Letters roundup: 5 April 2024

'Bottom of the legal barrel'

I have read (with a sinking heart) the Digital Market Steering Group’s big push towards a digital property information protocol. Apparently, this is punted as the silver bullet to speed up conveyancing. A modernised version of home information packs – which did not work and gave selling agents a bigger stick with which to beat us. Yet another change to the conveyancing process. Really?

We already have a CQS Protocol (compliance rates vary). Does this mean a race towards more costly ‘accreditations’ and courses in our already busy lives to achieve one-upmanship on smaller, struggling opponent firms? Small high street firms, which most of the outer-city populace and older generation rely on, are being suffocated. Is this intentional?   

What will speed up conveyancing (as those remaining at the thin end of the conveyancing wedge know) are prompt local authority search turnaround times and quicker Land Registry completions of applications. Try putting in a new lease or transfer of part and you are lucky to get this back completed within two years. An opponent who actually has an understanding of property law and process often helps.

The only people who will benefit (and make considerable profits) from the new protocol are: those with interests in the digital markets punting this stuff; the Land Registry; and the large corporate firms who can pander to (and afford) these baubles. Anything not to do the actual work.

What this will not do is interact with clients, enhance a conveyancer’s understanding of any particular matter or issue, deal with a lack of easement or breach of covenant, or actually speed up the process. It will not reduce or expedite the now one-third of our files given over to time and work forensically examining each client’s identity and finances, and ticking boxes before we are even able to look at a title. The joy of the work has gone. This has been replaced by fear of demonstrating how and where a client’s money is coming from, fear of unbridled arbitrary Solicitors Regulation Authority fines, and of the next laborious change we are all expected to seamlessly and instantly adopt to the already over-burdened conveyancing process. Remember what it was like working during Covid-19 and the constant stamp duty land tax changes?  

Property lawyers and conveyancers are ‘the bottom of the legal barrel’. There is a general feeling we should be done away with completely, in favour of simply pushing a few buttons or inputting data into AI. This may speed things up if anti-money laundering ID and Land Registry searches are also ‘instant’ and digitised.

This new technology may also, in time, be able to share a report with a first-time buyer or a disabled, elderly, deaf client in detail, or recommend what rights should be reserved and granted on a transfer of part. It would be interesting to see how this new technology copes with the legal implications of an altered listed building with solar panels and septic tank.

Perhaps the only reasons there are lamentations about experienced property lawyers and conveyancers leaving in droves (with any sanity, common sense and iota of self-respect) are: (a) that we give the public the comfort blanket of indemnity insurance and someone to sue (the toxic ‘he who is insured’ legacy of Mishcon); (b) our client account banking system; and (c) our role as free forensic fraud/SOCA/NCA officer, forensic accountant, police officer, counsellor…    

The line in The Shawshank Redemption springs to mind. All it takes is pressure and time.

Kerry Ridden

Solicitor, Richard Wilson Long Solicitors, Goring-on-Thames

Portal rebuff no surprise

The Ministry of Justice’s lack of action on proposals to improve the Official Injury Claim portal is disappointing but not surprising (‘MoJ rebuffs claimant demands for whiplash portal change’, 19 March).

Claims volumes are down and, by association, so is fraud, so those in power will consider it to have been a success. Never mind why that is.

However, I and other stakeholders who put forward suggestions should be reassured that our efforts weren’t entirely wasted.

Ministers have left the door open for improvements to the medical evidence process (albeit their time would be better spent ensuring that the OIC data they have is first up to date and accurate). The introduction of some form of alternative dispute resolution, as part of wider future reform, and positive action on the process of transferring claims can only be beneficial.

Progress is slow, but lawyers know better than anyone that the wheels of justice turn slowly. It is only through continued collaboration and sharing our experience that it will be made at all.

Andrew Wild

Head of legal, First4InjuryClaims, Huddersfield

Meeting talent half-way

Paul Rogerson’s question of how far flexible working arrangements might be to blame for a declining productivity problem within law firms (see Gazette, 22 March) is certainly a concern I’ve seen shared by leadership teams lately.

However, I think the impulse to connect productivity with remote working – which according to the Law Society’s financial benchmarking survey was actually beneficial for profits during the pandemic – likely stems from old habits dying hard. Despite an increased focus on work-life balance and flexibility, there is still a strong expectation to perform within firms, and a billable hours culture which is ultimately fed by partners persists.

I agree with Paul Bennett’s comments that law firms will need to evolve their approach to training, development and management in response to flexible working. As work-life balance and mental health take centre stage in conversations, management teams must be receptive to meeting talent half-way.

I have seen a marked increase in younger lawyers openly expressing a willingness to leave the legal profession after a few years. So instead of fighting against flexible policies and demanding longer hours, law firms should foster environments where talent can work smarter and more efficiently in today’s digital age. If you want a tutorial on agile working, you need only look towards accountancy firms.

Nathan Peart

Managing director, Major Lindsey & Africa, London EC3