Editor's blog | Will-writing quality scheme: a good idea, too late?

This time last week Des Hudson was due to give a speech to the private client section of the Law Society. In it the chief executive revealed that he would initiate work on a quality scheme for will-writing and probate services, similar in structure and spirit to the conveyancing quality scheme.

Lawyers were perplexed. “If we have to get accredited for everything, what’s the point of a general body like the Law Society?”, said one on Twitter. “What is Lexcel for?”, asked another.

The aim of the scheme, as with CQS, would be to offer guarantees of professional standards and help promote solicitors at a time where they are at risk of seeing their bread and butter work snatched away by new, cheaper service providers.

It’s a laudable idea, but it may be coming too late. Not just that: it could also create unnecessary confusion and, as an accreditation awarded by the sector’s representative body, it may not have as much sway with consumers.

The current woes in which the profession finds itself stem mainly from its lack of united response to the challenges set by the Legal Services Act. Most firms on the high street adopted a defensive stance, trying to convince themselves that none of the new entrants would be as competent or able to provide the same level of personal service, and – perhaps the most desperate act of self-reassurance of all – that discerning consumers would realise it was in their interest to go to solicitors.

A minority of firms started thinking differently. Mishcon de Reya’s expanded private client offering, spanning investment advice and concierge services, is probably the most publicised but there are others. Only last week Clutton Cox’s Paul Hajek started offering conveyancing clients “tea, biscuits and a shoulder to cry on”, according to a press release sent by his PR company. While these services appear to be genuinely on offer if clients request them, the more immediately useful expression of Hajek’s strategy is the publication of a short book, free to clients, taking them through the conveyancing process and including “a host of stress-busting tips”. That may not sound much but it is a commendable attempt at moving away from the rigid perception of solicitors as professionals solely concerned with the strictures of the legal process and make them a more integral part of clients’ wider needs.

These are positive initiatives but they are isolated. The Legal Services Act has resulted in the concept of quality in the legal profession being up for grabs for the first time. But before the Law Society could get hold of it on behalf of the profession, somebody else stole it. In the process, Quality Solicitors staked a claim to becoming the new consumer benchmark for professional standards on the high street. Chancery Lane has been playing catch up ever since. First with CQS, now with WiQS – if that is what the new scheme ends up being called.

The profession already has a clutch of standards it could develop effectively without resources being expanded on trying to convince solicitors of the need for new ones. It starts with Lexcel, which of course is a general management standard used primarily for indemnity purposes, but there’s no reason why it couldn’t be leveraged as a consumer-facing scheme. In practice, Lexcel-accredited firms already do this.

Then there are the various panels – family, immigration, etc. – and schemes developed by specialist interest groups such as APIL and STEP. These provide evidence of proficiency beyond ordinary competence, and solicitors may only gain membership after years of practice or after passing exams. STEP accreditations in particular are well-regarded in the sector and could very easily be used to boost the profession’s self-confidence as well as promote solicitors to the public.

If it weren’t for STEP’s work, a will-writing quality scheme would be a brilliant idea. Who knows, WiQS could still catch on in the way CQS – now with 2,500 members – has. But private client solicitors are in a different predicament from their conveyancing brethren eager to remain on lender panels. Or legal aid lawyers required by the Legal Services Commission to be on certain panels in order to bid for contracts.