Lack of expertise damages the profession's reputation

I was interested to read the comments made in last week by Howard Salter regarding the Conveyancing Quality Scheme. As the current chair of the conveyancing and land law committee, one of the CQS project board team and member of the technical panel, I have some intimate knowledge of the scheme.

It is always good to be challenged and hear different opinions. They are sometimes necessary to make one consider and appraise one’s position and the direction ?of travel.

The profession is a broad church with a multiplicity of opinions. The Law Society’s role in these matters is to listen, to step back, to take the widest view and then to lead from the front. Not everybody will be pleased by everything but I can confirm that the society carefully considers each matter of policy to ascertain what would be best not only for the profession but also in furtherance of its public interest mandate.

Many areas of work have obtained ‘badges’, enabling practitioners to demonstrate excellence or specialist knowledge. Some are run by external providers; for example, STEP, Resolution and APIL. Residential conveyancing is a specialist area. It requires not only detailed knowledge of land law but also the procedures and requirements of many external stakeholders (for example, HMRC for SDLT, HMLR, mortgage lenders (both CML and BSA)), knowledge of which of the many types of searches will be applicable in different geographical areas and how to interpret them – and this is by no means a comprehensive list. It has been said that if you think conveyancing is easy then you’re not doing it correctly.

Problem area

The profession has not helped itself by ignoring correlation between the number of complaints and indemnity claims in this area and the necessity for specialism and excellence. Regulation has come via external sources, particularly PII and mortgage lenders. Indemnity insurers have become and are becoming much more savvy as to who they will insure. They want to know that you know what you are doing, so simply calling yourself ‘solicitor’ may qualify you to do the work but does not mean that you will have the backing of any insurer. Similarly, mortgage lenders, particularly under pressure from their own regulator, the FSA, to be aware of who was on their panel, looked at this in more detail. Memories fade quickly but it is not long since the wholesale slashing of panels by some major lenders – for example, Santander. They chose their own criteria, striking names from their panels, including some sole practitioners and small firms.

No firm has a right to be on any mortgage lender’s panel but the society has long argued for an open and transparent panel management criteria.

HSBC’s decision to cut its panel was one that it was legally entitled to make. The way for the society to advance the interests of solicitors was to highlight the detriment to the public. Potential borrowers were voting with their feet and the howls of protest were instrumental in getting the lender to change its mind. However, had the Law Society not had a solution to put forward, HSBC’s panel of 43 would still be in place. The ship has long since sailed in the argument for completely open lenders’ panels.
While we might like to live in a world where all solicitors are expert in everything, those of us who conduct conveyancing on a day-to-day basis frequently come across people who simply aren’t. While the qualification entitles you to conduct the reserve work, a lack of expertise harms not just the unsuspecting client but also the reputation of the whole profession.

Buying clients have difficulty in distinguishing good from mediocre from bad. The CQS is one method by which they and those operating lender panels may now do so. Those who have joined the fold are committed to excellence in practice. Their senior responsible office (SRO)will have signed an undertaking to abide by the protocol. The Law Society has started a monitoring and enforcement programme.

Mr Salter says that CQS has barely got started – quite the contrary. Since its launch over a year ago it now has more than 1,500 members signed up. Anecdotal evidence shows that nearly half ?(if not more) of all conveyancing matters ?are undertaken by CQS firms. The commitment of those in the profession who want to demonstrate expertise is surely beyond question.

The fundamental part of the scheme design is to improve standards through education, and also to explore electronic solutions that can exist within a trusted community formed by the CQS. Those should help to marginalise fraud, which had become endemic in the system ?(to the detriment of us all).

These are not just laudable aims but ?very real and practical solutions to the challenges facing practitioners.