The Law Society is not protecting its members, it is misleading them

Am I a lone voice in the wilderness peripheral to the conveyancing community? Is there nobody out there as angry as I am at the way the Law Society is behaving over its Conveyancing Quality Scheme?

When HSBC agreed to enlarge its panel to include those firms in the CQS, the Law Society heralded this as a success, presumably, for its members, whom it represents. This is not so, as there is a far greater majority outside the scheme than in it (in July 2010 there were upwards of 10,500 firms in the UK and, presumably, rising), all of whom are represented by the Law Society. Rather, our illustrious body has used the negotiations with HSBC as a form of blackmail aimed at its members: join the scheme or run the risk not only of being off the HSBC panel but perhaps other lenders, if they follow suit. The Law Society has patted itself on the back, lauding the success it has achieved, but that success is an opportunity to further their scheme, rather than negotiate on a level playing field for all members. A conflict of interest, surely?

Not only does this approach not guard and protect the society's members, but it gives a false picture. The fact any firm is or becomes a member of the CQS does not guarantee panel membership of any mortgage lender; most lenders have their own set of criteria to determine who they include, not limited to this one criterion, while sole practitioners and small firms are still being limited in the role they can play, even armed with the CQS and having been accepted as panel members.

One immediate concern is that the scheme is for solicitors, not licensed conveyancers. HSBC has four licensed conveyancing firms and one of them, Countrywide, seems to be supervising the panel while their broker/agent side also has a say in whom they recommend for the legal work. Unlikely to be a solicitor scheme member when Countrywide themselves can do the conveyancing. Where are the vaunted quality controls there? At the same time, a representative of HSBC has the temerity to state that reducing the panel as they have done (even allowing for the CQS increase) means less hassle for clients finding a solicitor of the right quality to deal with their conveyancing! Whatever happened to freedom of choice and ?the ability and right of someone buying a property to find someone fit for purpose? ?Or someone they have known and trusted over many years?

A poor reflection

I do not believe the scheme matches up to what it purports to offer, or that the need for such a scheme reflects well on the members of the profession. Have you seen and considered the substance of the application form? The amount of information it calls upon each firm and each member of each firm to supply is substantial and, presumably, is intended to ensure any applicant meets certain high standards.

The implication is that the standards set for any individual on qualifying as a solicitor are inadequate. Clearly they do not meet the bar set to satisfy the client-public requirement that their solicitor is of sufficient proficiency to clear it or we would not need a further scheme of quality. That means the Law Society is failing in its duty to ensure those who qualify as solicitors have the necessary expertise to fulfill their obligations. I leave aside the fact that there is already at least one other hallmark standard, Lexcel.

And what about commercial conveyancing? Corporate law, banking, immigration, international law, trusts, wills, probate etc? Does not the same apply to all the profession's fields of expertise?

Fresh focus

I refuse to end on such a sarcastic note. We are all losing sight of what we should stand for, what we should be protecting and how we should go about performing our professional responsibilities

I have an excellent idea. I think every solicitor should retake (and pass) their final exams every year or two in any subject in which they profess to practise. Of course, that would mean reducing the other education requirements with resulting lost ?revenues to those involved, but they will understand the priorities I'm sure.

CQS has barely got started, there can have been the most limited of tests and examinations (if any) of its efficacy and value, and yet, still in nappies, it is being let loose in the workplace. It will take years to evaluate its level of success and efficiency. What has been put in place for such measurements of its outcomes? Over how long a period? Crawl. Stand. Walk. Run.

I would love to see a response to this rant. It has released some of my pent-up anger, but I would far prefer to see some positive results to address and rectify current attitudes than leave this as my personal one-off psychological therapy (its results unevaluated).