Should clients play home or away when choosing a conveyancer?

The online revolution has changed almost every aspect of our lives and, finally, it is beginning to impact upon the rather reactionary world of conveyancing. With the rise of the online conveyancer, writes Will Clayton, New Business Advisor at MJP Conveyancing, there is now some much-needed competition and a greater degree of variety within the legal property market. This can only benefit you!

Many people, however, continue to work under the misconception that it is necessary to appoint a local solicitor to undertake your conveyancing; here, we look at the pros and cons of choosing a local or online conveyancer.

Do I need to meet my solicitor? 

For those who have not bought or sold a property in the last few years, it may come as a rather unnerving surprise to learn that you can buy or sell a house without ever meeting your solicitor. It really depends on the type of service you desire. Some people will like the reassurance that speaking with someone face-to-face can provide, but it does not necessarily mean you will have greater communication with your solicitor or greater access to your case. 

Good online companies will have multiple avenues of communication (email, online messaging and the old-fashioned telephone) to discuss your case with you and will not charge you for this service. Better case-management systems will also allow you to view and monitor progress as and when it happens – this can be particularly useful for those who work during the day and do not have the time or resources to organise multiple meetings with their solicitor. 

There are, of course, the dreaded faceless online companies, who are impossible to reach and who seem to have no idea who you are or show any awareness that you are in fact their client! A quick google search, however, will normally reveal how accessible your conveyancers are and how responsive they are to their clients’ needs based on their reviews. 

It can be very useful to be able to drop in to your local solicitor if documents need to be passed on urgently, but you will of course have to make an appointment in advance. 

Will I get a better service on the high street? 

Not necessarily. Without competition, high street solicitors have been able to charge higher legal fees without proper justification for it. In most cases, conveyancing should be a straightforward, quick process – that is not to say there are not cases where a transaction is more complex, but there is no reason why a higher fee should indicate a higher level of service. It is simply a different type of service. The extra you pay reflects the face-to-face time you will get with a local solicitor that would not be available to you when using an online company.

Conversely, there is an argument to be made that the online conveyancers can offer a more efficient service; firms that deploy technology to their advantage and have effective case-management systems can process work quicker. Everything from transferring documents to providing a report on a lease can be done much more efficiently online. More traditional firms, still dependent upon snail mail, can take much longer to process administrative tasks. 

There are, and always will be, firms that do not provide an adequate level of service (amongst both high street and online conveyancers alike) but, once again, basic research will save you from possible catastrophe. Websites like Solicitorsfromhelluk.com aim to expose bogus firms and those offering a terrible service, but do not rely on a single site or review when making a final judgement. 

Do my solicitors need to have knowledge of the local area?

Essentially, no. The information which solicitors rely on to provide legal advice is all obtainable online; everything from the risk of flooding to the planning history of property is digitized enabling solicitors to provide you a full report on a property without ever having to have visited the local area.

That is not to say, however, that local knowledge is not useful; local solicitors who have been operating in an area for their entire careers will of course carry with them vast experience and an in-depth knowledge of the particulars of the area. This may or may not benefit you especially, depending on the type of property; with some more distinct properties, that local expertise may come in very useful.

Conclusion

As discussed, there are benefits and drawbacks to both sides; the important distinction to make is not in terms of the quality of service on offer, but the type of service you will receive. 

If you want a more traditional, personalised service it may be better to use a local solicitor; if you are comfortable with technology and are looking for a cheaper and, often, more efficient service, try using a reputable online conveyancer. 

Ultimately, both local and online solicitors would benefit from learning from each other; increasingly, local solicitors will have to incorporate technology into their processes, just as online conveyancers should be looking to develop a more personal, communicative approach to the way they operate too. 

This is certainly the balance that MJP Conveyancing aim to strike in 2017, between a technology-driven, efficient service and one that retains the personal characteristics of a small, local firm.  MJP Conveyancing also offer their clients free and lifetime access to an online property log book which is used to store all of the information and documents generated within the course of the transaction.   

MJP Conveyancing are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877067 or via email at william.clayton@mjpconveyancing.com

Conveyancing Panels - Marketing heaven or unwanted slavery?

Love them or hate them conveyancing panels continue to remain a predominant feature within the conveyancing industry.   The majority of these work on a model whereby a company operates and manages an electronic platform on which it allows third party associates such as a broker or an estate agent or lender to introduce a client to a solicitor who has become a member of the conveyancing panel.

The panel manager allows the broker or agent or lender to access a national network of conveyancers and provides the broker or agent to make a financial gain from steering the client to one of the panel’s chosen conveyancing firms.  This means that in addition to raising a commission for the work the broker or agent has undertaken, the third party is able to make some extra money through making the referral.  In many cases the client is oblivious to such an arrangement often following the agents/brokers recommendation  blindly.

In addition to this the panel manager is also able to secure a slice of the cake for managing and allowing the third party to access via online software a network of preferred conveyancers.

So what does this mean for the consumer?

For the consumer it will normally mean higher prices since when receiving a quote for conveyancing services from the agent or broker it is in the majority of cases probable that the consumer will be paying a higher price than that had the consumer gone direct to the conveyancer.  The consumer is in these cases paying the broker’s commission, the panel’s management fee and also a higher fee for searches and other incidentals. 

Here is how it works.  The consumer is encouraged to use a solicitor which the broker is able to access through the panel.  The consumer is quoted a fee of say £800 plus VAT.  The consumer accepts and the panel solicitor who invariably will not be local, is instructed.  On completion the client pays the £800  to the panel solicitor.  Out of the £800 paid by the client the solicitor will be required to pay the panel manager company £500, which the panel manager will then share with the broker/agent/lender for making the referral.   The net effect of this is that the consumer has paid 100% more than he or she would have paid if she had gone to the solicitor direct.

On top of this the consumer will also be paying more for identity checks and searches.  This is because the panel manager has arrangements with the third party suppliers of these services under which the panel manager will receive a cut of the fee paid bu the consumer for those services.

In addition to higher prices, the consumer is often introduced to a conveyancing company out of the area and one which may not have the best of reputation.   It must be kept in mind that many of the panel solicitors will be forced due to the low amount of the fee it retains to facilitate the work with the minimum of resources.  The client is expecting a £800 service whereas the conveyancer may be only due to the low return be able to offer a service more commensurate  with the low legal fee retained.

The question to which this gives rise is whether the broker or agent is acting in the best interests of the consumer in not in some cases making it clear that the client may be paying more for their conveyancing services.  Don’t get me wrong as there are some brokers and agents are up front about the arrangement  and do offer to set off the commission received against their fees.

So how does this work for the conveyancer.

The upside is that the conveyancer receives work on a regular basis and has no direct marketing costs to pay.  The conveyancer only pays for the ‘lead’ on completion so this helps with cash flow.  Providing the conveyancer discloses the introduction fee there is no professional objection to the arrangement per se.  The problem lies more with the restraints the Panel Manager may apply.   Most Panel Managers have ‘pet’ suppliers such as search companies and insist that as a condition of panel membership the panel solicitor must purchase the searches from that supplier.  This extends to money laundering checks, indemnity insurance and solicitor account checkers.  This means the conveyancer is deprived of the freedom to choose and work with his or her own preferred supplier.  It also means that the client is often paying more for these items given the Panel Manager is receiving a slice of the charge from the suppliers of these services. At the end of the day the conveyancer is left with a small fee for the work and left with no opportunity to share in the financial benefits of third party arrangements.

Panel work for some conveyancers clearly works and provides savings on marketing costs.  Balancing this however with the shortcomings of the arrangement one is forced to raise questions about the economics of undertaking 'Panel' work.  There is also the question of whether the sharing of fees both legal and those hidden in the supply of third party searches has now reached a level whereby the panel solicitor may be so compromised that a conflict of interest should be considered and indeed acted upon.

So what has gone wrong? 

The decision of accepting and working for a client on a reduced fee was when considering the high cost of marketing is per se a reasonable one to take.  The problem now is that the some panel mangers have become too greedy by looking to reduce fees further ( so as to increase their slice of the cake ) and to also prevent the conveyancer from operating any commercial third party relationships other than those permitted by the panel manager.   There is now a major imbalance between looking after the interests of the client and the panel conveyancer and meeting the financial demands of the panel manager’s shareholders. To the extent some panel managers are witnessing a mass drop in the number of conveyancing firms willing to participate in their schemes.

So what can conveyancing firms do?

The model operated is not unique, nor difficult to establish. Its open to conveyancers to look to set up their own networks and third party relationships.  Surely this must be a more preferable option to the slavery some panel managers now expect from their panel solicitors.

MJP Conveyancing are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877067 or via email at davidp@mjpconveyancing.com

Conveyancers Duped by Million Pound Property Fraud - Was it Avoidable?

The news of a property fraud reported in the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3356929/The-thieves-stole-wife-s-house-sold-1-3million.html ) at the weekend should send a chill down the back of all conveyancers across the land. 

A young woman — who paid the full amount with no mortgage — had been duped into handing over £1.35 million to the a person purporting to be the legal owner of the property. 

The money was last seen on its way to a bank in Dubai.

The real owner was totally oblivious to the fraud until the Land Registry smelling a rat declined to register the property in the name of the young woman. 

There were two primary fraudsters.  One who took out a rental agreement on the property before the property was placed on the market, and the other who stole the identity of the real owner.  Between them they were able to fool the letting agent, the selling agent and both the selling and buying conveyancers. 

This was a fraud perpetrated at the highest level.  

So what could have been done to prevent it?  Probably not very much given the sophistication of the perpetrators. 

The question of whether negligence lies with either the seller or the buyer’s conveyancers must also be a vexed issue. 

So what lessons as conveyancers can we learn from these circumstances?

From a sale perspective there was nothing on the surface which would have alerted the seller’s conveyancer.  The ID supplied for the registered owner, that is the seller, was fake but unless it was obviously fake there was not much more one could expect the seller to do to identify the fraudulent  activity. 

Interestingly, had the seller made use of the Land Registry Alert procedure there is a possibility that the true owner would have been alerted about the proposed sale when the purchaser  undertook the OS1 search before exchange. Clearly conveyancers should all be advising buyer clients, especially the Buy To Let clients, to register for this type of alert. Failure to do so may in the future be viewed as a negligent omission. 

So what additional checks or alert factors should conveyancers as result of this incident consider?

Property of high value with no mortgage are at highest risk especially if they are rental properties. Conveyancers dealing with this type of property should perhaps check on the internet to see whether the property has been advertised for let recently.  In this case the fraudster tenant had only just taken out a rental agreement and had, which is unusual, paid the rent in cash. 

If instructed on this type property perhaps conveyancers should also look at the ID documents more closely and always arrange for the file to be referred to a senior member of staff for a second review. 

Suspicion should be heightened if the registered proprietor is abroad and there is a third party purporting to act for the owner. In this case the property had been put on the market purportedly on behalf of the owner by the person who had taken out the rental agreement.  Its unknown whether this was known to the seller’s conveyancer. 

Another alert factor is the instruction for the sale proceeds to be transferred to an account based outside of the Country.  If a conveyancer is instructed to transfer any funds abroad following a sale, there is now, I would suggest a strong, good argument  to pause and to take a more detailed look at the circumstances.  At the very least, the transfer should be referred to a Partner or other senior colleague for checking. 

So in short conveyancers acting in transactions of this type should keep a close eye on transactions involving:

• Property with high value with no mortgage of other charge 

• Property where the seller is shown as living at an address which is different from that of the property

• A seller looking to sell through an intermediary

• The transfer of funds to an account held abroad.

From a buyer's perspective perhaps there is now a case to consider raising some extra enquiries when it can be seen from the Land Registry Document that the property to be purchased is held by a registered  proprietor who is not in occupation and or which is occupied by a tenant.

Questions of this type which conveyancers may wish to  consider include:

1 Please produce from the letting agent references for the tenant and confirmation on how the rent has been paid i.e whether in cash or by cheque as well as confirmation that all standard money laundering and identity checks have been carried out on the tenant.

2 Please confirm the date on which the tenant took up occupation.

3 Please confirm that the funds to be transferred on completion are to be paid into a bank account held in the UK.  If the funds are to be paid into an account abroad please confirm that these will be held by you for 48 hours before the funds are remitted ( the reasoning here is that if the buyer turns up on completion to find the property occupied without vacant possession ) there may be some time available to prevent the funds from being remitted.  In the present case this would not have helped as the property was vacant at the time of completion.  If the buyer’s conveyancer  had known that the tenancy agreement was only granted prior to the marketing of the property and was now being sold with vacant possession then this may have rung some alarm bells. 

I am not sure whether these questions will find favour with the sellers solicitors but at the very least they may put the sellers solicitors on notice that the transaction is a high risk one and as a consequence raise the level of vigilance.

At the end of the day detection of fraud to a large extent is based on instinct and more often luck.   All practitioners can do is to ensure all the standard checks are carried out and that staff are trained on what to look out for and to remain vigilant throughout the transaction. 

MJP Conveyancing are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877067 or via email at david@mjpconveyancing.com

Additional Enquiries - A Room 101 Opportunity

Do conveyancers  agree that the type of reply shown below should be sent in a concerted effort to bring an early end the growing practice adopted by many conveyancers out there who take great delight in raising copious and unnecessary additional enquiries?:

'Dear Sirs 

Thank you for your long list of additional enquiries. 

We do understand the principle of caveat emptor and the need for due diligence. However the Protocol as you know has made it very clear that solicitors should resist the urge of raising unnecessary enquires.  

Paragraph 32 of the Law Society Conveyancing Protocol states as you know that the buyer's solicitor should: 

'Resist raising any additional enquiries, including those about the state and condition of the building, that have answers which are capable of being ascertained by the buyer's own enquiries, survey or personal inspection. Such enquiries should not usually be raised. Indiscriminate use of 'standard' additional enquiries may constitute a breach of this Protocol. If such enquiries are submitted, the seller's solicitor is under no obligation to deal with them. Nor does the seller's solicitor need to obtain the seller's answers to any enquiries seeking opinion rather than fact'

Noting than many of the enquiries you have raised fall within the category mentioned above could we please ask you to review the enquiries raised and send back to us only those which could be objectively considered as necessary. 

Please keep in mind that we are keen to assist and do not wish to do anything which could delay the progression of the transaction. Indeed it because of this that our request for a smaller but more relevant list of additional enquiries is produced. 

MJP Conveyancing are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

Is there a need to order a plan search in all purchase transactions? Orientfield Holdings Ltd v Bird & Bird LLP [2015] EWHC 1963 (Ch) (26 June 2015)

The decision in  Orientfield Holdings Ltd v Bird & Bird LLP [2015] EWHC 1963 (Ch) (26 June 2015) should serve as a warning to all conveyancers of the serious financial consequences that can flow from mistakes made when carrying our due diligence on the purchase of a property.   

In Orientfield the buyer’s claim against the conveyances acting on its behalf was for damages arising out of an alleged breach of contract and/or negligence relating to the purchase of a property in London. Contracts had been exchanged, a deposit paid by the buyers of £2.575 million and completion fixed for the 4th April 2011.

The  buyer sought damages contending  that its former conveyancers were in breach of duty as they had not informed the buyer of the impending development of a school, which the conveyancers had been aware of from a planning search carried out by them.

The trial took place during June 2015. The conveyancers argued that the buyer had bought the property solely as an investment in central London whereas the buyer said it was bought as a residence in retirement for the owner of the its Company.

The conveyancing transaction included a Property Information Form completed and signed by the Sellers. In the question headed Notices and Proposals they had marked ‘no’ in respect of any notices or letters received which would affect the property and in answer to whether the sellers were aware of any proposals for development nearby, they had written that the buyers should make their own enquiries, which the conveyancers had queried with the sellers solicitors as being an unsatisfactory answer.

In email correspondence the sellers solicitors told the conveyancers to carry out a Plan search which they did and which revealed all the planning proposals for the area including the school. The conveyancers sent their report on title of 9th November 2010 to the buyer without revealing the results of the Plan search and confirming to the buyer  the local authority search result “which does not reveal anything adverse”.

After receiving the report on title the buyer gave instructions to the conveyancers to proceed to exchange of contracts with the deposit of £2.575 million paid.

The buyer’s friend in this Country discovered through talking to neighbours, the proposal to redevelop the school.

The buyer then contacted the conveyancers via emails who sent her a copy of the Plan search result with a comment that as they had not seen the search result, they may wish to take independent legal advice.

Email correspondence followed between the Claimant and conveyancers asking for the purchase to be rescinded on the basis that the sellers had not disclosed the school development. The conveyancers did not follow up on this or advise the Claimant to obtain a valuation of the property before rescission. The conveyancers appointed Counsel to advise on whether the sale should be rescinded. Counsels advice identified three reasons why rescission would prove difficult and also risky, one being that there was no evidence the notice of development had been sent to the property.

A property litigation lawyer was subsequently engaged by the buyer and notice of rescission was served on the basis that  “the answer to question 3.1 in the PIF was untrue because (i) the Plants had received notice of application for both outline planning permission in 2008 and detailed planning permission in 2010, (ii) the Plants had commissioned Knight Frank to submit a detailed objection on their behalf at outline application stage and (iii) with others, had objected via Boisot Waters Cohen at detailed planning stage”.

Negotiations took place and the proceedings were settled before trial on the basis of a 50/50 split of the deposit. 

The buyer then brought proceedings against the conveyancers for breach of contract or duty and their failure to let the Claimants know about the Plans search results and the Defendants failure to investigate the results in an effort to recover the other half of the deposit and unrecovered costs.  The conveyancers denied breach of duty using and argued that even if there was a breach there was no causal link between the alleged failure to advise and the consequential loss. Essentially arguing that the buyers would have still proceeded with the purchase in any event. 

His Honour Judge Pelling on considering Breach of Duty found in his judgment that the conveyancer  “was in breach of his duty by failing to include in the ROT a summary of the effect of the Plan search report, the further investigations that could be undertaken with the LPA without undue difficulty, cost or delay, and to invite instructions in the light of that summary. By doing so, he would have given Ms Chow the opportunity to decide whether she wished to proceed, withdraw or obtain further information before deciding”.

In considering Causation, His Honour Judge Pelling ruled that the final point to prove this issue was the email to conveyancers acting on the property purchase where the Claimant had said

“I am sure I would not have entered into the purchase agreement if I had known that there was going to be a school for 1250 pupils and 250 staffs in the same block as my property.”

He continued that even though the buyer had become aware of the conveyancers failure to reveal the results of the Plan search and had taken other legal advice, he did not believe that the email was anything other than it was “reflective of her honest belief at that time”, which she had expressed long before the start of the proceedings. He was satisfied that the Claimants had “established the causal link necessary to maintain its claim in damages for breach of duty against the defendants”.

The decision is to be appealed. 

Lessons to learn

There are a number of unanswered questions arising from the above which makes it difficult to carry out a complete and fully informed evaluation of the decision and its practical consequences. 

To begin with its unclear why the buyer agreed to compromise on the financial consequences of rescission when it seems the seller had not acted in good faith when failing to disclose the fact that notice of the development has been received by the seller but the seller had failed to disclose this in the Property Information Form. It seems to be that there had been a deliberate concealment which should have provided a more than sufficient basis to justify a clean and complete rescission of the contract.  Perhaps the buyer was not too concerned about not making a full recovery given the fall back of a claim against the conveyancers.  

It would have been interesting to know whether there would have been a different outcome to  the rescission discussions had the conveyancer not sought a plan search and had proceeded to report to the buyer solely on the basis of the Protocol documents. 

The decision clearly reinforces a message which seems to have become lost in the age of the Protocol that when acting for a buyer greater energy and scrutiny needs to be given to the replies to the answers given by a seller in the Property Information Form and related communication.  Its unclear why the conveyancers did not press the sellers solicitors for an answer to question 3.1 of the property information form  and not accept what is fast becoming a standard reply of ‘rely on your own searches’.  The seller should be required to answer 3.1 with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’.  A search will not reveal whether  a  seller has received a planning notice.  Only the seller would know and this is why the question is raised in the Form. 

This was  the first error made by the conveyancers and one which is reflective of a more growing and widespread practice.  

It is clear a failure to disclose a search report having received one is not advisable especially when it should have been obvious having read through it that it contained information highly relevant to the transaction. The unanswered question is whether this decision would have been the same had the report been sent to the buyer but without comment and advice on its content.  Looking at the judgment it would on the face of it appear that the mere disclosure of the report would not have been sufficient, though this is far from clear, particularly when there must be a reasonable expectation that a client having received the report would have read through it. 

The other unclear aspect is whether there is in fact an obligation on a conveyancer to always commission a plan search or at the very least advise that one should be obtained.  My view is that the latter should at the very least form part and parcel of the practice of a comment conveyancer. By advising the client of the insufficiency of the local authority search when it comes to pending planning applications the client should be advised in clear terms that a plan search should be sought or at the very least the client should make their own enquiries with the local authority. 

At the end of the day the conveyancers in this case really do not have any excuse for the failures and I doubt any appeal will be based  on the breach of duty issue.  I suspect what has happened here is that the report has come in and was overlooked.  In a bust conveyancing practice this can happen.  The more avoidable error was the  failure to push the sellers solicitors on providing further information on the reply provided to question 3.1 of the Property Information Form.  The readiness to accept an unacceptable reply to that question was the beginning of a very bad day for those conveyancers. 

MJP Conveyancers are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@mjpconveyancing.com

Will the arrival of the 'Facebook Conveyancer' mark the end of the traditionalist approach?

I understand the  ideals behind a traditional conveyancer and the need for all conveyancers to act at all times in a professional manner. However  I must  question whether the demand for a traditional conveyancing service is still as great as it was at one time and indeed sufficient secure longevity in an ever changing and highly competitive market. 

A typical traditional conveyancer is someone who would not touch a conveyance unless a fee in excess of £1000 is charged, who operates with a secretary and per perhaps also an assistant, who takes long lunch breaks and who  loves to engage in long meetings and telephone calls with clients.  

He or she will also subscribe to the pigeon post mode of communication.  Receiving a letter placing it in a lovely wooden in tray and then after lunch getting out the dictaphone and dictating a very and long and flowery letter in reply.  The dictation would then sit on the tape until a couple of further long letters joined it when a few days later it would find its way to the secretary for transcribing. Once typed the letter would then be left for the conveyancer to check and sign, probably after  the completion of an afternoon on the golf course.  Three or four days later following the arrival of the letter into the office it would find itself on the post room awaiting despatch.  

As for technology, there would be a PC standing on the desk and one which  would probably be turned on but rarely used.  Perhaps the occasional surfing of the net would take place from time to time mainly though to check the latest cricket score. 

This description may be extreme and only representative of  a few but I am sure we have all come across a conveyancer who could be connected to some or all of these features.  I acknowledge there will always be a place for the traditionalist because there are some clients who are prepared to pay for this type of service and who have the money to meet the cost.   The question of whether this demand will last forever given the arrival of a generation who have grown up with technology and social media remains to be seen. 

The growth in Instant Messaging, Facebook, SnapChat and Twitter should be sending out alarm bells to these traditionalists, particularly the small traditional high street firms.   It may still be possible to demand high fees and to continue with traditional work practices but unless  change is on the agenda the prospect of longevity in a fast changing and competitive market is low. 

There is a high demand amongst a large group of the population for instant communication and greater transparency.  The time for a smoke and mirrors approach to conveyancing is at an end, the educated client does not need to be kept in the dark about what goes on behind the scenes, they want and indeed demand 24/7 access to all parts of the conveyancing process.  

The modern thinking client wishes to be notified on their smartphone when a development in the transition arises and also welcomes the ability to see post and other communication as and when it arrives.  This type of client also wishes to be able to communicate with his conveyancer electronically in ways which are already familiar such as Instant Messaging and Facebook. 

Snobbery is such that the traditional lawyer will look down and frown on the practices of a modern day conveyancer arguing that such service is vulgar and unprofessional.   Receiving an email or perhaps a message through an electronic case management system rather than a traditional letter in the post is often viewed as outrageous.  Add to this the practice of acting for a client outside one  mile radius of one’s office the Facebook conveyancer is often looked upon as a disgrace to his or her profession. 

Then there is the ongoing snipes as those conveyancers who charge low fees.   There seems to be a growing misconception around these firms.   Low fees do not always equate to an inferior service and those who sneer at 'bucket shop' conveyancers often fail to look through the anger and analyse why it is possible to run a successful business with such a low fee base.  There are many conveyancers out there who regard themselves as traditionalists, who charge high fees but who deliver a mediocre service.  On top of this many of these firms are operating under the misapprehension that they are making a profit out of the work.  The truth is that even though the Facebook conveyancer may be charging a low fee, the combination of good and efficient use if technology  and a low overhead base, often means that the business is well run. offers good client service and more to the point makes a profit.  

Rather than ranting and raving about these firms with a modern and forward approach to conveyancing, the energy of these doubters may be far better spent in carrying out a self appraisal and looking to challenge the traditional approach to conveyancing.  Is the technology you are using sufficient and advanced enough, do you really need all of those assistants and secretaries and has the time come to drop the old fashioned and generally unwanted modes of client communication. 

Who I ask though will have the last laugh.  The reality is that the Facebook Conveyancer has already arrived and guess what is making good money and building successful practices.  The time frame to get on board and to  begin competing with the likes of this new breed of lawyer is running short.  Right or wrong the life span of the traditional lawyer is limited and with the advent of ABS and the increased competition that time for charging large fees and dining out with clients is nearly at an end.  Only those with good technology and well oiled processes will be able to afford to stay in the market and survive.  

Morgan Jones and Pett are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk