Lawyers are rubbish ...

... well, too many of them are, anyway.

We  often wonder why we get so many irrelevant or unnecessary additional enquiries from buyers' conveyancers (including solicitors).

In the last couple of weeks, the answer has dawned on us: not only have they not read the paperwork we already sent them - they don't care. They want us to answer their own standard questions; they then copy them and our replies to the buyer and say, "Sign here". They have no interest at all in investigating or advising; they are (sorry) crap: charging for acting as lawyers, but in fact only acting as a copier and mail forwarder with no input or added value - some new clients who instructed us last week confirmed this to us: the conveyancers who "acted" when they bought the property simply sent the search result, replies to enquiries, etc, to the clients, telling them to read it all through and sign the contract if they were happy. They did not even bother to check the replies to enquiries to ensure they were (a) complete and (b) not self-contradictory

This week, I received 14 pages of "additional enquiries": all except 3 were answered by the papers we had already sent. The three extras were:
• "Does the the seller own the telephone?" (WHAT?!)
• "Is the building structurally sound?" (Ask a surveyor)
• "When was the house built?" (1920s we think, based on what the agents' particulars said, but we cannot see why it is significant in this case).

OK, it is a relatively minor irritation, but it puts us and our clients to unnecessary work. The really galling thing is that I bet the buyer's solicitor will hardly look at the replies: he will either simply copy them to his own client to wade through (at lest then the buyer will see his solicitor is rubbish) or quietly file and forget them

Bah! Humbug!

New conveyancing protocol

According to Clutton Cox, they were one of only 12 firms to respond to the consultation by the Law Society on its new conveyancing protocol: http://goo.gl/uhpYh

As I also responded, that means only 10 others throughout the country did - what a disappointment

What is also disappointing is that the Law Society has not included in the scheme a requirement for member firms to (for instance) adopt the Law Society's Code for Completion by Post - and a lot do not seem to know what the Code says, but decline to adopt it anyway - nor to update their repetitive raft of property information forms so as to produce a single, well-drafted form for clients to complete

Instead, they are duplicating some of the supervisory functions of the Solicitors Regulation Authority and concentrating on telling lenders, insurers and anyone that will listen that a good conveyancer should be part of the scheme - despite the fact that it is only open to solicitors, not licensed conveyancers. Presumably this is to get lenders and insurers to insist on firms joining if they are to be on lenders' panels and get insurance cover, thus ensuring jobs for those at the Law Society with no improvement in efficiency or protection for the benefit of clients

Ahhh! What it is to be so cynical!

Quality standards?

Research by the Consumer Panel - which advises the Legal Services Board, the regulator of lawyers - finds that "consumers assume all lawyers are technically competent and are subject to more regulatory controls than is the case. This means that quality considerations do not strongly influence consumers' choice of lawyers and people erroneously consider that all legal services are of proven standard."

Apparently, despite a proliferation of quality badges for lawyers, consumers do not use or want quality marks in legal services.

The LSB's reaction to this seems to be to propose yet another layer of regulation for an already heavily regulated sector.

Seems to me it would be better to educate the public that all lawyers are *not* the same - some are better than others, and it is better to make a choice based on experience or a genuine informed recommendation - rather than taking up the referral from the estate agent who is paid by the lawyer to make that referral

Still, I know I am a voice crying in the wilderness. Why on earth should a regulatory body resist the urge to gather more work to itself? It makes one wonder, though ...

Another school governor monitoring visit

I have carried out another monitoring visit, this time focusing on "Community Cohesion", which is a formal way of saying, "We all have to get along together, so play nicely" - I understate for effect, of course, but it does seem to require a lot of input for something that, in 90% of schools, must be taught and experienced automatically anyway. Ah, well, it ticks some boxes ...

Referral fees - are they actively destructive?

We are currently finding the firms that rely heavily on estate agent referrals are incredibly slow - it can take literally weeks to get a draft contract out of them, and on more than one occasion we have offered to draft the contract for them, based on the information in the Home Information Packs

Assuming they are not being lazy or incredibly incompentent (though ... - no, don't go there!) I can only think they are victims of their own successful marketing; in other words, that the referring agents are so keen to get a couple of hundred quid referral fee - guaranteed and, presumably, up front - that they would rather refer the case to someone who does not actually have the resources to handle the work, rather than lose the referral fee

How this can conceivably be in the best interests of their client, the seller, is beyond me. It is also not in the interests of the buyer or the housing market generally

If (and it is a big "If") my limited, recent experience is widespread, and if (another big "If") the reason is as I have surmised, this, surely, provides very strong support for those who wish to ban referral fees, at least where they are being used in such an unsophisticated way as to distort the whole market

Have any other conveyancers had similar experiences?

"Before you go, could you just ...?"

I am away on holiday next week. Madeira, since you ask; yes, I hear it is quite pleasant, though I have not been before

Anyway, I made the mistake of telling my clients, and all day I have taken calls along the lines of, "Oh, you remember that draft Will/shareholders' agreement/ lease/whatever that you sent us six (or more weeks ago? Well, we haven't actually looked at it but we're sure its great. Could you just engross it and send it to us to sign with a fresh explanation of what it says before you go away?"

Stiving to remain polite, I agree to do what I can, with the result that

(a) I will spend most of this weekend at work

(b) I will not finish all the sudden influx of work

(c) I will go on holiday exhausted and collapse for most of it

(d) I will return to a pile of work

(e) Most of what I do send out will get left for another 6 weeks (or more)

Hey, ho: happy holidays! (Bah! Humbug!)

Do lawyers milk it?

"An exact legal opinion on a claim could vary, depending on how expensive your lawyer is" - I read this recently (cannot now remember where) and thought, "How true!" Whatever the merits of a case, there will always be a lawyer willing to argue it - for a fee, of course.

In a number of cases, this seems to be just to make money or because the client insists. Two current examples:

1 Ms X's relationship with her partner broke down. She left the house he had bought and (as agreed at the outset) stopped contributing to the mortgage, etc. Despite the clear wording of the agreement they had both signed at the outset and despite the fact that my client has no money, her ex is trying to prove that she owes him for her perceived under-contribution to the household expenses, and his lawyers are writing unnecessarily complex and threatening letters to get her to pay what she does not owe and cannot afford. I have responded, pointing out that the best solution for both parties is to walk away from the collapsed relationship, but I suspect he will spend money on trying to prove he is right, even though it does him no good. Meanwhile, the lawyers are milking it

2 Mr Y had to liquidate his company two years ago when he realised he could not trade through a sudden difficult period. He is far and away the main creditor and has lost far more than all of the other creditors put together. Though the only money he took out of the company was reimbursement for proven expenses incurred on the company's behalf, he is being pursued by the liquidator, through solicitors, alleging fraudulent preference. Every few months, a letter arrives, claiming that some sequence of transactions or another is indicative of misuse of company funds. Each time, Mr Y and I go through the scant details supplied, he reaches deep into his memory and explains what he thinks the circumstances were, and I detail that to the liquidator's solicitors. It all then goes quiet but, just as I think I can archive the file, another set of accusations arrives. As far as I can see, the only purpose of this is to ensure that the liquidator's fees and his solicitors' swallow up all available funds and the creditors get nothing instead of 50% of what they are owed

A less cynical view, of course, is that lawyers are trained to consider every possibility, and as a result often make things more complicated than they need be - not deliberately or to make more money, but just because that's the way they are. Perhaps I should try to adopt this more charitable view

Right to (car) Repair Choice campaign

Keith Robles, a member of Wealden Business Group gave a presentation today at the group's breakfast networking meeting. Keith buys and sells used cars, but also is involved with a local independent garage on the servicing and repairs side (as well as sales). His presentation was about the "Right to Repair Choice" campaign

Very briefly, at present the European Union obliges motor manufacturers to provide technical and other information about their cars, so that independent garages can access that information to enable them to service and repair those cars.

The manufacturers have lobbied the EU to remove that obligation to disclose information, on the basis that cars are becoming too sophisticated to be capable of proper servicing and repair except at the manufacturers' main dealerships, which can afford the progressively more expensive diagnostic equipment that is required.

That lobbying is on the brink of being successful, so the independent garages are fighting back, through this campaign, pointing out that, if the manufacturers can withhold technical information, car owners will indeed be forced to use the main dealers, resulting in -

• increased charges for services and repairs
• longer distances to travel to get a car serviced
• the destruction of the independent sector
• car owners delaying services to save money and travel, resulting in poorly serviced cars being more common

There are arguments on both sides, but what is especially noticeable is that governmental dogma that "competition is always good in all circumstances" is again being brushed aside when it suits big business

Government trickery

Typical, isn't it? My daughter is at university. In applying for grants and loans last year, my relevant income was for the financial year 2007-08, so no grant for her.

This year, after the credit crunch and while enduring its consequences (ie: a reasonable profit becomes a small loss), my relevant income is still for for the financial year 2007-08, so still no grant for her.

What's the betting (assuming the economy recovers) that the relevant financial year next year will be the year ending in 2010, which should be vastly improved from the year just ended?

Talk about making up the rules as you go along!

(Whinge over!)

Plenty of stick - no carrot

Apparently, "The Legal Services Board could punish non-compliant regulators with multi-million-pound fines " - see http://tinyurl.com/nwsa6a

And how will the regulators pay those fines? By charging them out to those they regulate

The net result will be (a) over-cautious regulation resulting in a massive increase in red tape for lawyers to comply with (b) an over-cautious approach by lawyers, resulting in even slower and more expensive legal services and (c) the risk of swingeing increases in practicising certificate fees, to pay for the regulators' own mistakes and the desire for the LSB to show it has "teeth"

None of this will help the user of legal services one jot, but if it results in complete meltdown perhaps we can start again - a post-Apocalyptic future

Donating blood

I have been donating blood for 25 years now - two or three times a year, as they normally only take a donation at least 16 weeks after the previous one.

The National Blood Service has, it seems, decided to reward "frequent flyers", as I have received a letter, congratulating me on giving blood 3 times in 12 months (not the first time, but the first time it has been commented on), and offering me a "a special cemmemorative slate coaster ... as a small token of our appreciation"

I feel quite touched! ;-)
(and I am NOT being cynical)

Lawyers are not always a bad thing

People often moan about the way in which compensation lawyers encourage a blame culture, resulting in ridiculous claims and the "health and safety freeze" that (allegedly) means that schools, for instance, close at the slightest sign of snow. However, I suspect that a lot of the stories told are urban myths, encouraged by the anti-PC brigade and by those who have a vested interest in lawyers not representing claimants - so that the claims can more easily be brushed aside or settled at lower-than-appropriate figures

This article in The Times Online tends to support that view

I would always recommend someone who has suffered injury not purely as a result of their own fault to seek early specialist advice. There may be no claim, or pursuing a claim might be inappropriate, but it is better to find out first, then make a decision

I do not handle such claims myself, but (as for other legal work that I do not handle) I would be happy to refer "victims" to a suitable local specialist solicitor - just get in touch, and I will be happy to help

ID card "mission creep"

I seem to recall that, when ID cards were being proposed, we were assured that they would not be used as general means of proving ID, but only as "entitlement cards" for hospital services, benefits, etc.

If my recollection is correct, what are we to make of the comment by Meg Hillier, undersecretary of state at the Home Office, that "for legal transactions it might well be worthwhile [solicitors] having a reading machine to quickly verify ID"?

Am I being over-cynical to suggest that the government is using taxpayers' money (and citizens' personal data) to produce a scheme that private enterprise can use to sell kit to businesses for a profit?