“Where have all the good lawyers gone?”
As an estate agent there’s quite a lot on your plate right now.
You’ve got to convince buyers that Boris Johnson was only joking when he said Stamp Duty should be paid by sellers. You also need to get your sellers to accept a price that bears no relation to the optimistic figure they were quoted two years ago.
Finally, you’ve got to deal with the lawyers.
There are the cheap ones chosen by clients because they are “watching every penny”. Alternatively, you are forced to play “Lawyer Roulette” where your panel manager selects the most desperate law firm whose primary role it seems is to make your life hell.
Either way, when you see either of these names on a memo of sale, your dream of clearing that credit card balance with your commission gets a little fainter.
The big question
Where HAVE all the decent lawyers gone?
Agents tell us there are more problems today with lawyers than they had in the past.
Whilst freehold properties are tricky, add a dodgy lease and an incomplete management pack and you may as well pack it all in and pitch your new(ish) proptech idea to Lord Sugar on The Apprentice.
We do find that we are dealing with law firms whose grasp of anything remotely out of the ordinary can be extremely challenging.
When we are selling and come across a legal issue that needs drafting, we often have to do it for the other lawyers. Obviously we can’t charge our clients this fee, but unless we do the work, the deal isn’t going through.
To be clear, this is not a discussion about volume conveyancers versus high street firms who promise the benefits of “local expertise”.
Unfortunately, many of these that offer a “personal service” do not extend this to opening at lunchtimes or being available to their clients after 3pm on a Friday.
What makes a good lawyer?
Of course, what makes a decent lawyer depends on what side of the fence you sit.
A good lawyer from an agent’s perspective is someone who is available, accountable and can find pragmatic solutions to problems to get deals through. From the law firm’s point of view, a good lawyer is someone who will work 12 hours a day, can run 150 cases at once and not get sued.
A lawyer can be described as “bad” by either not knowing what they are doing or by being slow to respond, and unfortunately, either way, the outcome for their reputation is not good.
We have seen at first hand the level of experience of lawyers who have been given the responsibility to run cases.
We interview (and reject) lots of them. We believe this is caused by a lack of training, usually because experienced lawyers simply don’t have the time to do this.
The other problem arises when experienced lawyers simply get too busy. This is typically caused by their business owners signing up to the abject misery of “Lawyer Roulette”.
When they are forced to run high caseloads it’s no wonder their service levels go through the floor. These people typically end up with the description of “Used to be a Good Lawyer”.
It’s not only caseloads that cause good lawyers to go bad – most law firms are hideously inefficient.
Some of the stories we hear about paper files, ad hoc checklists and out-of-date practices explain why so many struggle to provide a half-decent service.
What can be done about this?
Law firms have got to realise that winning work at all costs is not a viable long-term business strategy.
Signing up to panel managers for the crack cocaine of low fees is rarely a good idea – prostitutes typically struggle to break out of the cycle of poverty.
Trying to solve this by outsourcing the work to a cheaper country abroad runs the risk of suffering a Service Transmitted Disease (STD).
If a firm does employ decent lawyers then their owners should start selling their services at the right price.
Higher prices mean lower caseloads which will give the experienced lawyers the time to supervise and train their colleagues.
Deploying decent technology really does help good lawyers live up to their abilities.
Owners of law firms need to stop buying themselves nice cars and instead invest in technology to make their people more effective.
The last word
We’ve got enough on our plates right now getting buyers and sellers together without suffering from inefficient and inexperienced lawyers that make all our lives a little more difficult than it needs to be.
We’ve all got a part to play in eliminating those who put their personal gain ahead of the good of the industry and our clients’ dreams.
* Peter Ambrose is the founder of independent conveyancing firm The Partnership, which works closely with estate agents
Comments (18)
Pots and kettles are coming to mind!
People in glasshouses should not throw stones.
To be brutal, the buyer or seller is not well placed to choose a solicitor. They may use them once a decade and a lot changes in that time.
The estate agents knows the service from local solicitors so should be the one to advise as they deal daily with all firms. Even more brutal we know who WE like and who will return our calls and give proper updates.
We manage our own panel.
We only deal with Partners in local firms who charge a premium for experience.
We do not take referral fees.
We win more business because of this policy.
We are recommended by those solicitors to their clients; and earn more than the referral fees would bring in.
Simple really. Be the best you can be and stop chasing the penny referrals.
Peter is spot on. The general quality of conveyancing has been going downhill for years – ever since ‘panel management’ and referral fees became the thing. As usual – pay peanuts, get monkeys.
Law firms have got to realise that winning work at all costs is not a viable long-term business strategy.
I’m not sure I agree with this generalisation. Many firms have been adopting this approach for 15 years and, like them or not, now maintain a strong market position. The accuracy of this statement entirely depends on the objectives and challenges of an individual firm.
For example, the Top 100 law firms is decided by revenue, so if a Firm sets a target of breaking into the next echelon then it may suit them to operate a high volume, referral based caseload to secure a higher revenue at the expense of profit.
I do agree that it is a vicious cycle. Profit margins in conveyancing are thin. The bigger a Firm get, the more they are likely to rely on referrals to guarantee a file load to cover costs. However, to expect firms to rip up their working models for the greater good is a bit idealistic. There would need to be an external factor to instigate it.
Conveyancing standards are generally poor. They aren’t going to improve overnight, and not without some significant trigger event.
Nemo conveyancer – that is a totally valid point – there are firms that are able to trade profitably when working at low fees – my generalisation was a little TOO wide on that point!
I think that the challenge is that too many business owners don’t set themselves up in a way to sustainably manage low fee work.
And, as the point has been made absolutely validly by earlier contributors, it does all depend what consumers expect doesn’t it.
Peter
I never (well rarely) leave comments on these public forums, but I am moved to agree 100% with everything Peter has said in his piece. We are all entitled to our opinions (in whatever form they may take) and there should always be a “space” for commentary.
Also, “self-promotion” is not a dirty expression.
I have no problem with the “factory/volume” conveyancing firms. In fact, in a warped kind of way, I am grateful to them, as they make me look so good and justify my fees even more so.
But, poor service can also be found from certain of the “high street” firms, as well as the larger organisations.
It is all about the individual.
I have recently given a quote to a person buying a property for well over a million pounds, and that person has gone to a “volume” firm for a quote as well. My quote is well over £1000 more expensive, yet the client is minded to instruct me.
In life, it is good to have a choice. Some people may chose to shop at Fortnums food hall (glorious) and others at Lidl (I have never been to one, but cannot imagine it is that bad, as it is clearly very popular!). The same goes to which law firm a client seeks to appoint.
All I wish for is that I have a friendly, efficient (and half competent) law firm on the other side, and then I am happy.
If the owners of top law firms wish to buy a brand new Rolls-Royce, then I will be the first person to wish them joy in such an acquisition. I love my Rolls-Royce (Corgi), which proudly sits next to my phone.
I have recently given a quote to a person buying a property for well over a million pounds, and that person has gone to a “volume” firm for a quote as well. My quote is well over £1000 more expensive, yet the client is minded to instruct me.
I think this is indicative of a change in the way that the public make decisions over the last few years, for all industries. The prominence of review websites, and the stock clients place in them, has increased.
A firm that positions itself as aiming to deliver excellent service has much more of an audience now, which is great.
Oh yes – I agree with that absolutely. How about this – and tell me if this makes sense… On my way back from holiday last week, whilst waiting in the lounge, I saw a gentleman wearing a rather flash (£150k) gold Patek. However, he was wearing trackies and an even cheaper t-shirt. The lesson from this is, one may be happy to spend £££ on a property, but little on the “ancillaries”. It is what it is. Made me smile when I saw the contrast on him, and the life-lesson in that (it was his choice to wear an incredible watch yet also wear cheap clothing – nothing wrong in that – just his choice).
Spot on Peter, as always.
Decent lawyers lead to great PR for the estate agent. Recommend a rubbish conveyancer and your business is tainted by association.
Peter, you are as about as subtle and sophisticated as Donald Trump!
Shame on you PIE (‘where news comes first’) for continuing to publish these blatant adverts as ‘opinion pieces’.
Hi Carl
It most sincerely IS an opinion piece – I can’t believe you think it’s anything BUT that!! I’m not advertising what we do – I’m just saying that if the owner of a law firm thinks that charging £299 net for a conveyancing fee will enable them to either employ a sufficient number of experienced lawyers or giving their experienced lawyers time to train others, then they are not acting in their client’s best interests. Obviously not everyone agrees with my opinion but then not everyone is on the front line actually doing the work so are not qualified to comment. ( In my opinion )
Thank you for the clarity Peter.
We can at least agree that good conveyancers are in very short supply and remain in high demand. As such the best ones should be recognized and rewarded accordingly. Right?
Unfortunately, the top performing individuals within the conveyancing market are not being remunerated to reflect the demand for their services. Whilst you have highlighted some of the reasons within your opinion piece, you have neglected to mention that many top performing conveyancers are also being used as ‘cash cows’ by their own law firms. Many are being vastly underpaid and will only see a very small fraction of the money they bill for the firm whilst the rest will go towards Partner bonuses, amongst other things of course.
It is for this reason that we launched a Consultancy scheme with our partner law firm at the beginning of the year. This has allowed us to attract some of the best conveyancers in the industry and allows them to trade on a self-employed basis, with all of the support and infrastructure they would expect from and employed environment. Most importantly, it means that we are finally able to reward these deserving conveyancers by ensuring they get to keep at least half of the fees they charge on every case.
Needless to say that each our Consultants can now afford to take on far fewer cases and in turn our clients and referring estate agents / mortgage brokers again receive a far superior level of service.
If you know of any top performing conveyancers that are not being paid as much as they should be then by all means send them our way Peter!
Is that an advertisement ? Certainly looks like one. Pot and kettle?
Actually, it turns out they call them ‘opinion pieces’ these days.
Thought you might have known that being an insider?!
!! Thanks for that AgencyInsider.
I was concerned that if I pointed that out it might look like I was rising to the bait.
Not exactly sure how promoting a few share arrangement business ( my – giving 50% to the person doing the work ) is an “opinion”.
I.could of course be wrong …
Maybe they have all gone to Countrywide ?
At the ESTAS awards CWD came in as “Conveyancer of the Year ”
Sometimes wonder if these awards are a kiss of death
House Network voted best online agent at the ESTAS AWARDS in 2017 ,second in 2018 and by 2019 ceased trading !
“Countrywide Conveyancing Services classed as ‘Best National Group’ at the most prestigious awards in the UK property industryCountrywide Conveyancing Services won Gold in the Best National Group category at the prestigious ESTAS Customer Service Awards for 2019, the biggest awards in the UK conveyancing sector.”
You wouldn’t have guess it though from some of the recent reviews
1 star: Bad
9 Oct 2019
They do not deserve the one star I had…They do not deserve the one star I had to give them!!! Currently using their services at the Manchester branch and can only describe them as shocking. We’ve experienced lies, stalling tactics and they do not feel the need to pass on any information to us. Only spoke to solicitor once in 4 months. I would like to give them 5 stars for fobbing people off, they’re fantastic at it
1 star: Bad
4 Oct 2019
Do not use countrywide conveyancing Do not use countrywide conveyancing. Very unprofessional and unkind.
1 star: Bad
26 Sep 2019
Avoid!!avoid!! avoid!! at all cost!!Very difficult to get hold of, calls were not returned until after several attempts; information between agents and lawyers is very conflicting, which amounts to a lot of frustration.On the day of completion, information was not forthcoming, I once again had to make a call in late afternoon to get confirmation that completion had taken place. Five days after completion, we still hadn’t received any correspondence to confirm completion and closing statement, so once again I had to call. The whole experience has been most unpleasant and I would definitely NOT recommend this company.
To be fair, this is an ‘opinion piece’ from Peter but also a somewhat disingenuous one; not because the content is inaccurate (it isn’t) but simply because one’s credentials or vested interest aren’t disclosed until the end of the ‘piece.