Idyllic setting

In a column for Solicitors Journal last month, Marilyn Stowe likened the high street solicitor to a swimmer in a clear blue sea who ignored an “apparently harmless ripple” until a tailfin appeared and the shark had struck.

I take issue with an analogy which seems to portray high street solicitors as complacent. I certainly haven’t come across any solicitors in private practice, let alone high street ones, who see themselves in such a sunny light. For most the waters are very choppy and the sky overhead is at best grey. Rapidly increasing costs, much less accommodating banks, ever more regulations and forms, the effect of the recession and the constant fear that one might not to be able to renew one’s indemnity cover have taken their toll. Many firms have had to shed staff; many have merged in the hope of achieving savings and some have been driven out of business altogether.

I have been in private practice for more than 40 years more than half of it as a “high street” solicitor although I have never described myself as such. During that time our profession has faced numerous threats such as the abolition of scale conveyancing fees, the appearance of licensed conveyancers, the emergence of law centres, accountants muscling in on areas which were once regarded as the preserve of solicitors, the intrusion of the Land Registry into the transactional process and the growth of the internet. Even the fees earned on administering oaths have diminished to a trickle as this antiquated procedure is increasingly cast aside.

Yet although it has undoubtedly changed over the years, mostly in my view for the better, the profession has adapted to manage what at the time seemed serious challenges and the number of people coming into the profession has continued to rise. So what is to be done? Here are a few thoughts.

First, it would be sensible not to admit classification as a 'high street' solicitor which now has a distinctly pejorative connotation. We don’t talk about high street doctors or as far as I know high street architects. We are lawyers practising in a particular locality and if we are any good we are closely involved with our local community. For the most part we offer the sort of legal services which local individuals and businesses need. Those services will usually not be particularly glamorous or high powered and the fees we charge will reflect that. But that does not in any way diminish the value to our clients of the services we provide or the way in which we provide them.

Next, we should look closely at what we are good at and at what we are less good. It may be that in our concern never to turn work away we have taken on jobs which we are not well equipped to do. If that is found to be the case either we have to commit resources to improving our performance in that area of the law or we have to send a prospective client elsewhere. I believe that the key to survival is to provide a truly personal service. That, of course, is what most of us promise but not all of us achieve. It is hard work and not always immediately rewarding but it is what many clients want and are willing to pay for and it is what will distinguish us from the pile’em high brigade which Ms Stowe seems to fear. Of course there will be many people who will go for the cheapest service on offer but so what? Very often they will be the ones who will not even notice if they receive an indifferent service and frankly are often more trouble than they are worth.

Even in those places where poor planning policies have allowed supermarkets to emasculate the high street there are often small, and not so small, specialist retailers who make a good living. As has often been pointed out selling loaves of bread, cans of baked beans and even bottles of obscure varieties of balsamic vinegar lends itself to the supermarket model for the simple reason that people make repeat purchases. Divorce cannot be sold in the same way: for most people one divorce is quite enough. And supermarkets however deep their pocket cannot exist on nothing but loss leaders.

The big temptation which local solicitors must resist is to try to outbid the mass providers by cutt ing fees. There is a large number of people and not just the older ones who want their aff airs dealt with by someone they can trust and talk to knowing that they will receive a sympathetic hearing. The days when the family solicitor was a man of aff airs (and it usually was a man) have gone but despite, or possibly because of, the electronic revolution it will be a very long time before most discerning people will want to entrust their legal aff airs to their grocers.

Marilyn Stowe is right to warn against complacency although as I have observed I am not sure that today there is much danger of that. But it is just as important not to panic or allow ourselves to be led into believing that we are doomed.

I once read a corny definition of an opportunist as a man who arriving home and finding a wolf at the door appeared downtown next day in a new fur coat.

I am sure that many high street solicitors will look good in a new sharkskin dinner jacket.