Unfair constraint on free choice of legal regulator

Changing from one regulator to another should not be difficult and should not be restricted due to the exclusive and unnecessarily stringent arrangements operating between one regulator and the insurance industry. 

How on the one hand can you introduce the flexibility of choosing a regulator that suits your business, and which will benefit the client, and then with the other hand have a rule which places a financial burden of such a magnitude that the cost of switching becomes totally prohibitive.  It simply does not make sense and makes a mockery of not only the role of the Legal Services Board but also the legal profession as a whole.

So, you wish for example to switch regulator from the Solicitors Regulation Authority ( SRA) to the Council of Licensed Conveyancers (CLC). A logical move if you are a conveyancer because  you wish to be regulated by a regulator who understands conveyancing and who has a focused interest in how the conveyancing profession should be allowed to be developed.   You make the choice with business interest in mind and with the knowledge that you clients will benefit because of the Council’s insight into and knowledge of the conveyancing industry.  A regulator that is niche and which does not at least for now wish to be all things to all people.

A perfectly logical decision therefore and one which should be easy to implement.

To be fair the process of applying to the CLC is straight forward and unless there are major issues in the way you run your business, the application should be approved without too much difficulty.   The problem however is with the SRA and its agreement with the insurance industry.   Under  Participating Insurers Agreement (PIA) when one changes regulator this acts an automatic  trigger for ‘run off’ indemnity insurance.   The so called logic is that because PII policies are written on a “claims made” basis rather than the “losses occurring” basis used in general insurance, responsibility for the claim rests with the insurer in place at the time of the negligence.  If therefore at the time the claim is made there is no longer an insurance policy  in place which accords with the PIA the client may find him or herself uninsured.  

The theory behind this is that the PIA minimum term insurance is superior in terms of coverage to the insurance which is required by the CLC.  I say in theory  because having had some brokers to interrogate the differences they do not seem to  be that significant and far reaching.   To begin with, the minimum term insurance will still pay out on a claim if the solicitor does not pay the premium or where there has been bad faith on the part of the solicitor which has led to the claim.    Interestingly when the Insurance Act 2015 is introduced later this year the latter of these two difference will offer little comfort as the insurer will be able to void the claim in the event of fraud and or deliberate or reckless failure to disclose relevant facts.  It’s not clear at this stage how this will operate with within he PIA.

Essentially therefore, there is very little difference although when one looks at the cost of insurance there is a substantial and a totally unfair difference in annual premiums.   The cost of minimum term insurance and non-minimum term is staggering and does gives rise to the question of whether as a profession we have and continue to be been mugged when it comes to the extortionately high PII premiums charged.   A conveyancing business with a million pound turnover and a clean claims record would with the CLC be looking to pay a premium of around £15,000 compared to a premium of £80,000  for minimum term cover.   How can this be justified?   The same risks apply irrespective of regulator. The only conclusion is that you are paying £65,000 for the added consumer protection provided by the minimum terms.  The fact that the claim will be paid in the event of the wrongdoing of the conveyancer or the failure of the solicitor to pay the premium.  One in reply may ask with good reason why should an insurer pay out in these circumstance in any event.  More importantly why as a profession should we paying higher premiums to address the risk presented by the less honest members.  Why should we be deprived of the opportunity to choose the type and scope of cover we consider as a professional outfit will address the risk of a client raising a claim?

So the SRA as the situation currently stands will not allow a SRA regulated firm to choose its regulator unless it is satisfied that there will be adequate minimum term insurance in place to cover past claims ( for six years)  The practical consequence of this is that although with the CLC, you current year’s insurance could for example be   as low as £15K,  to make the switch and obtain the SRA waiver you would need to put into place a run off minimum term insurance policy which sticking with the present example, could cost as much as  £200,00 plus!

A nonsense and a major barrier to the freedom and benefits of choosing your regulator.

To be fair to the SRA the above unfairness and restriction on competitiveness has been identified and the SRA has began a consultation process with the view to removing the ‘run of’f requirement on change of regulator (http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/consultations/removing-barriers-switching-regulators.page).

Crispin Passmore, Executive Director for Policy at the SRA, commenting on the process stated:

"Firms should be able to switch to the regulator they feel is right for their business more easily than is currently the case. Legal businesses are increasingly owned by, and employ, a range of lawyers and non-lawyers, so choosing a regulator is an important business decision. Facilitating choice is a good way to encourage a modern, competitive market that provides affordable and accessible services.

"The Legal Services Board ensures minimum standards of client protection are maintained by all legal services regulators. Nonetheless, we have to be careful that removing unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles for firms does not create potential risks for the clients of firms wanting to switch. We want to get the right balance between encouraging a competitive market and ensuring the interests of those using legal services continue to be protected, so we are keen to hear views on how best to do this.

"If there are options that we have not thought of that should be considered, we are very open to ideas.”

I agree the client has to be protected but if as is available insurers are prepared to offer conveyancers looking to switch cover for past claims and which will meet claims providing the conveyancers have not failed to provide full disclosure and paid the premium then I am not sure how it can said the client will not be protected.   To claim otherwise would suggest that CLC conveyancer clients are at more risk than SRA conveyancing clients.  If this  so shouldn’t the public be made aware of this ?

It seems to me that the insurance industry has been able with the full acquiesce of the SRA to hide behind the PIA and charge inflated PII rates making it more expensive for SRA insured back conveyancers to compete with other regulated conveyancers.   This cannot be allowed to continue and as a profession we need to stand up and support the SRA with the proposed changes which could if implemented lead to reduction in the level of PII insurance premiums across the board.

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

When is a bogus legal firm not a bogus legal firm?

We operate in a world in which we are constantly exposed to criminal activity undertaken by sophisticated crime syndicates, normally based outside the country.   There are several different types of crime and the type of scam is constantly evolving.  There is a need for both professionals and consumers to be on guard and to be educated to spot the true scam attempts and to know what to do when one is identified. 

A scam is a type of fraud that criminals use to trick both professionals and the consumer  into giving up money and personal details. Sometimes criminals will use the names of law firms, solicitors or other individuals regulated by us to make their scam seem genuine, either with or without their knowledge.

Scams can take the form of unsolicited emails, text messages, telephone calls or direct mail. Emails sent can also contain viruses some of which are designed to allow the criminal to gain access to your computer with a view to obtaining personal details of clients, bank details and other confidential information. Alternatively the criminal take control only agreeing to release the captured data in return for a ransom payment. 

One type of email is an email sent from an address which is not specific to the purported sending individual or firm but which purports to be from a member of a legitimate legal firm.  Its this particular email which seems prevalent and which is now proving to be a daily occurrence.  All one needs to do is to look at the Solicitor Regulation Authority Scam Alert Register to see how many of these are happening each week.  

My question is that should this type of email, which is not by any means a sophisticated scam, be viewed as one which is reportable and allowed by some independent third party holders of this data, to suggest or imply that the ‘victim’ business may have in some way brought about the scam or is associated with it. 

I say this is not a sophisticated 'scam' because to create an email address and to then add a simple signature strip to pretend the email has come from a particular legal practice does not involve very much ingenuity. It takes no longer than a a couple of minutes and to be able to send this out to other lawyers involves nothing other than a perusal of Find a Solicitor website.  As I say not rocket science. 

I have first hand knowledge of this since my business was reported to the SRA and has also as a result of the incident, had a “notice’ added alongside our name on a data base held by a well known commercial solicitor checking service. 

The email had an attachment  and was sent to a number of legal firms and was sent not from a clone of our business email address but rather from a personal email address.  This was very clear and all that the email had which related to our business was the name of our business in a typed signature strip.   The email was clearly a fake and unless the professional person receiving it has lived on a different planet  for the past year or so, it should have been abundantly clear that the email was ‘spam’ at the very least, and should be deleted. 

Our only connection to the email was the use of our name within the body of the email. 

Notwithstanding this we were required to report it the SRA and as mentioned anyone searching our name on the SRA website and the third party database will see that we are associated with what should have been labelled 'spam' rather than 'scam'. 

Not happy with this, we lodged a complaint with the SRA and wrote to the third party verifier.  Despite these efforts we still have the 'scam' associated with our business and this has meant that from time to time we are required to defend ourselves when other businesses  contact us enquiring about what happened and making sure we were in no way involved in the 'scam'. 

My question is that should all types of spam be regarded as reportable, or is it reasonable to expect most lawyers, using both common sense and a degree of intelligence, to differentiate between a poor and pitiful effort to 'scam', as was the case here, and the more serious type of scam.   Is there not a fear that by reporting everything that might look to be a scam ( whether it is or not ) the real and more damaging scam will become less visible to detect?

The argument advanced from the third party verifier is that ‘sadly not everyone spots the obvious and people are conned by emails purporting to be from legitimate firms when they are not’.

It also claims that the credibility of those businesses who appear to have been held ‘guilty’ for no reason other than association has not been affected by this type of scam.  Its also argued that if someone purports to be you then you have a moral if not professional duty to warn your clients and other firms to ensure that they are not misled by criminals.

Fair points.  However, the email in question was not directed at the consumer, it was an email which was being sent purportedly on behalf of our business from an email address which did not even feature our business name within it.   The ‘red flag’ points within the email were clear and obvious. If the email address was a clone of our email address then yes we would have had a moral and professional duty to warn, but this was not the case. 

Surely after all of the publicity and professional guidance issued over the past year or two,  has the time not come for the SRA and commercial scam data base holders and publishers to be more discerning in the reporting and labelling of scam attempts.   On this note, the third party company has refused to remove the notice registered against our name or to put an explanatory note against it. 

By having this blot on our copy book through no fault of our own we do face the prospect of suffering damage to our reputation due to risk of other businesses dealing with us taking the view that we have been the subject of a genuine ‘bogus solicitor' attack when clearly we have not.  I raised this with the third party data collector and publisher and was told this was nonsense.  I have not take this any further but it would be interesting to take an opinion on whether the publisher of data which is capable of giving a misleading image of a business can be held accountable for any loss arising. 

Hopefully those reading this will not consider that I am looking to undermine the fight against fraud.  On the contrary  I am saying that unless we can when receiving data be able to filter and correctly categorise the incidents there is a real danger that the profession will start to switch off to the threat due to the the overwhelming number of reports and warnings issued. 

David Pett   

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

We need to do more to protect our clients money

The recent report of a significant loss suffered by a client following the interception of an email by a gang of fraudsters has sparked a debate about the suitability or otherwise of communicating with a client via email especially as regards the exchange of financial information. 

Mr and Mrs  Lupton sold a fla for £340,000. Two days before the set completion date of February 27, Mr Lupton’s solicitor, Perry Hay & Co in Richmond, Surrey, emailed him requesting his bank account details for the sale proceeds to be paid into.

Mr Luton replies and unfortunately for all concerned the email was intercepted by fraudsters.

Posing as Mr Lupton, the fraudsters emailed Perry Hay & Co again instructing them to disregard the previous details and send the money to a different account instead.

The sale completed and following the discovery of the fraud the account was frozen and £271,000 was returned to the Luptons but the balance of £62,000 had already  been withdrawn by the fraudsters. 

Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, Robert Loughlin, executive director at the SRA, said: “We are very concerned about this continuing activity. The fraudsters are highly sophisticated in their approach. All firms should ensure that their own, internal systems for guarding against scams are up-to-date and that staff know how to implement them.”

Unfortunately the SRA dis not seize the opportunity to provide guidance.    There is an element of common sense involved  but this is easy to say in the cold light of the day but less simple to implement faced with the intensity and pressures of a busy day of completions. 

So what can be done to reduce the risk of falling victim to fraud?

Some commentators speak about the need of encrypted email but I question whether this is a practical solution and more to the point one that is really necessary. 

The first and most important step is to make sure there is a very clear and coherent policy prepared on how to deal with the transfer of client funds and to make sure every single member of your business knows the policy and knows it by heart. 

The policy should make sure that any bank details supplied to you by a client should always be verified by calling the client and taking the client through some security questions.  That is questions to which only the client would know the answers.  You should avoid questions such as date of birth, file references and any other information which a determined fraudster may have gleaned. 

I also recommend that you should always ask the client to send through a copy of the bank statement relating to the account into which the money is to be paid.   This can then also be used to verify the bank details.   I know a bank statement can be replicated but if you have asked the client to forward this to when speaking with the client over the phone the chance of a fake statement being sent through is remote. 

I also suggest that significant sums of money should only be retuned to clients after it has been authorised by a director or partner of the firm.  This will add a second layer of security since the director or partner can then check that the policy has been followed. 

We operate in an uncertain world full of people who operate tirelessly to defraud others - we must be more vigilant and careful with  our clients money. 

Interestingly, following the crime, Perry Hay & Co said it did not believe it was at fault and that the Luptons would have to suffer the loss.  I am not sure about that! 

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

Important questions surrounding the SRA proposal for minimum indemnity insurance

The SRA is introducing a requirement on all firms to ensure they have an appropriate level of cover of indemnity insurance cover in case they make mistakes, but reducing the mandatory minimum level of compulsory cover to £500,000.

The rationale behind this is that the SRA wants to ensure consumers are better protected by, for the first time, requiring firms to make sure they have in place appropriate cover rather than relying on meeting the minimum requirements.  The proposal will also help firms who undertake low value work to obtain insurance at a more competitive level.  Well that’s the theory.

The proposal has yet to be approved by the Legal Services Board though it seems from what is being said that it will not be too long before the LSB confirms its approval.

So what will these changes mean for the consumer and the conveyancer?

For the consumer it will make choosing a solicitor more difficult.   The consumer will need to consider the value of the work to be undertaken (which may not be clear to the client) and then make sure that the solicitor has adequate insurance cover.  I wonder how many lawyers will look to reflect these changes in their marketing material even though advertising one’s insurance cover which would be available in the event of an error may not be the correct signal to give.

It begs the question whether the solicitor will be obliged to disclose its minimum cover in the client care agreement and to impose a duty on that solicitor to advise a new client if it considers the cover it has in place may not be sufficient.   In this situation will the solicitor be required to take out ‘top up’ cover and if so will the solicitor pass that extra cost onto the client.

Looking at these changes for the conveyancing solicitor the questions are far greater and have some interesting consequences.  Will those solicitors who wish to remain on lender panels lose out on the opportunity of reducing the cost of insurance cover? It would be a logical conclusion to reach that the lenders will be asking for a minimum level of cover of £2 million as a condition of membership of their panels.  If this is so, will this make firms who do not undertake lender work more competitive given they will have the freedom to choose and tailor their policies accordingly?

It will be interesting to see whether lenders will also require solicitors who are not on their panel but who act as agents for the purpose of discharging secured loans, to carry a similar minimum level of cover.

In a conveyancing transaction we may be faced with a number of professional parties who have different levels of indemnity insurance cover.  How will the conveyancer with say a minimum of 2 million pounds  of cover, and who may in the event of a negligence claim need to seek a contribution, know the level of cover of the other professionals in the same chain?  The level of indemnity cover of the solicitor acting for the other party may be become a standard question for conveyancers to answer at the outset of a transaction. 

A difficulty might arise when it becomes clear that the other solicitor involved only has reduced cover - would you need to advise your insurer and seek clearance to proceed as well as informing your client’s lender?  If clearance was not provided would you then write and advise that you client is not able to proceed with the transaction unless the other solicitor ‘tops up’ its insurance?

Some insurers may make it a condition of cover that the solicitor conveyancer will not be able to undertake work in a transaction without knowing and checking the level of the insurance over of the others involved.

This also begs the question what happens if the solicitor refuses to disclose its insurance cover level. There may be scope for suppliers such as Lawyer Check to collect this data (if it can) and to make it available as part of its existing service.

All of these questions clearly point to the need for the Law Society and the SRA to set out clear guidelines on what will be expected of a solicitor not only in the discharge his or her duty to the  client but also in the course of a conveyancing transaction.

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

New low cost case and risk management portal for conveyancers

Norwich based Property IT Company, Move and Log, has recently launched an online portal aimed at suppliers of conveyancing services, and which is designed to assist busy practitioners in managing multiple transactions and the risks associated with conveyancing

David Pett, lawyer and designer, of the system explains the background to the idea:

‘We have in the past spent a small fortune on purchasing case management systems many of which promised the world but in the event fell miserably short of our expectation. 

Designing our own system was relatively straightforward and with an in-house IT team we have produced a highly practicable and low cost on line portal for managing the common risks associated with conveyancing transactions.

It doesn’t make the tea or coffee, nor does it do the work for you. It is however a system that delivers in full on everything it says it can do on the ‘tin lid’.   It has revolutionized the way in which conveyancing is processed in our office and the way in which partners can monitor the level of work and the performance of those working in the department’.

The portal that can be accessed by clients and agents 24/7 has according to Mr. Pett helped to cut down on calls coming into the office and has also helped to significantly improve the line of communication to both client and agent.

In designing the system the focus was fixed on risk management and what could be done to reduce the risks surrounding the conveyancing process.   This objective, explains Mr. Pett:

‘is achieved with features built in to address concerns over money laundering, mortgage fraud, complaints, undertakings and the recording of key dates.   By adding these processes my firm was able to secure a 5% discount when it came to renewing this year our professional indemnity insurance’.

Looking ahead, Mr. Pett adds:

‘We are now looking to share this technology with other practices that might be looking to introduce case and risk management systems and to offer the portal with no set up costs or ongoing support charges.    At the same time we are busy integrating the system with third party suppliers such as search and indemnity insurance providers in the hope that in time with commission payments funding the maintenance and future development of the system we will be able to offer the portal as a free service’.

For further information David Pett can be contacted at david.pett@moveandlong.co.uk

PI Insurers pose greater risk to conveyancers than new SRA proposals?

There are changes afoot with the Solicitor Regulatory Authority’s plans for conveyancing firms.  During the course of the year the SRA will be carrying out a major review of the regulation of Solicitors undertaking conveyancing and the holding of client money because of the risks posed by a small number of firms engaged in property-related fraud and money laundering.

The thrust of the proposals is to ensure conveyancing firms take seriously the risks and establish good compliance and risk management systems.  I am sure that those firms who take conveyancing seriously will already be taking these risk seriously of not by choice by reason of pressure from their PI insurers.

The Strategy is due to be published in October and will operate alongside the Enforcement Strategy published on 13^th January 2011. It will set out how the SRA will engage with firms to ensure that the procedures etc comply with the Principles, achievement of the Outcomes in the new SRA Code of conduct and compliance with the new Handbook.

So why is there a need for a strategy?  Well believe it or not but Conveyancing claims represent about 50% of the value of professional negligence claims. Payments made by the fund have more than doubled over the last few years, tying in with the downturn in the property market.

So how will the SRA will engage with the profession and other stakeholders to ensure it gets the approach to the risks posed by conveyancing correct?   We are told The SRA will draw on the information and experience available (through the Law Society), clients (including lenders) and insurers.

If issues are identified the SRA will work with firms to put matters right and it suggested enforcement action will be a last resort.  The Strategy indentifies the issues that the SRA will be looking to identify and which include:

• Conflicts of Interest

• Referral Arrangements

• Costs Information (including publicity about fees)

• Financial Stability

• Property Related Fraud and Money Laundering

• Acting for Buyer and Seller

• Acting for two Buyers in a Contract Race

• Acting for a Buyer and Lender where the Lender asks a firm to go beyond standard Instructions

• The potential Conflict between duty of disclosure and duty of confidentiality when acting for Buyer and Lender

Firms will be expected to assess these and other conflict risks, and ensure that the systems are in place to identify and mitigate the risks.

The Firm’s referral arrangements will also be under scrutiny. We will be expected to assess these and other referral risks, and ensure systems are in place to identify and mitigate the risks presented by the following:

·       Valuable referral arrangements could compromise a firm’s integrity, professional judgement or independence.

·       Reliance on one-third party for a high proportion of conveyancing work could impact upon its financial stability.

The provision of cost information is another high profile area of the Strategy. Firms will need to ensure that their fees and costs are fairly expressed and not misleading.

Concerned about how financial instability could make firms more venerable to inappropriate pressures the Strategy will be focusing on the identification of firms who only do conveyancing or a significant part of their income is as a result of doing conveyancing.  These firms will need to consider what systems and controls to put in place for monitoring their financial stability and economic viability.

The Strategy will also take the opportunity to review the risks associated with property related fraud and money laundering because a large proportion of the value of payments from the Compensation Fund represents payments related to fraud in connection with conveyancing.

Firms will need to determine what policies, procedures, systems and controls they should put in place to minimise the possibility of being targeted for criminal activity. Again this seem to be re-emphasising the risks and need for processes that we have all had to live with and act upon for some time now.  I question whether there is anything new here.

So what tools will the SRA use to indentify these risks? The SRA will use a variety of strategies and tools to test the systems and controls firms put in place to address the risks they face.

The systems and controls will differ depending on:

• The size and complexity of the firm

• The nature of the conveyancing work undertaken (e.g. e-conveyancing)

• The firm’s client base (e.g. are clients local or national)

The tools and powers will include:

• Desk-based reviews

• On-site visits, including interviews

• Use of formal investigative powers, including requests for documentation and attendance of individuals at formal interview

• Obtaining documents or information from third parties, including law enforcement agencies

• Mystery shopping

• Thematic visits

The SRA has produced a transition manual “OFR at a glance http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/ofr-quick-guide.page. It contains Q & As on ethical dilemmas etc. It is not intended to replace or be a substitute for firms’ own internal procedures.

Overall there is not very much new within this consultation document; much of what is proposed reflects the risk assessment that many of us are now required to undertake as part and parcel of our PI insurance application.  At the end of the day it’s the PI insurers who hold all the cards and who will clearly irrespective of the SRA’s moves  determine the fate of many conveyancing practices.

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