The new Conveyancing Protocol is eight months old. The growing number of firms accredited under the Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS) are obliged to follow it, and many others are beginning to do so. There remain, however, firms that automatically send out a set of standard additional enquiries, without considering their relevance to the property being purchased.

Such a set has just arrived on my desk. It asks whether the seller will accept a 5% deposit. No reason is given for the request. It asks whether or not the water supply is metered - the answer is in the property information form supplied. There is a question about the condition of the property, and another which enquires whether the property abuts the highway - reference to the title plan and to the photos on the agent’s particulars makes the position abundantly clear. There are questions about the garage, which the agent’s particulars show does not exist. There are other irrelevant questions before the fourth page concludes with five leasehold enquiries.

Do I send the form back to the buyer’s solicitors and invite them to do the job for which they are being paid, and possibly delay the transaction? Alternatively, do I send the form to my clients, apologising for the behaviour of another member of my profession?

At a time when we are likely to face increased competition, we must all work to demonstrate that solicitors remain at the forefront of the conveyancing process, by virtue of delivering an efficient, cost-effective, professional service. Even if not every firm is obliged to use the new protocol, we should work together to make the process as smooth as possible, avoid unnecessarily wasting each other’s time and demonstrate that we are specialists in this field.

That kind of collaborative working, combined with a healthy dose of competition and the desire to differentiate ourselves from the type of firm I describe above, should stand us in good stead to meet the challenges presented by the new market.

Some of these are, of course, already a reality. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has been running roadshows on outcomes-focused regulation (OFR), to explain what it is and what it will mean for us. The only outward appearance of OFR so far is in the amendments to our websites, email addresses and letterheads, but in the longer term the change promises a marked difference in the SRA’s approach to regulation.

Property lawyers no longer have the comfort of relatively clear rules, with specific exceptions. Instead, we are obliged to focus more on achieving the right outcomes for our clients, and less on how we achieve them.

The SRA’s strategic review of conveyancing regulation highlights the fact that we work in a high-risk field - conveyancing claims represent around 50% of the value of professional indemnity claims. The SRA also promises to devote more attention and resources to those firms which are perceived as higher risk. Hopefully, it will, in assessing the level of risk posed by a firm, take into account CQS accreditation, and form a closer and more constructive working relationship with CQS firms. Doing so would, perhaps, help our regulator to better understand the challenges we face, and the extent to which the introduction of core practice management standards under CQS minimises the risk of complaints.

There are more than 1,000 solicitors’ offices able to display the accreditation symbol. Support from lenders remains strong, but accredited firms now being invited to reapply for membership of the panels of Lloyds TSB and Santander are likely to experience a feeling of deja vu. The next step must be to persuade lenders to accept the checks and investigations carried out by the Law Society, so solicitors need not repeat the process several times.

Incidentally, I sent the additional enquiries to my clients, who refused to answer them either because they had already provided the information or because the questions were irrelevant. Clients do notice.

Peter Rodd, senior conveyancing partner at Boys & Maughan in Margate, is chair of the Law Society Property Section executive committee