Who killed DIY conveyancing?

It used to be common for people to do their own conveyancing. Books were published explaining how to do it. But now it has become impossible, because conveyancers refuse to act on the other side to a DIY conveyancer.

I recently discovered this when buying a flat. As a former solicitor and conveyancing lecturer I wanted to act for myself, but the sellers could not find a conveyancer who was prepared to deal with me. So I had to spend thousands of pounds hiring a solicitor I did not want or need.

But why would they not deal with me? They mainly cited money laundering. They could not allow my money into their client account they said, for fear it might be derived from crime. “I cannot deal with a non-regulated and insured ‘other side’ no matter your credentials” I was told.

The myth of money laundering risk

With the greatest respect, this is nonsense. Money laundering law does not impose any duty to check money received from a counterparty. Even if my money was derived from crime they would be committing no offence in taking it. This is clear both from the “adequate consideration” defence in the Proceeds of Crime Act and from the very definition of criminal property.

Frustrated that lawyers’ ignorance of the law was costing me money I mentioned the issue on Linkedin. There was an enormous response, but with just four honourable exceptions everyone was against me. There were endless posts saying things like “I have to make sure the money is from a legitimate source” which is plain wrong. Others told me they could not deal with a counterparty who lacks PI insurance, which is even more clearly nonsense.

This is not just my opinion. The Conveyancing Handbook published by the Law Society has a whole chapter on dealing with unqualified people, but nowhere does it cite the problems that exist in the imaginations of the conveyancers I encountered.

It was striking that people did not feel it necessary to quote authority for their fears. One warned vaguely of “professional conduct implications” while another said his “instinct” told him this would be a regulatory issue. One was positively apoplectic, telling me that I was displaying “a complete lack of understanding of the regulatory and logistical hoops” that conveyancers must jump through. Presumably he did not realise that these hoops have been my specialist subject for decades, with over 1,000 law firms paying good money for my expertise.

A culture of fear and overcompliance

Not only did I have to give in, but I couldn’t even find a conveyancer to offer me a cut-price deal on the basis I would do all the tricky document-review work myself. I was told “A buyer needs to pay the full fees and receive the full service.” 

Why have solicitors developed this terror of departing from the well-trod path? My old pal Rob Hailstone of Bold Legal Group suggests that life is “so much more challenging for conveyancers now” due to ever more detailed regulation. Despite being one of the country’s leading experts on conveyancing law and practice he says that if he was selling “I would resign myself to the fact that I would need to instruct someone”.

For all my frustration I do have some sympathy. Compliance obligations have exploded as conveyancing fees have been squeezed. It must be easier to say no rather than grapple with such documents as the AML guidance provided by our regulator. Although this document runs to 228 pages it is so woolly that it fails to deal unambiguously with even the basic issues raised in this article. No wonder solicitors are wary. But wouldn’t it be nice if the SRA or the Law Society explained the position clearly?