Chancery Lane confronts Santander on panel membership
The Law Society is to hold ‘urgent’ talks with Santander to address its ‘grave’ concerns over the lender’s decision to remove hundreds of solicitors from its conveyancing panel.
The move follows claims by the Law Society that hundreds of firms have been taken off the lender’s panel, even after paying a charge of over £100 to have their panel membership reviewed.
Some solicitors who had received letters from Santander to say that they had been removed have since contacted the Law Society to say that they have received a further letter telling them that they are still on the panel.
Santander said that it reviews on a quarterly basis how many transactions its panel firms have conducted with the bank over the previous 12 months, in line with its risk policy.
It said: ‘The firms that have recently been removed are those which have not met our volume requirements and we will continue to review and manage our panel accordingly.’
A spokesman added: ‘Santander has adjusted certain cut-off points for determining the levels of business a firm has undertaken with a Santander mortgage and this has meant that some firms who were to be removed from the early analysis are not now being removed as a result of this review.’
Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson said: ‘We are very concerned about Santander's actions in reducing further the membership of its panel of solicitors. We retain grave reservations about the methods it is using and are concerned about the effects both on firms and consumers.’
He added: ‘We have contacted Santander, expressing these concerns and are entering into urgent discussions with Santander which we hope will deliver a mutually acceptable solution.’
Hudson pointed out that the lender does have an appeal process for firms who have been removed, which he said had been used successfully by some firms that have been reinstated.
He urged firms who have been taken off the panel to appeal the decision while the Society seeks a ‘more sustainable solution’ with Santander.
Hudson suggested that solicitors who have been removed from Santander’s panel in recent weeks should contact the Law Society’s Practice Advice Service.
Comments
Toy poodle confronts
Toy poodle confronts pit-bull.
Ha Ha, That is funny
Ha Ha, That is funny....but sadly true!!
Santander, time to pray for a miracle?
The situation with Santander is confusing. Stories are beginning to emerge of firms being reinstated after some time and much effort, there are also stories of firms still being removed. Probably everyone agrees with firms being removed who have been consistently unable to carry out their expected duties correctly and professionally. However, simply removing firms who have not met Santander’s volume requirements without any effort to understand why those volumes are low is unfair. Establishing and disclosing Santander’s cut off points would help. These ‘urgent’ talks are much needed.
However, the difficulties being experienced with Santander do not stop with panel removal. It also seems that its internal systems and procedures leave a lot to be desired. I have recently received these two messages and similar ones continue to reach me:
1. “We have had tremendous difficulty with Santander. We are on the panel for two of our offices and off for the other two. We have been trying to deal with their requirements with varying degrees of success. Please speak to xxxxx next week when she returns from holiday, she will provide you with full details of her tale of woe.”
2. “Santander; they will just not go away.
They asked for a copy of our letterhead which we uploaded and which had been certified, this was done back in January and there haven’t been any problems, until now.
They contacted us last week to say that our phone numbers were not on the letterhead. We explained that they were only put on there once the letter had been created. They asked us for a sample letterhead showing the phone number display, we duly uploaded one.
We have now been contacted again telling us that we now have to upload a sample letter showing each office address and phone number, so that is five letters all of which have to be certified! We explained that they already had a certified copy of the letterhead and asked why, after all this time, it was no longer acceptable? The answer? “A different team is now dealing with this.” Absolutely ridiculous - can't tell you how mad I am at the wasted time and effort on our part.”
In a somewhat ironic twist of fate Tesco Bank seem to be taking a refreshing view to constructing its new conveyancing panel and I have yet to hear of a firm that has been rejected if it has complied fully with Tesco’s requirements. If anyone would like details of where and how they should apply to Tesco Bank for panel membership please contact me, rh@boldlegal.co.uk.
The greater issue is of course the myriad of different actions being taken and different requirements being imposed by the majority of lenders. What would be helpful is if the CML and the BSA could convince their members to make concerted efforts to sing from very similar, if not identical hymn sheets. Time to start praying for a miracle perhaps?
Santander Risk
After having paid Santander twice the panel membership fee (once to join and 5 months later to advise of a new partner) could the Law Society or Santander kindly inform us as to what a minimal risk number of transactions is??? Just because there may be lower numbers for a three month period does not mean that a firm does not have the expertise to do Santander's work as they will be dealing with numerous other banks as well. Come on LS this is a farce. How does lower transactions make a firm a risk? I suppose the 'pile 'em high sell' 'em low' firms are a much lesser risk because they do large volumes....NOT - the risk is way higher and the chickens will come home to roost in the not to distant future.
That the Law Society are
That the Law Society are speaking to Santander is unlikely to be good news. The best we can hope for is that they stitch a deal up behind closed doors to pedal their CQS scheme.
CQS will save us!
"Roll up, roll up, get your CQS status 'ere!"
"Hello darlin', got yer CQS? What do ya mean, no? Oooo love, I wouldn't leave 'ome without my CQS, darlin'. Yer never know when yer need it! Lower your PII premium it will, love. Let yer do bits and pieces for the Midland Bank, sort you right out with them Nationwiders and them lovely geezers from Spain wot used to wear the bowler hats!"
"Oh I didn't realise, Sir. I thought that it was difficult to get one of those CQS thingy-me-bobs."
"No, sweetheart. Yer 'avin a bubble. I'll knock 'em out to anyone - just give us yer dosh!"
"Can I get my money back if it doesn't work properly?"
"Sorry love, gotta run, it's the old bill...."
CQS will save us!
Very amusing. It's not often on a Friday afternoon that something law related makes me chuckle, but this really did.
Kudos Jim......and thank you!
Brilliant Jim! Made my Friday
Brilliant Jim! Made my Friday afternoon!
Do you think so? I consider
Do you think so? I consider it puerile and an insult to the many firms which have worked hard to attain CQS accreditation. Have you any idea what's involved to get it? And does your firm meet the required standard? If not, what are you doing about it?
CQS is not about standards-it
CQS is not about standards-it is about box-ticking. Nowadays treated as being the same thing-but far from being so in reality.
The firms should not consider the joke to be the insult, but CQS itself-because that is the real joke, the insult being you have to pay your own "professional" body to get it!
No it isn't about box
No it isn't about box ticking. You repeat all the hollow criticisms which have no substance. Call up the application form, it's on the Law Society's website. Be honest - does your firm comply with section G? In every respect?
Happily, I don't need to fill
Happily, I don't need to fill in a form to know what comprises quality of service.
Also I don't need to check any regulations to understand such things as the concept of conflict of interest-but it appears the LS/SRA do. And still don't understand.
Ho hum, there goes a profession-replaced by people who need a tick-box to be told what is right or wrong.
Does anyone remember when
Does anyone remember when being a solicitor with decades of experience under one's belt was seen as sufficient credentials to undertake legal work rather than having a collection of logos one2 your stationary?
Reply to Ed Austin's reply
Yes. My firm filled out the tedious application (was it copied direct from Santander's?) and jumped through all of the subsequent hoops and we have been the the proud owners of yet another logo on our letterhead for a fair few months now. We even got a few posters and four stickers for our front windows!
It hasn't helped us with Nationwide, Santander, HSBC, lower PI premiums, or wrestling work away from Countrywide and their pals (who incidentally don't need CQS as they were not so foolish to qualify as solicitors and can just buy their work from the agents that own them and the dodgy banks that they have done deals with).
On a different note, does anyone know of any firm that have paid the fee to the Law Society and have been denied CQS accreditation? Some of the shoddiest and most incompetent conveyancing firms that I have had the "pleasure" of dealing with over the last twenty years have the same logo as me on their letterhead. It means absolutely nothing, except yet more payments from us to the Law Society.
No insult intended Ed, but sometimes the truth hurts, sorry.
Oh, if he's that stupid, he
Oh, if he's that stupid, he deserves insults!
CQS
I couldn't agree more. The Law Society stitched us all up with CQS and I am sick of hearing how we are supporting it when in reality it is a scheme imposed on us by our own "so called" representative body which is clearly designed to put many good firms out of business while the committee members and their cronies smuggly continue in their bubble.
Law Society.............................TOTAL DISGRACE!!!!!!!!!
What type of representative body stabs it's own members in the back?????
How do they sleep at night?
Easy, they really don't care!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Risk policy
Perhaps the Society would like to ask Santander to disclose its risk policy, since that it what is being prayed in aid of Santander's stance. To suggest that lower volumes of work = higher risk of fraud makes no sense to me. Where is the evidence to support that suggestion? A a matter of common sense, the risk of fraud is reduced if the solicitors involved know (or, at least, are local to) the people for whom they are acting. If risk policies are going to be used to justify this sort of thing, there needs first to be much more detailed research on what the risks are and when they most commonly eventuate. A good deal of mortgage fraud involves valuers, yet lenders seems perfectly willing to give huge volumes of work to a very limited number of valuers. That cannot possibly be good risk management.
Isn't Santander insolvent?
Isn't Santander insolvent?
All banks are insolvent
All banks are insolvent !!!!!
Panels
I am afraid that I am still banging on the same drum.
It is clear that lenders will deal with their panel appointments as they wish, and no discussions with the Law Society are going to sway them from their desired outcome.
Whilst I do not have specific statistics, property litigation is largely driven by lenders seeking to recoup lossess they have made, and most of that litigation is where solicitors acted for both borrower and lender. I therefore cannot understand why it is not now required for both parties to be represented separately.
To my knowledge most claims are not to do with failure to appreciate the law, but to do with "admin" matters. As such it just makes sense that both parties deal with their client's requirements rather than juggling two clients, who whilst they have a common interest, do require to be dealt with as separate clients.
But the clients do not have a
But the clients do not have a common interest, do they?
The lender wishes to have a profitable secured loan, whilst the buyer wants to have a property he owns and to which the title is good. The fact that the lender is seeking to make a profit automatically means their interest is at variance with that of the buyer.
So, naturally, they should both be seperately represented. However, it will never happen-the SRA/Law Society is the poodle of the CML.
You are getting mixed up,
You are getting mixed up, dear. The profit element is in the mortgage loan. Solicitors don't (and shouldn't) advise on mortgage matters. The common interest is in getting a good title. So there is no conflict.
I think that is precisely the
I think that is precisely the point I was making-the profit is in the mortgage loan.
However a buyer will accept various alleged "defects" (ancient and probably unenforceable covenants, etc.) which a lender may not. It is a question of professional judgment-formerly accepted by lenders but not nowadays. Thus there is a conflict. And seperate representation is appropriate.
Anon has a good point here.
Anon has a good point here. Especially when you consider that we effectively work for the lenders for free, or rather in the case of Santander, we pay them to work for them for free so that they can then sue us when they need a little extra dosh.
I agree with the sentiment of
I agree with the sentiment of the posts at 14.01 and 14.34. There is clearly a conflict and a Rule change will sort the issue out and take us back to the position we were in when I first joined the profession many moons ago now. Why can the powers that be not see it in such a simple way?
santander
Although an attractive idea , I am afraid that separate representation has one simple but fatal flaw , that is that Licensed Conveyancers would then have a monopoly on acting for both parties. Bingo ! in one fell swoop Solicitors would lose all conveyancing work.
Back to the drawing board.
Actually many LC's are also
Actually many LC's are also in favour of seperate representation.
lets support the Law Society and sort out Santander
Santander ultimately wants to protect itself and so we need to work together to find a resolution.
Does Santander want to work
Does Santander want to work together? It is of course protecting its own interest. Our representative should be protecting our interests (not peddling CQS though")
Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic
None of this panel culling has anything to do with risk management. It's simply the first step to the lenders taking ownership of conveyancing, which they are now able to do since ABS's were so foolishly permitted last October.
They don't want conveyancing for the profits, which are minimal - they want access to the clients, who are ripe for plucking in being sold other products by the lenders. When the lenders know they have a conveyancer who depends entirely on them for their income and is totally compliant they can exploit the clients without any fear of independent advice being given.
The Law Society are simply playing into the lenders' hands by making firms jump through the absurd hoops of CQS. All it does is (1) prevent lots of excellent, professional firms who wouldn’t lower themselves to the tick box rubbish that CQS represents from carrying out mortgage work; and (2) provide the lenders with a perfect pretence that they are imposing a quality standard on their panel.
Those firms that submit themselves to the humiliation of CQS will find (as Santander firms are already finding) that it's merely delaying their removal from the panel until the next stage when the lenders start buying up the conveyancing factories. At present the lenders still need to use independent firms as they couldn’t handle the volume, but I'll guarantee that when they start to own conveyancing factories more and more firms will lose their panel status as the lenders seek to drive all conveyancing in house and their CQS badge will be worth about as much as a Blue Peter badge.
Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic
None of this panel culling has anything to do with risk management. It's simply the first step to the lenders taking ownership of conveyancing, which they are now able to do since ABS's were so foolishly permitted last October.
They don't want conveyancing for the profits, which are minimal - they want access to the clients, who are ripe for plucking in being sold other products by the lenders. When the lenders know they have a conveyancer who depends entirely on them for their income and is totally compliant they can exploit the clients without any fear of independent advice being given.
The Law Society are simply playing into the lenders' hands by making firms jump through the absurd hoops of CQS. All it does is (1) prevent lots of excellent, professional firms who wouldn’t lower themselves to the tick box rubbish that CQS represents from carrying out mortgage work; and (2) provide the lenders with a perfect pretence that they are imposing a quality standard on their panel.
Those firms that submit themselves to the humiliation of CQS will find (as Santander firms are already finding) that it's merely delaying their removal from the panel until the next stage when the lenders start buying up the conveyancing factories. At present the lenders still need to use independent firms as they couldn’t handle the volume, but I'll guarantee that when they start to own conveyancing factories more and more firms will lose their panel status as the lenders seek to drive all conveyancing in house and their CQS badge will be worth about as much as a Blue Peter badge.
Why would they
Now that banks can sell legal services and more and more are going to be in the future, why would they want their competitors on their panels?
Where is the like button when
Where is the like button when you need one! Thumbs up to ProBono!
More of the Local and less of the Global is What Helps an Economy Grow!
We have just started a petition against the big banks from squeezing out small local law firms from the High Street. We have addressed it to Secretary of State Vince Cable, because his department has said growth in the private sector is the Governments top priority and one of their main ambitions is to remove the barriers that prevent it. (http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/economic-development/local-growth-white-paper)
It takes allsorts of local businesses to serve the needs of a community and make a successful High Street, and that includes law firms.
Why not take this petition and get your local community behind you. Write to your MP and hold media events inviting as many key people as you can.
http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/big-banks-bad-for-local-business
Pael cull and CQS
I agree with the general view that this is simply part of the process whereby the banks will own by way of ABS the conveyancing arm of the profession.
We cannot get away from the fact that CQS was imposed upon us against our will by our own so called representative body, and ultimately will destroy most small firms. We are told it is all about "risk management" and "quality" but the simple fact is we solicitors have been stabbed in the back by the gutless committee members at the law society who only think of their own best interest. CQS is nothing to do with quality as anyone who deals in property matters will agree from some of the appalling firms we encounter who are part of CQS. Lets be frank, the committee members know nothing about life in a small firm, and they have the nerve to basically lecture us on why we need CQS. GOD THE ARROGANCE!
As others have stated, we should demonstrate at Chancery Lane and ensure that those in their committee rooms at Chancery Lane are shamed and embarrassed by all the bad publicity we can generate.
The Law Society is an outdated, "old boys" private club that should be abolished! After all what does it actually do apart from keeping certain arrogant individuals in their positions of pomposity.
Our representative body?
NO, SIMPLY AN UTTER DISGRACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well said! Count me and my
Well said!
Count me and my colleagues in for the demo. It is about time someone showed the Law Society up for what it is, A DISGRACE!
They will only listen if we solicitors ensure that what is going on in our profession is brought to the public's knowledge by way of the media, and what better way than demonstrating in Chancery Lane. I would love to see our "representative body" (sorry I know I shouldn't call them that, Trade Descriptions Act and all that!) trying to explain to the media why hundreds of solicitors are demonstrating against the Law Society in Chancery Lane. God that would be brilliant!!!
Seriously someone needs to organise a real protest against CQS / Law Society / Lender's Panels as soon as possible because publicity is the ONLY way to get anything done. If not thousands of us will lose our jobs and firms!
Lets act NOW!!!
Deck chairs on Titanic
I agree completely with Pro Bono who expresses my previously formed opinion.
This is much bigger than it appears and is part of a takeover of the Conveyancing market by powerful vested interests who want to use the general public as a revenue source for other goods and services.
In the process the property owner will lose much of the protection that was previously afforded by representation from an independent legal profession.
Conveyancing will continue to be the loss leader that it has already become with a small number of high volume, low margin and low quality firms using paralegals to process Conveyancing transactions which are directed to them by Lenders who will in due course take the process in house.
The idea that those firms are protecting anyone but their paymaster Lenders is a joke.
I have already opted out and will only do Conveyancing work for people who value the service and protection that only an independent advisor can provide.
The Law Society is commercially clueless being comprised of naive bureaucrats who are out of their depth in a rapidly changing commercial world.
CQS is valueless except as providing a short term marketing prop to firms that can tick boxes whilst their real world service standards slide.
The only real way forward for the more competent of us is to develop our own strong individual local brands by being friendly, quick and enthusiastic in serving our local communities.
Low volume, high margin, high quality local service is the best way forward whilst the rest of the profession chases its own tail until many more firms implode under the burden of overmanagement leading to corrosive levels of debt funding unprofitable work in progress.
The best thing the Law Society and the SRA could do is to simply get out of the way and dismantle the vast bulk of the bureaucratic nonsense that has led to this farrago.
Santander
Having been one of the first firms to get CQS & having recently obtained LEXCEL it was a bit a a kick in the teeth to be chucked off the Santander Panel. True volumes have been down but that is due to the worst recession since the First World War. Having paid their fee & filled in all their paperwork just a few months ago it does seem wholly unjust to chuck our firm off the panel for no reason whatsoever.
Lender Panels
Brilliant comment above by Probono. I could not agree more. By introducing the CQS rubbish, the Law Society is simply playing into the lenders' hands, though I even suspect they may in reality be playing double Agents here anyway.
If they are actually that naiive and stupid, it is really worrying.
They really are that stupid
They really are that stupid !!!
Solicitors' Demonstration in Chancery Lane
Excellent idea, but will the public sympathise or are we all just whining fat cats? That is the problem.
The Law Society cronies seem have done very well over the years in convincing the public and the authorities that we are indeed the latter. Maybe they are more clever than I thought in getting what they want!
Let me know when
Let me know when and I will be there with my placard. It's about time we made the Law Society stand up and take notice of the very people they are meant to represent.....and who pay their wages.
Give CQS a fair hearing, we are lawyers after all
Like a lot of people I have reservations about CQS. However, HSBC have taken notice as has Santander (to a degree) and a few smaller lenders. The Law Society is running a series of CQS events in September (http://services.lawsociety.org.uk/events/node/54987) . The marketing blurb is set out below:
'CQS is about more than creating a trusted community of conveyancers. It also aims to educate and protect its members, whilst also driving up standards in the profession.
These events will concentrate on current issues affecting residential conveyancing and how CQS intends to develop for the good of all practitioners.
They will cover;
• The CQS PII Offer to members
• The CQS Portal
• Making the Protocol work
• Policing CQS
• Panel Management
• The TA6 Consultation
• Mortgage Fraud
• CQS Training in years 1 & 2'
I will be attending one of the events and I suggest even the most anti CQS person should do the same. Why? Because if CQS doesn’t work and capture the attention of most lenders the likelihood is that a commercial provider or the lenders themselves will supply a panel solution that could be even more unpalatable than CQS appears to be to some. Get yourself along, listen to the speakers and then make an up to date and informed decision about the benefits of CQS.
As for organising a protest and signing petitions, despite all of the drum banging I doubt that these actions will succeed. I ran an anti HSBC campaign and set up an H M Government e petition. My campaign and the petition were relatively successful but only because I had access to nearly 1,000 conveyancing practitioners and for three months I pushed them every single day. Eventually their were over 2,000 signatures (thank you) on the petition but with at least double that number of conveyancing firms in existence and with each firm employing say ten people (my best guess) we should have got much nearer to 40,000 signatures. The fact of the matter is that people moan, people groan but very few get out of their chairs and actually do something and even fewer are prepared to put their heads well and truly above the parapet.
The solution is simple -
The solution is simple - SEPERATE REPRESENTATION - its bad, inefficient and will cause the conveyancing process to grind to a halt. But its the only way you will beat the lenders.
It is only bad if you believe
It is only bad if you believe looking after a clients interests is bad.
Why do you think it is bad
Why do you think it is bad. My firm acts on many separate representation cases and we find that once you have done a few with the same lender you automatically adapt and soon find there is hardly any extra time is lost.
What was it Denis Healey once
What was it Denis Healey once said about being savaged by a dead sheep?
What is needed here is a
What is needed here is a combination of a representative body with guts, and a sophisticated response, to the hidden agendas of many lenders who have shown themselves utterly incapable of acting in the best interest of their borrowers.
We receive lectures from politicians on probity, and looking after the best interest of the consumer, whilst they feathebed their future in a parallel universe where many of them have never had a real job.
How ironic that the Legal Services Act contained the seeds for the eventual destruction of a once proud and respsected profession.
The Law Society reminds me of Rome. It took a long time to fall but it happended eventually
SANTANDER
ONCE AGAIN THE ANSWER IS TO BOOT THE LENDERS UP THE BACK SIDE AND GET THE SRA/LAW SOCIETY TO INSIST ON SEPARATE REPRESENTATION.
Separate Representation
My main concern with going down the route of separate representation is Solicitors will lose what remains of the market to the Licensed Conveyancers. I know many very good licensed conveyancers; however the CLC is heavily influenced by two organisations who have the temerity to call themselves 'Property Lawyers' and you can be sure that they will not be petitioning their regulator to bring in a prohibition on joint representation any time soon.
I agree with previous commentators that the Legal Services Act has now paved the way for the lenders to dominate the conveyancing market and take it all in house. However given the mortgage lenders propensity to litigate against their legal representatives on every repossessed property sold at al loss it would be interesting to see whose indemnity insurance the lender would try and claim against if their own in house lawyers were the negligent party.
SANTANDER PANEL
There should be no panels. No solicitor or licenced conveyancer should be permitted to act for both sides. The Law Society should submit to the will of the majority of its members, not the few members who control it
Re;- curtailing corruption
Having read the comments, l am pleasantly surprised that there are solicitors out there who think the Law Society is out of control and could not be more out of touch with what is happening.
The obvious answer is to stand together and battle it out, if only for truth to prevail.
As someone who is up against several (more than five) less honest firms of solicitors , of whom three are on santanders panel ( could be more), l can only pray that justice wins.
I could not understand why all these solicitors had it in for me( l think there is a pun there somewhere). But have it in for me they did.
However now l have found out there was mischief afoot and money to be made , before l haplessly stumbled into the mess that now turns out to be over land!!!!!.
Not just any land , land that has a great value.
And not just one theft of land , but two and both from my legal Registered Title.
Corruption is well installed at our Land Registry Offices who run with these out of control solicitors who are thought to be vetted to be on the santander panel.
Was no lessons learned during the shutting down of Tim Robinson's Offices ?
The clear up by Justice Smith of Bristol Court and the involvement of the SFO ,only appears to have made the solicitors that were not found out at that time, dig in deeper when it comes to acts of deception and money making
Charlie Dimock
Re;- curtailing corruption
Having read the comments, l am pleasantly surprised that there are solicitors out there who think the Law Society is out of control and could not be more out of touch with what is happening.
The obvious answer is to stand together and battle it out, if only for truth to prevail.
As someone who is up against several (more than five) less honest firms of solicitors , of whom three are on santanders panel ( could be more), l can only pray that justice wins.
I could not understand why all these solicitors had it in for me( l think there is a pun there somewhere). But have it in for me they did.
However now l have found out there was mischief afoot and money to be made , before l haplessly stumbled into the mess that now turns out to be over land!!!!!.
Not just any land , land that has a great value.
And not just one theft of land , but two and both from my legal Registered Title.
Corruption is well installed at our Land Registry Offices who run with these out of control solicitors who are thought to be vetted to be on the santander panel.
Was no lessons learned during the shutting down of Tim Robinson's Offices ?
The clear up by Justice Smith of Bristol Court and the involvement of the SFO ,only appears to have made the solicitors that were not found out at that time, dig in deeper when it comes to acts of deception and money making
Charlie Dimock
Do we need to handle mortgage funds anyway?
If it is genuinely the lenders' concerns about solicitors running off with their money that they're worried about why not simply allow us to remain on their panel but not route the mortgage advance through us?
We would simply send the certificate of title as normal and the lender would send the funds direct to the seller's solicitors, so we never got our supposedly sticky little fingers on it.
Whilst this would be slightly more inconvenient than the current system it would be a damn sight less inconvenient than having to arrange separate representation.
And on a different point how is it that licensed conveyancers are allowed to act for both sides but we aren't? If we're going to have red in tooth and claw competition for conveyancing with all and sundry there’s no justification for us trying to compete with one hand tied behind our back. Either it's wrong to act for both sides, in which case it needs to be outlawed for LC's as well, or it's OK, in which case our rules need changing.
The Law Society and the SRA seem hell-bent on turning us from a profession into a trade so they need to start scrapping the rules that prevent us trading.
But what they want is for us
But what they want is for us to have professional duties and liabilities whilst actually being a trade in terms of "competition". Naturally this is a circle which cannot be squared (a fine example being financial services) but they'll all get paid lots of money pretending it can be done.
Obviously in about 25 years when the whole thing has gone terribly wrong, it will have to be reversed-again financial services are an excellent example. Historically, it seems to take at least a generation (30 or so years) for the wisdom of the past to be rediscovered-which is why seperation of casino and retail banking (abolished in 1986's Big Bang) is now to be re-introduced, even if in a too mild form.
CQS and Mortgage Panels
Despite everyone making their views clear we must accept that the vocal minority, ie Law Society committee members, will continue to impose their will on the silent majority unless we solicitors actually do something about it.
That is a simple fact.
The ONLY way to stop our totally useless representative body is if we do something about it. So lets ALL join together and protest and petition against the utter disgrace known as the Law Society. We need to remind the cronies on the committees that it is OUR Law Society!
Has the time come to consider
Has the time come to consider a new body to represent the aspirations of solicitors?
Lawyers have evolved over hundreds of years and will continue to evolve
The Law Society's current actions display a certain sense of guilt which is a hangover from the days before it lost its primacy in the Law following the Legal Services Act debacle.
Freed from the shackles of having to regulate it should now be on the front foot taking the moral high ground.
Never mind Shakespeare it is normally lawyers who get shot first in any dictatorship when truth and ethical behaviour gets in the way of dogma and short term opportunism