the whole legal services sector.


There would thus be clarity and a simpler approach to regulation than the haphazard status quo offers. That said, how will this suggestion fit with the existing SRA consultation on its new rules – will it even exist if the framework changes?


The LSB suggestion is that regulation be activity based, rather than by way of professional title, with special regulation for the high-risk activities. This would presumably do away with the current distinction between reserved and unreserved activities, with a new framework being proposed for the activities that are deemed fit for regulation.


Further, it would not matter overmuch what the professional shape of the entity was that served the client – their protections would be much the same in any event, no matter who offered the services. So, we may see the end of the traditional professional boundaries between solicitors and barristers – and everyone else.


The Law Society has pleaded that now is not the time for such revolutionary reform and that the Legal Services Act needs time to bed down – especially after Brexit – but to tolerate a position where there are 9 different bodies regulating different (and in many cases the same) activities is equally illogical.


As things stand, there would appear currently to be 2 main ways in which legal services could be offered:


  • Reserved business; Regulated entity
  • Unreserved business; Regulated entity


No matter what kind of work you do, you need regulation. Often at high cost. Often unnecessarily.


This is the rigidity that the SRA are attempting to relax by saying that there should also be a third way, that of the:


  • Unreserved business; Non-regulated entity (or lighter-regulated) model


This, they say, would enable access to solicitors for a vast range of work without the costly regulatory requirements. The extent of the clients’ rights of complaint and redress should be made clear to them,if they really cared much anyway.


The arguments about this short-term approach will rage, but if the LSB is planning on rearranging the apple-cart more fundamentally, where will that leave the SRA?


Public or private. keyboard

By Rob Stafford


Unless you’ve been under a rock or deep in cryogenic sleep the past few days, chances are you’re aware of the decision to delay Land Registry privatisation. Minister for Business George Freeman said that the proposal lacked popular support among MP’s and the decision is now likely to ride upon the next administration.


May we be the first to point out, that the next administration could arrive later this year, in 2020, or anytime in between, so it’s either a short stay of execution or a victory, depending on your personal vision for where the country is heading. This in mind, we thought we do a run-down of the top 10 arguments against Land Registry privatisation.


1) Starting with a simple one, a recent poll by campaign group ‘We Own It’ (3 guesses what their stance is), revealed that 70% of the general public oppose it. In fact, only 5% of respondents to the Coalition Government’s consultation thought that privatisation would boost efficiency and effectiveness.


2) Unlike other public sector services, the Land Registry operates a monopoly service.  There is little rationale for privatising a body which has no competition. We’ve seen with other monopolised services such as National Rail, privatisation rarely means a better service or competitive pricing.


3) All too rarely for any organisation, public or private sector, the Land Registry runs at a 98% customer satisfaction rating. It’s hard to see how this can be improved upon, what’s the end goal 99%, 100%? Such small margins hardly justify such a huge shake up.


4) It’s one of the few facets of government which generates a surplus. The Land Registry paid a dividend of £19.1m to the exchequer in 2014/15, coupled with a further £100m reflecting ‘over-recovery’ from customers in previous years, as a result of higher than forecast volume of transactions. In fact, the Land Registry has generated a surplus in 19 of the last 20 years.


5) This in mind, it’s extremely short-sighted of the current administration to deny future governments a much-needed source of revenue. With an ageing population and a creaking NHS, the decision to deny future governments a source of income, which generated £297.1m of revenue in 2014/15, could prove nothing short of catastrophic.


6) The human cost. The Land Registry currently employs some 4,500 staff, past experience tells us that the first step in privatisation is often job cuts. In a time when the job market is at a precarious point in its recovery, can we really afford another round of mass redundancies?


7) There is a real fear amongst conveyancers that the lack of any competition will lead to private investors holding Land Registry data to economic ransom. Not only hitting conveyancing departments up and down the country but also hitting beleaguered home buyers in the pocket.


8) The Land Registry underpins the guarantee of title for £3 trillion of property in England & Wales alone. Do we really want this in the hands of a corporation?


9) The Land Registry, in dealing with transactions, disputes and changes/updates to the register, must retain impartiality and remain free from any suggestion of a conflict of interest. This is quite simply impossible if it is privatised.


10) Transparency is crucial to identifying and dealing with corruption and tax avoidance, as well as identifying and investigating offshore ownership arrangements.


Regulated Vs Unregulated Switch Approving Laws Rules Guidelines

By Trevor Hellawell 


As part of the Law Society’s response to the SRA’s consultation on the future direction of travel for their Codes of Conduct and Accounts Rules, the Society make much of the suggestion that, in future, firms can choose whether or not to be SRA-regulated at all. They question many of the SRA’s assumptions.


Part of this suggestion is the SRA assertion that there is a significant unmet legal need in the market and that the general public should be able to access legal services at a cheaper cost. This, they say, is to be achieved by allowing solicitors to act as such through the medium of an unregulated provider, which will have none of the costs of regulation to bear, and nor will it have all the burdensome PII premiums and complaints machinery that engaging a solicitor brings with it.


The SRA say that such a body could pass those cost savings on to the customer and offer unreserved and unregulated legal services to the general public at a much lower cost. The Consumer Panel of the Legal Services Board will no doubt welcome this pressure to lower costs, as it continues with its pressure to publish average costs as a banner of consumer choice.


The SRA also trumpet protection of the consumer as another of its aims. I wonder whether these two aims are inconsistent.


I am all for reducing unnecessary costs, and the profligacy of some, but I wonder whether the aim for ever-lower costs will ultimately work against the interests of clients.


Take conveyancing fees for instance. Most firms who offer quotes set out to compete with everyone else and thus reduce the per-matter fee to something around £400-500 per transaction. Bear in mind what that will buy you – a reasonable armchair, perhaps, or two-thirds of a laptop for the new school term, or one-tenth of the last service bill for my car. What are you getting for that?


What you should be getting is the focused attention of a legally-qualified fee-earner on all aspects of the transaction – obtaining and interpreting searches, investigating title to your property, drafting the key documentation, advising on Stamp Duty issues, affecting exchange and completion and attending to registration – and liaising over all the transactional infrastructure of completion, moving etc.


Clients will expect all this, and the possibility of complaint, redress, secrecy, confidentiality, insurance, overarching supervision and the ability to sue the lawyers if they send their money to the wrong place through no fault of theirs – and all for £400?


Many law firms have been bemoaning the state of the conveyancing fee market for some time but without doing much about it. Is it time for us to set our charges at a more realistic level? We all know that ‘factory firms’ will offer a service but with none of the bells and whistles that clients demand these days. The SRA say that as lawyers we must make it clear to the (uninterested) client what their protections are – but how many will roll their eyes heavenward when they realise – too late – that their chosen conveyancer only did half a job for the cut-price they were quoted?


Maybe, as a regulated profession, we are not cheap. But there is a good reason for that.




By Trevor Hellawell

One of the key changes under the proposed SRA’s new Accounts Rules is the ability to bank any money a firm receives for its costs (and other liabilities for which the firm is liable (the main routine disbursements)) immediately into its own coffers.


For decades this has been regarded as client money until such time as the legal work is done, and a bill of costs (or other written notification) sent to the client. The main exception was always for ordinary disbursements that were incurred but yet to be paid, or indeed any disbursement that the firm had already paid out of its own pocket.


The justification for this is that it may remove the need to have a client account altogether for some firms, and reduce the average balances below the minimum threshold for obtaining an accountant’s report. This will make life easier for many.


The change allows a firm to bank immediately (in office account) any money relating to legal services provided by the firm (whenever paid) together with any funds that will go towards the payment of disbursements such as conveyancing searches, medical reports, counsel’s fees, courier fees etc. The new Rules fail to make any distinction between professional and ordinary disbursements.


In years of teaching, I have described this notion as that of ‘family hold back’ – the lawyers and the professional team were the last to get paid – after all the work had been done, the bill of costs issued and terms of payment expired. Over the years, interim bills and money on account of costs have become commonplace (and good sense) but it was always still the case that the work had to have been done, and a bill issued before the funds could be withdrawn (within 14 days) from client account and put into office account.


There were VAT issues over work-in-progress too, that made scheduling a nightmare.


On a basic human level, this discipline at least forced the profession to speed up, deliver a decent service and keep the customer satisfied so that we could justify sending them a hefty bill, which of course was our intention anyway. Management commentators would also say that genuinely wanting to help clients should be our overarching motivation – the money, which came later, should be regarded as our reward for having done a decent job. If we did, the amount of money would be more than satisfactory.


This change in the Rules allows us to bank any payments that are referable to our costs straight into office account, regardless of when those costs are paid. So if a firm can give a quote (say for conveyancing) early on in the transaction – and request payment of it – then it can be paid directly to the firm, regardless of whether the work has actually been done or not. This may have a bearing on the fee-earner’s incentive to continue to press on with the transaction after countless phone calls to and from the estate agent and client, and in many cases, the tedium of sorting out the minutiae of a typical house-move may get too much. The continuing downward pressure on conveyancing prices surely won’t help this.


I have much sympathy for the financial plight of the law firm and anything which enables it to operate on a more manageable cash flow basis is to be applauded, but I wonder whether the incentives that drive individuals to offer superlative service will be eroded.



By Trevor Hellawell 

The LSB is currently undertaking a review of the various Regulators in the market – SRA, BSB, CLC, ICAEW, ICAS – in order to determine whether appropriate standards are being observed.


For a decade now we have had ‘competition between Regulators’, something which always mystified me.


Surely, in the interests of public protection of clients there cannot be a competition? Surely, protection is protection.


Competition would appear to be an open invitation to alter standards of entry, regulatory restraints, prescriptive rules and codes of conduct in order to weaken them, make them easier to comply with and ultimately, to reduce prices.


I acknowledge that Rules should be proportionate, not too prescriptive and not a barrier to innovation and development (and competition will help drive that), but there must then be some irreducible minimum below which a regulated ‘professional’ entity must not be allowed to drop.


That, as I understand it, is the point of the current review. The LSB is looking into the current rush amongst entities to look at alternative regulatory models as they strive to compete in a harsh market for legal services. Given that most things can be undertaken by pretty much anyone (unreserved activities can be carried out by accountants, banks, insurers, estate agents, local property shops and the like) the temptation to avoid the full rigour of SRA regulation (for example) is understandable.


To be able to provide property services without the tedium of the SRA’s requirements, PII insurance, accounts rules, legal professional privilege and the rest should allow firms more commercial freedom. The continued pressure from consumer groups, comparison websites and the CMA for clients to ‘shop around’ and for firms to publish their prices online all further press firms to reduce their fees further.


But, the enquiry asks, is this rush motivated by the firms’ commercial aims rather than by what is in the interests of the public and the clients?


True, the availability of insurance is a prerequisite for most regulators. Consumer protection is available in many guises. The ability to recover compensation for a poor service is also a given. Codes of Conduct are common. But, it is the duty of the regulated entity to make these distinctions clear to the client, so the client knows what their (reduced) fees are (not) paying for and what other stitch-ups may be hidden in the small print – witness the current debate around online estate agents, versus the high street, shop front version.


The vast plethora of regulators – all with subtly different requirements and protections – does not help the poor client who has to have all this explained to them. The client may not care too much anyway.


Is the time soon arriving where we can reduce the number of regulators to say two – one for the unreserved business sector and another for the reserved business sector? That way we can have a clear set of rules depending on the levels of protection clients want – a cheap and cheerful high street ‘property shop’ model, or a better-protected (if more expensive) high-end version. Competition is not always a good thing. Benevolent dictatorship anyone?


By Trevor Hellawell


Couple At Home In Lounge Using Laptop Computer


Amid suggestions that the Law Society will shortly require all estimates or quotes to be kept for 6 years in case of complaint, the Legal Ombudsman has recently reminded everyone of the need for accuracy in any communications with clients in respect of costs and charges.


The Ombudsman says that “we often see cases where the costs information provided to customers was not sufficient. Commonly, the biggest mistake firms make is not putting the information in writing or recording it properly on their case management system. Whether providing initial quotes, fee reductions or increased costs, it is important to document the information”.


For example, Mrs. J instructed a firm regarding the sale and purchase of a property in May 2014.


The client entered a verbal agreement with her friend, a solicitor at the firm, for a fee of £200. However, the friend was soon taken ill and replaced by another solicitor. The firm did not quote any other fees verbally or in writing, though there was evidence from an attendance note that the new solicitor would have to charge increased fees. The conveyance also turned out to be more complicated than expected, which meant the firm incurred more costs.


Mrs. J complained after being charged more than expected. The final bill was more than £2,000. The Ombudsman decided that the firm should refund 50% of the fee.


It was clear that the firm had not provided any costs information to Mrs. J, either at the start or throughout the process, particularly when the new solicitor took over the case; nor when it became clear that the sale and purchase was becoming more complicated.


It has long since been good practice for a firm to send a letter at the beginning of the instruction, and then to update their customer if costs increase beyond the original agreed estimate.


Quotation engines – like Brighter Law suite – enable firms instantaneously to issue accurate, tailored, written quotations at the outset of a matter and to enable any changes to that initial estimate to be logged, as well as being sent to the client, cutting off the potential for bad practice at source. Why take the risk?


Written by Rob Stafford

Young Couple At New Home
Smiling Young Couple Sitting Back To Back After Moving House

If the Noughties were the decade of the ‘call centre’ law firm, this one promises to be the time of local law firms.

A recent survey conducted by YouGov has revealed that 77% of all those surveyed prefer the use of a High Street law firm to a national one. This indicates a very real appetite for High Street firms with a focus on service and local knowledge.

With this in mind, we thought we’d provide a run-down of the major benefits of a local service over ‘production line’ conveyancing.


Local Knowledge

While it might appear obvious, local knowledge is crucial in conveyancing. Want to know about that Section 38 agreement at the end of your street? It stands to reason that your local firm is more likely to know about it, rather than a call centre five counties away.

One of the most infamous cases in the industry is chancel repair landmark Aston Cantlow v Wallbank. This is precisely the kind of situation that local knowledge can help prevent. A diligent and local conveyancer is more likely to be aware of the local parish and the possibility of the purchaser’s property being on former rectorial land. The production line conveyancer may have never set foot in the county, let alone the parish in question. To put it crudely, if you were on a guided tour of a historic city, would you prefer the rough guide or the local with decades’ worth of knowledge?


A Personal Service

In any industry, customers are far more receptive and likely to return when they feel that they have been provided for as an individual. We all like to feel valued and unique. From an early age we’re told we are exactly that. Why should the most important transaction of many clients’ lives be any different?


Too long conveyancing has been characterised as legal ‘grunt work’. a service centred on legal form and expediency. Instead, conveyancers should be recognised for what they are, a guiding hand in what is the most important decision in many lives. The value of familiarity shouldn’t be underestimated.  A local firm who understand the situation on the ground, the peculiarities of the local area and, most importantly, the needs of the home buyer, will always hold the edge over a stranger at the end of the phone. Whether it’s being able to drop in for an update on proceedings or simply a cup of tea and a reassuring chat, a more human approach will yield great returns for your firm.


Roots in the Local Community

Local law firms used to offer a ‘cradle to grave service’, all life’s eventualities covered under one roof, from the purchase of newlyweds first home, to passing onto the next generation. As the You Gov survey demonstrates, there is a real appetite for this paternal role from law firms. Why can’t we return to that?

It’s become increasingly clear that the idea of a stranger handling life’s most important transactions sits uncomfortably with most. We are a social species and often just being able to talk something through with someone we know and trust can make all the difference.



Now, more than ever, is the time for law firms to embrace the new technology available to them. The customer of the future is going to be more tech savvy, more aware of the options available to them and consequently more demanding.

The local law firm has a substantial advantage over its large-scale counterpart in this field as well. Small dynamic teams ensure that the use of new technology is nothing like the task it is in a firm with 100 plus staff. The training of one or two members of staff can make all the difference by reaching out in a pro-active way to a new breed of client. Furthermore, the High Street firm is better placed to tailor new technology to each client’s specific needs. Unlike having to adopt the clunky ‘one size fits all’ approach favoured by volume’ based firms.


A Varied Skill Set

The final advantage to the High Street firm is the varied skills that the conveyancer in a local firm brings to the table. With less staff, it’s often a case of ‘all hands to the pump’. Junior conveyancers are given more responsibility earlier in their careers and consequently, they acquire a broad skill-set more quickly. Furthermore, junior staff benefit from working side by side with partners and experienced conveyancers. By the time the juniors are at partner level, this translates to thousands of hours’ experience. The Result is a diligent, learned and highly competent workforce, which can only benefit the client.


Consider the alternative in ‘call centre’ firms; a clear disconnect between partners and juniors, a shallower learning curve for juniors and less broadly skilled staff. This equates to a poorer service for the client.


The law firm needs to reclaim its rightful place along with bank manager and doctor as a pillar of local communities. The High Street law firm is more than just a commercial vessel ,it is a vital helping hand at the most important junctures of life. Let’s return to that!