In The Private Patient, the author - P D James - several times includes an assumption that "people of means" will have a permanent solicitor - a family solicitor - who knows their background and previous dealings, and can give a broad range of advice and information.
While this used to be the case - and is a useful means for fictional detectives to find out all about the victim's business - it is becoming less and less true these days. More likely, people choose their lawyer on a task-by-task basis, selecting him or her for particularly relevant skills or specialisation. This is understandable: "horses for courses", as the saying goes
In these times, how is one to choose a good lawyer, accountant, surveyor, etc? I suggest, by personal recommendation - from a family member, friend or other professional adviser (eg: ask your conveyancer to recommend a surveyor; ask your accountant to recommend a commercial lawyer)
Indeed, if you have used one lawyer who specialises in a particular field, they are likely to be ideally placed to recommend you to a lawyer for another type of work. Instead of the lawyer in a large firm feeling obliged to recommend you to colleagues in the same firm, a sole practitioner who specialises in one field, will have no reason to do other than recommend you to the best lawyer available for another type of work, whether they are part of a larger firm or another sole practitioner - as long as the referrer is confident of his or her own value to you in their specialist field
A word of warning: one area where this does not work well is where the referrer is paid by the referree: then they do have a vested interest and their recommendation, while it may still be good, is inevitably slightly tainted. Indeed, some estate agents require their staff to refer buyers and sellers to conveyancers that pay referral fees, whether or not that referral is in the best interests of the buyer or the seller or the transaction as a whole
Showing posts with label professionals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label professionals. Show all posts
Sunday, 16 January 2011
Sunday, 9 January 2011
Lawyers are rubbish ...
... well, too many of them are, anyway.
We often wonder why we get so many irrelevant or unnecessary additional enquiries from buyers' conveyancers (including solicitors).
In the last couple of weeks, the answer has dawned on us: not only have they not read the paperwork we already sent them - they don't care. They want us to answer their own standard questions; they then copy them and our replies to the buyer and say, "Sign here". They have no interest at all in investigating or advising; they are (sorry) crap: charging for acting as lawyers, but in fact only acting as a copier and mail forwarder with no input or added value - some new clients who instructed us last week confirmed this to us: the conveyancers who "acted" when they bought the property simply sent the search result, replies to enquiries, etc, to the clients, telling them to read it all through and sign the contract if they were happy. They did not even bother to check the replies to enquiries to ensure they were (a) complete and (b) not self-contradictory
This week, I received 14 pages of "additional enquiries": all except 3 were answered by the papers we had already sent. The three extras were:
• "Does the the seller own the telephone?" (WHAT?!)
• "Is the building structurally sound?" (Ask a surveyor)
• "When was the house built?" (1920s we think, based on what the agents' particulars said, but we cannot see why it is significant in this case).
OK, it is a relatively minor irritation, but it puts us and our clients to unnecessary work. The really galling thing is that I bet the buyer's solicitor will hardly look at the replies: he will either simply copy them to his own client to wade through (at lest then the buyer will see his solicitor is rubbish) or quietly file and forget them
Bah! Humbug!
We often wonder why we get so many irrelevant or unnecessary additional enquiries from buyers' conveyancers (including solicitors).
In the last couple of weeks, the answer has dawned on us: not only have they not read the paperwork we already sent them - they don't care. They want us to answer their own standard questions; they then copy them and our replies to the buyer and say, "Sign here". They have no interest at all in investigating or advising; they are (sorry) crap: charging for acting as lawyers, but in fact only acting as a copier and mail forwarder with no input or added value - some new clients who instructed us last week confirmed this to us: the conveyancers who "acted" when they bought the property simply sent the search result, replies to enquiries, etc, to the clients, telling them to read it all through and sign the contract if they were happy. They did not even bother to check the replies to enquiries to ensure they were (a) complete and (b) not self-contradictory
This week, I received 14 pages of "additional enquiries": all except 3 were answered by the papers we had already sent. The three extras were:
• "Does the the seller own the telephone?" (WHAT?!)
• "Is the building structurally sound?" (Ask a surveyor)
• "When was the house built?" (1920s we think, based on what the agents' particulars said, but we cannot see why it is significant in this case).
OK, it is a relatively minor irritation, but it puts us and our clients to unnecessary work. The really galling thing is that I bet the buyer's solicitor will hardly look at the replies: he will either simply copy them to his own client to wade through (at lest then the buyer will see his solicitor is rubbish) or quietly file and forget them
Bah! Humbug!
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
Adding value
I am told by those who know more about this sort of thing than I do - marketing people, mainly - that the "value dimensions" of a business depend on it displaying one or more of the following -
Product leadership
Hmm ... that's a difficult one for lawyers, dependent as they are on implementing, rather than making, law. However, we do our best - for instance, our advice regarding preventing property theft (ask for a copy in the comments section, if interested) and our guarantee of satisfaction
Operational excellence
Within the constraints of the current conveyancing process, we think we are as efficient and speedy as possible, without doing "make work" to appear busy. In addition, we constantly fine-tune our procedures to improve them - and welcome constructive suggestions for further improvements
Customer intimacy
This, I think, is where we are very different from other firms. Unlike "normal" solicitors, who try to minimise contact with clients, estate agents, etc, we actively encourage visits - without insisting on prior appointments - and telephone calls.
To be fair, without an appointment, a visitor is unlikely to see me (or my assistant solicitor), but they will be seen by Samantha Hayes (my conveyancing manager) or Anne Browne (office/conveyancing manager). In all likelihood, Sam or Anne will be able to deal with any procedural or incidental points; any legal issues would be relayed to a lawyer for attention. Similarly with telephone calls: Sam and Anne will know the up-to-date position on any of the residential conveyancing transactions and can update clients and agents as appropriate
We thinks this gives us an almost-unique approachability - until other firms adopt a similar idea, of course
Suggestions welcome
If you can suggest any other "value dimensions" or ways of improving them, please add as comments below
- product leadership
- operational excellence
- customer intimacy
Product leadership
Hmm ... that's a difficult one for lawyers, dependent as they are on implementing, rather than making, law. However, we do our best - for instance, our advice regarding preventing property theft (ask for a copy in the comments section, if interested) and our guarantee of satisfaction
Operational excellence
Within the constraints of the current conveyancing process, we think we are as efficient and speedy as possible, without doing "make work" to appear busy. In addition, we constantly fine-tune our procedures to improve them - and welcome constructive suggestions for further improvements
Customer intimacy
This, I think, is where we are very different from other firms. Unlike "normal" solicitors, who try to minimise contact with clients, estate agents, etc, we actively encourage visits - without insisting on prior appointments - and telephone calls.
To be fair, without an appointment, a visitor is unlikely to see me (or my assistant solicitor), but they will be seen by Samantha Hayes (my conveyancing manager) or Anne Browne (office/conveyancing manager). In all likelihood, Sam or Anne will be able to deal with any procedural or incidental points; any legal issues would be relayed to a lawyer for attention. Similarly with telephone calls: Sam and Anne will know the up-to-date position on any of the residential conveyancing transactions and can update clients and agents as appropriate
We thinks this gives us an almost-unique approachability - until other firms adopt a similar idea, of course
Suggestions welcome
If you can suggest any other "value dimensions" or ways of improving them, please add as comments below
Sunday, 2 January 2011
9 ways to choose a lawyer
Some thoughts on how to choose who should handle your legal work for you - mainly focused on residential conveyancing, but of relevance to other fields as well:
1. Listen to personal recommendations: If you are moving home, speak to friends and family who have moved home recently. If you have a commercial transaction or need other business-related legal help, speak to your accountant. If you are seeking a divorce lawyer, speak to someone who has been though the ordeal. Who would they recommend you use - or recommend you avoid?
2. Don’t be bullied into a particular choice. In residential transactions, many corporate estate agents are incentivised to refer to particular firms in order to be paid referral fees - sometimes, their staff are disciplined if they do not make successful referrals. However, this is benefiting only the agent, not the buyer or the seller. Indeed, where a buyer is referred to an inefficient firm for a referral fee, the agent is not acting in his client's (the seller's) interests at all - the agent has allowed his own interests to prevent him fulfilling his duty to his own client. If an agent suggests using a particular firm, ask, "Why?" then "Do you get a referral fee if we use them?" Similarly, in other legal work, you have the right to choose your own lawyer on the basis of what suits you best.
3. Buy local, where you can. For a house move, it is probably sensible to use someone local to your destination: a genuinely local conveyancer will know so much more about your area than a so called “national” firm, simply as a result of being involved in their local community. For other legal work, choose a firm local to you - either at home or at work - so that it is convenient to meet when necessary - this is particularly important for family work, where face-to-face discussions minimise the stress and complexity of what is an already over-stressful time
4. Let's talk! Linked to this is the question of communication: how and how often do you want to be contacted with progress or non-progress reports? Inevitably, some legal work takes longer than other work, and a daily report of "No response yet" in a court action or negotiation would be over the top, but you might well want a weekly email report. Or you might want instead to be copied in on correspondence, so that you can see what is happening. In a matter with clearly defined milestones - exchange of contracts and completion in a house move, for instance - you might want a phone call to confirm the position, or you may prefer a text, with more detailed information to follow, if needed. Make sure that the lawyer you plan to choose will (within reason) fit in with the way you want to communicate
5. Do online research. Searching for “Conveyancing Tenterden”, for instance, will throw up various conveyancers who are - or pretend to be - in the relevant area. Visit their websites; check that they are, indeed, where they claim to be, and get a feel for how they work and what they offer. The same applies to other fields of law. It is usually the case that lawyers who are genuinely good in their chosen field(s) will make a lot of relevant information available for free on their websites. Be wary of those who claim expertise but fail to demonstrate it
6. Back up that research by phoning - better still, visiting - the firm(s) you have in mind. You can find out a lot about how approachable and client-focussed a firm is by asking a few relevant questions over the phone - still more by how you are treated on an unannounced visit to their office. If they treat you as a nuisance (or worse), you have been warned!
7. Don't choose minimum cost, but maximum value. If you are not sure you can tell the difference, rely on item 1 above: those who have experienced the process can tell you whether they found the service they received good or bad value for money. As a poorer alternative, check to see if the firm you are considering publishes testimonials from satisfied clients - and, ideally, offers a guarantee of satisfaction
8. Talking of cost ... The work you want done may be suitable for an agreed fixed fee, instead of being charged on the basis of the time spent by the lawyer - there is always the suspicion that this rewards inefficiency. In effect, most residential conveyancers charge a fixed fee, in that they should not exceed their original estimate without clearing it with you - but watch out for hidden extras: get confirmation that the estimated fee covers all the expected work, and that you will not be charged extra for (say) completing a transaction less than two weeks after exchange of contracts, as some conveyancers do
9 Choose a small firm. I am biased, but I feel that most larger firms treat individual clients as of relatively low value, on the basis that there are plenty of other fish in the sea: the loss of one or two clients will not seriously impact on them. A small firm - or sole practitioner - knows he or she must cherish every client; not only are those clients of relatively higher individual value, but they will talk about their experience: see item 1 above. Further, the staff in a small firm will be more of a family or group of friends than in a large firm, where they are "personnel" or "human resources"; a small firm is therefore likely to be friendlier - amongst themselves and towords outsiders (We keep a supply of biscuits for our postmen ...) Finally, it is such a struggle for a small firm to fight its way through the regulatory and other processes designed by large organisations with large organisations in mind and no experience of being part of a small organisation, that the small guys must have a very good reason for not joining a big firm and letting it take the strain - that reason is enthusiasm: they tend to love what they do and constanty strive to excel at it.
1. Listen to personal recommendations: If you are moving home, speak to friends and family who have moved home recently. If you have a commercial transaction or need other business-related legal help, speak to your accountant. If you are seeking a divorce lawyer, speak to someone who has been though the ordeal. Who would they recommend you use - or recommend you avoid?
2. Don’t be bullied into a particular choice. In residential transactions, many corporate estate agents are incentivised to refer to particular firms in order to be paid referral fees - sometimes, their staff are disciplined if they do not make successful referrals. However, this is benefiting only the agent, not the buyer or the seller. Indeed, where a buyer is referred to an inefficient firm for a referral fee, the agent is not acting in his client's (the seller's) interests at all - the agent has allowed his own interests to prevent him fulfilling his duty to his own client. If an agent suggests using a particular firm, ask, "Why?" then "Do you get a referral fee if we use them?" Similarly, in other legal work, you have the right to choose your own lawyer on the basis of what suits you best.
3. Buy local, where you can. For a house move, it is probably sensible to use someone local to your destination: a genuinely local conveyancer will know so much more about your area than a so called “national” firm, simply as a result of being involved in their local community. For other legal work, choose a firm local to you - either at home or at work - so that it is convenient to meet when necessary - this is particularly important for family work, where face-to-face discussions minimise the stress and complexity of what is an already over-stressful time
4. Let's talk! Linked to this is the question of communication: how and how often do you want to be contacted with progress or non-progress reports? Inevitably, some legal work takes longer than other work, and a daily report of "No response yet" in a court action or negotiation would be over the top, but you might well want a weekly email report. Or you might want instead to be copied in on correspondence, so that you can see what is happening. In a matter with clearly defined milestones - exchange of contracts and completion in a house move, for instance - you might want a phone call to confirm the position, or you may prefer a text, with more detailed information to follow, if needed. Make sure that the lawyer you plan to choose will (within reason) fit in with the way you want to communicate
5. Do online research. Searching for “Conveyancing Tenterden”, for instance, will throw up various conveyancers who are - or pretend to be - in the relevant area. Visit their websites; check that they are, indeed, where they claim to be, and get a feel for how they work and what they offer. The same applies to other fields of law. It is usually the case that lawyers who are genuinely good in their chosen field(s) will make a lot of relevant information available for free on their websites. Be wary of those who claim expertise but fail to demonstrate it
6. Back up that research by phoning - better still, visiting - the firm(s) you have in mind. You can find out a lot about how approachable and client-focussed a firm is by asking a few relevant questions over the phone - still more by how you are treated on an unannounced visit to their office. If they treat you as a nuisance (or worse), you have been warned!
7. Don't choose minimum cost, but maximum value. If you are not sure you can tell the difference, rely on item 1 above: those who have experienced the process can tell you whether they found the service they received good or bad value for money. As a poorer alternative, check to see if the firm you are considering publishes testimonials from satisfied clients - and, ideally, offers a guarantee of satisfaction
8. Talking of cost ... The work you want done may be suitable for an agreed fixed fee, instead of being charged on the basis of the time spent by the lawyer - there is always the suspicion that this rewards inefficiency. In effect, most residential conveyancers charge a fixed fee, in that they should not exceed their original estimate without clearing it with you - but watch out for hidden extras: get confirmation that the estimated fee covers all the expected work, and that you will not be charged extra for (say) completing a transaction less than two weeks after exchange of contracts, as some conveyancers do
9 Choose a small firm. I am biased, but I feel that most larger firms treat individual clients as of relatively low value, on the basis that there are plenty of other fish in the sea: the loss of one or two clients will not seriously impact on them. A small firm - or sole practitioner - knows he or she must cherish every client; not only are those clients of relatively higher individual value, but they will talk about their experience: see item 1 above. Further, the staff in a small firm will be more of a family or group of friends than in a large firm, where they are "personnel" or "human resources"; a small firm is therefore likely to be friendlier - amongst themselves and towords outsiders (We keep a supply of biscuits for our postmen ...) Finally, it is such a struggle for a small firm to fight its way through the regulatory and other processes designed by large organisations with large organisations in mind and no experience of being part of a small organisation, that the small guys must have a very good reason for not joining a big firm and letting it take the strain - that reason is enthusiasm: they tend to love what they do and constanty strive to excel at it.
Saturday, 1 January 2011
Never sign without reading
Everyone knows, I hope, how important it is to read - and understand - documents before signing them: once signed, they are legally binding on you, and consumer protection legislation will only come to the rescue of the foolhardy in very limited situations.
This applies to all sorts of documents: contracts, terms of business, even letters and, of course, Wills
It therefore surprises me to find clients turning up to sign their Wills (or other documents) without bringing their reading glasses with them. OK, they have normally seen Wills, etc, in draft form already and - presumably - have read them then; also, they can ask us to read the document over to them, which we will happily do.
Even so, I feel a little queasy at the thought of someone signing a Will without having read it through there and then, just before signing. We prefer to lend them a pair of glasses from a member of staff, if we have a suitable pair - mine won't do for reading as they are to correct my short-sightedness - and on one occasion I had to send a client home to get his reading glasses, as none was available for loan; he was not very happy!
To avoid this problem in future, we have bought a selection of cheap reading glasses to lend to forgetful clients, so the days of someone trying to insist on signing a document they cannot read ("It's all right: I trust you"!) should be over
This applies to all sorts of documents: contracts, terms of business, even letters and, of course, Wills
It therefore surprises me to find clients turning up to sign their Wills (or other documents) without bringing their reading glasses with them. OK, they have normally seen Wills, etc, in draft form already and - presumably - have read them then; also, they can ask us to read the document over to them, which we will happily do.
Even so, I feel a little queasy at the thought of someone signing a Will without having read it through there and then, just before signing. We prefer to lend them a pair of glasses from a member of staff, if we have a suitable pair - mine won't do for reading as they are to correct my short-sightedness - and on one occasion I had to send a client home to get his reading glasses, as none was available for loan; he was not very happy!
To avoid this problem in future, we have bought a selection of cheap reading glasses to lend to forgetful clients, so the days of someone trying to insist on signing a document they cannot read ("It's all right: I trust you"!) should be over
Thursday, 30 December 2010
Who are our competitors - and which worry us?
As "High Street" solicitors, who tend to handle local work for local people, it might be thought that our main competitors are other, similar "High Street" solicitors - I think not
Although there is competition between us and other local firms, we do not see them as an existential threat (oooh! Big words!) On the whole, they tend to have the same philosophy of business as us: do a good job, at a reasonable price, resulting in a satisfied client and a good reputation and more referral business.
To date, a bigger threat has come from those firms, big and small, that indulge in cut-price conveyancing: always ready to undercut the competition - after all, it must be better to discount by (another) £50 and get the work than not, right? Wrong! Cut price conveyancing is bad for everyone involved - even those paying full price further up or down the chain of transactions - as it leads to a "stack it high and sell it cheap" approach, which quickly becomes de-personalised (commoditised) and inefficient. A similar problem results from conveyancers who pay referral fees to buy in work - but that's for another blogpost.
However, a bigger threat still is nearly upon us: "Alternative Business Structures" in the jargoin of the regulators and, especially, non-lawyers being allowed to do conveyancing work for profit. The real threat - to existing practices - is that some big organisations - insurers, "service commoditisers", mortgage lenders, etc, will offer conveyancing services. Not only will they be the ultimate in "pile it high and sell it cheap" but they will have the resources to put in place systems that will far outstrip even the "warehouse conveyancers" of today.
Worst of all, many of them - mortgage lenders are the obvious example - will be able in effect to offer the conveyancing for free: either bundling the cost in with the overall mortgage loan or treating it as a loss leader to get and retain the lending business - and the associated financial services, where lots of money can be made.
How to compete? Well, trying to beat them at their own game will not work, as I simply do not have the financial resources. In order to compete, I need to sell my services to clients on the basis of value for money - not cheapness; genuine efficiency - not artificial busy-ness; local, useful knowledge - not a tick-box approach; and genuine approachability - not slick advertising.
That is why I -
Although there is competition between us and other local firms, we do not see them as an existential threat (oooh! Big words!) On the whole, they tend to have the same philosophy of business as us: do a good job, at a reasonable price, resulting in a satisfied client and a good reputation and more referral business.
To date, a bigger threat has come from those firms, big and small, that indulge in cut-price conveyancing: always ready to undercut the competition - after all, it must be better to discount by (another) £50 and get the work than not, right? Wrong! Cut price conveyancing is bad for everyone involved - even those paying full price further up or down the chain of transactions - as it leads to a "stack it high and sell it cheap" approach, which quickly becomes de-personalised (commoditised) and inefficient. A similar problem results from conveyancers who pay referral fees to buy in work - but that's for another blogpost.
However, a bigger threat still is nearly upon us: "Alternative Business Structures" in the jargoin of the regulators and, especially, non-lawyers being allowed to do conveyancing work for profit. The real threat - to existing practices - is that some big organisations - insurers, "service commoditisers", mortgage lenders, etc, will offer conveyancing services. Not only will they be the ultimate in "pile it high and sell it cheap" but they will have the resources to put in place systems that will far outstrip even the "warehouse conveyancers" of today.
Worst of all, many of them - mortgage lenders are the obvious example - will be able in effect to offer the conveyancing for free: either bundling the cost in with the overall mortgage loan or treating it as a loss leader to get and retain the lending business - and the associated financial services, where lots of money can be made.
How to compete? Well, trying to beat them at their own game will not work, as I simply do not have the financial resources. In order to compete, I need to sell my services to clients on the basis of value for money - not cheapness; genuine efficiency - not artificial busy-ness; local, useful knowledge - not a tick-box approach; and genuine approachability - not slick advertising.
That is why I -
- offer a money-back guarantee
- constantly update my office procedures and support IT
- am closely involved in my local community
- encourage clients to drop in to my office, without appointments, to speak to my conveyancing managers about anything that concerns them: if it is a legal issue, it will be referred to a lawyer, but for procedural or incidental queries, my managers are well able to cope
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Turmoil for the legal profession
The legal profession is undergoing a period of change and review more far-reaching than anything it has experienced before. The following consultations (which will lead to change) and already decided changes are under way (thanks to Rob Hailstone of the Bold Group for drawing all this together) -
SRA Consultations: The new SRA Handbook: This consultation is the last opportunity for comments on the SRA's new Handbook which will underpin the regulation of solicitors and law firms from October 2011. This paper provides more detail on the regulatory framework for both traditional law firms and Alternative Business Structures. Ends - 13 January 2011
Future Client Financial Protection arrangements: Comments are invited on proposals for amendments to client financial protection arrangements from October 2011. These proposals follow on from the independent review of the current client financial protection arrangements undertaken for us by Charles River Associates. Ends - 28 February 2011
Sole Practice: Modernising Authorisation: The proposal is to bring the process for authorising sole practitioner law firms in line with the way in which all other firms will be authorised. Ends—8 March 2011
Legal Services Board Consultations: Referral fees, referral arrangements and fee sharing: Ends – 22nd December 2010
ABS (Alternative Business Structures for providing legal services) consultation - Further rules regarding licensed bodies: Ends - 21st February 2011
Ministry of Justice PII: Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales: This consultation seeks views on proposals for reform of legal aid in England and Wales. One option is to use client account interest to help bolster the Legal Aid Fund. Ends – 14th February 2011
The Law Society PII Guide: The fourth edition of Insurance Matters, a free bulletin on solicitors' professional indemnity insurance (PII), can be downloaded: http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/new/documents/2010/insurancematters4.pdf - It includes articles on the outcome of the 2010 renewal process, conveyancing fraud, and risk management.
Changes to the CML Lenders' Handbook
The Council of Mortgage Lenders updated the Lenders' Handbook on 1 December: The changes affecting solicitors include:
• new requirements where the solicitor acting for the lender is not familiar with the seller's solicitors
• lenders can stipulate whether they require notification of the name and address of the sellers
http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/handbook/amendments
Lawyers need to be ready for this future. Whether it is an improvement remains to be seen
SRA Consultations: The new SRA Handbook: This consultation is the last opportunity for comments on the SRA's new Handbook which will underpin the regulation of solicitors and law firms from October 2011. This paper provides more detail on the regulatory framework for both traditional law firms and Alternative Business Structures. Ends - 13 January 2011
Future Client Financial Protection arrangements: Comments are invited on proposals for amendments to client financial protection arrangements from October 2011. These proposals follow on from the independent review of the current client financial protection arrangements undertaken for us by Charles River Associates. Ends - 28 February 2011
Sole Practice: Modernising Authorisation: The proposal is to bring the process for authorising sole practitioner law firms in line with the way in which all other firms will be authorised. Ends—8 March 2011
Legal Services Board Consultations: Referral fees, referral arrangements and fee sharing: Ends – 22nd December 2010
ABS (Alternative Business Structures for providing legal services) consultation - Further rules regarding licensed bodies: Ends - 21st February 2011
Ministry of Justice PII: Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales: This consultation seeks views on proposals for reform of legal aid in England and Wales. One option is to use client account interest to help bolster the Legal Aid Fund. Ends – 14th February 2011
The Law Society PII Guide: The fourth edition of Insurance Matters, a free bulletin on solicitors' professional indemnity insurance (PII), can be downloaded: http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/new/documents/2010/insurancematters4.pdf - It includes articles on the outcome of the 2010 renewal process, conveyancing fraud, and risk management.
Changes to the CML Lenders' Handbook
The Council of Mortgage Lenders updated the Lenders' Handbook on 1 December: The changes affecting solicitors include:
• new requirements where the solicitor acting for the lender is not familiar with the seller's solicitors
• lenders can stipulate whether they require notification of the name and address of the sellers
http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/handbook/amendments
Lawyers need to be ready for this future. Whether it is an improvement remains to be seen
Sunday, 21 November 2010
Quality standards?
Research by the Consumer Panel - which advises the Legal Services Board, the regulator of lawyers - finds that "consumers assume all lawyers are technically competent and are subject to more regulatory controls than is the case. This means that quality considerations do not strongly influence consumers' choice of lawyers and people erroneously consider that all legal services are of proven standard."
Apparently, despite a proliferation of quality badges for lawyers, consumers do not use or want quality marks in legal services.
The LSB's reaction to this seems to be to propose yet another layer of regulation for an already heavily regulated sector.
Seems to me it would be better to educate the public that all lawyers are *not* the same - some are better than others, and it is better to make a choice based on experience or a genuine informed recommendation - rather than taking up the referral from the estate agent who is paid by the lawyer to make that referral
Still, I know I am a voice crying in the wilderness. Why on earth should a regulatory body resist the urge to gather more work to itself? It makes one wonder, though ...
Apparently, despite a proliferation of quality badges for lawyers, consumers do not use or want quality marks in legal services.
The LSB's reaction to this seems to be to propose yet another layer of regulation for an already heavily regulated sector.
Seems to me it would be better to educate the public that all lawyers are *not* the same - some are better than others, and it is better to make a choice based on experience or a genuine informed recommendation - rather than taking up the referral from the estate agent who is paid by the lawyer to make that referral
Still, I know I am a voice crying in the wilderness. Why on earth should a regulatory body resist the urge to gather more work to itself? It makes one wonder, though ...
Friday, 7 May 2010
Home Information Packs - again
With the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats "promising" to abolish HIPs, it may instead be worth considering whether they can be improved to make them good value for money.
The recurrent problem we are experiencing at present is the delay in getting searches. We get sent a lot of incomplete HIPs, then have to keep checking to see whether searches are added. This seems to be because of the same old problem: selling down to a price, rather than up to a standard, and getting personal searches (as cheaper) rather than official ones. To my mind, this makes no sense: on the one hand, people get what they pay for and a cheap personal search is likely to be full of errors and omissions; on the other hand, most official searches are (a) speedy - speedier than cheap personal ones, certainly - and usually not very expensive. On the rare occasions we get asked to prepare a HIP, we always recommend official searches, in an effort to make them as exchange-ready as possible
The recurrent problem we are experiencing at present is the delay in getting searches. We get sent a lot of incomplete HIPs, then have to keep checking to see whether searches are added. This seems to be because of the same old problem: selling down to a price, rather than up to a standard, and getting personal searches (as cheaper) rather than official ones. To my mind, this makes no sense: on the one hand, people get what they pay for and a cheap personal search is likely to be full of errors and omissions; on the other hand, most official searches are (a) speedy - speedier than cheap personal ones, certainly - and usually not very expensive. On the rare occasions we get asked to prepare a HIP, we always recommend official searches, in an effort to make them as exchange-ready as possible
On a related aspect, many properties have more than one registered title, yet this seems to astonish amateurish HIP providers - I was having great difficulty explaining to one such earlier this week that my client's access and courtyard was in a different title to the house and, yes, both titles were essential
The single best thing that could be done to improve HIPs would be to require them to include a draft contract (omitting the price and buyer's details, of course) and a full property details questionnaire. This would make them virtually exchange-ready and would have the extra benefit of removing the need for the sale statement and the almost-useless property information questionnaire.
This will not happen yet, of course, as it would mean only solicitors and licensed conveyancers could prepare the contract part, though this should change next year, and there will never be agreement on what the PDQ should contain - unless the government actually thinks it worthwhile consulting the people who know: property professionals
Sunday, 18 April 2010
Another client testimonial
From a genuine (and genuinely happy) client:
"Many thanks for all your excellent work and professionalism, we both are grateful, having the confidence in you at all times, knowing that we would always receive accurate,honest and thoughtful advice. I'm certain we will be using your services in the future in whatever circumstances may occur. I just wish that banks worked to your standards."
"Many thanks for all your excellent work and professionalism, we both are grateful, having the confidence in you at all times, knowing that we would always receive accurate,honest and thoughtful advice. I'm certain we will be using your services in the future in whatever circumstances may occur. I just wish that banks worked to your standards."
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Even disappointed clients are happy!
Even though their house sale fell through because their buyer's conveyancer insisted, wrongly, that the legal title was defective, our clients have been very complimentary about our service, saying -
"I just wanted to say a very special thank you to both you and Justin for the professional service and genuine support and understanding you have given us over the past months. Having not moved for 25 years, and no real need to instruct solicitors over that time, you made the process clear and provided outstanding service to us. Despite the outcome, which was clearly out of everyones hands, you never gave up and that was greatly appreciated. I would have no hesitation in recommending your services, you do a wonderful job and conduct a very professional business."
It is nice to be appreciated!
"I just wanted to say a very special thank you to both you and Justin for the professional service and genuine support and understanding you have given us over the past months. Having not moved for 25 years, and no real need to instruct solicitors over that time, you made the process clear and provided outstanding service to us. Despite the outcome, which was clearly out of everyones hands, you never gave up and that was greatly appreciated. I would have no hesitation in recommending your services, you do a wonderful job and conduct a very professional business."
It is nice to be appreciated!
Friday, 26 March 2010
Tenterden Pudding Club
Once a month (on the last Friday in each month), various Tenterden-based professionals and business people (solicitors, accountants, estate agents, IFAs, telecom consultants, bank managers, insurance brokers, etc) get together for an informal, single-course lunch and a bit of networking
There is no need to commit to attending (nor to apologise if you cannot attend), but if you are in business in Tenterden and would like to be added to the email reminder list, let me know: send me an email at jn@justinnelson.co.uk
There is no need to commit to attending (nor to apologise if you cannot attend), but if you are in business in Tenterden and would like to be added to the email reminder list, let me know: send me an email at jn@justinnelson.co.uk
Thursday, 18 March 2010
Top tips for 2010
In the Law Society Property Section magazine for this month, 11 members of the section's executive committee gave their top tips on how to prosper in the new decade
Almost all of them were very good, but almost all of them were steps, attitudes and procedures we at Nelsons Property Lawyers had adopted from Day 1 - we are looking for ways to imprive beyond these relatively basic client care ideas
If you have any suggestions as to how we can improve client care, we'd love to hear them!
Almost all of them were very good, but almost all of them were steps, attitudes and procedures we at Nelsons Property Lawyers had adopted from Day 1 - we are looking for ways to imprive beyond these relatively basic client care ideas
If you have any suggestions as to how we can improve client care, we'd love to hear them!
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
Tenterden accountants get it together
Two firms of accoutants with offices in Tenterden are to merge with effect from April Fools' Day (1 April 2010)
Phipps & Co, who also have offices in Rye, will merge with Gibbons Mannington, who also have offices in Rye (and in Bexhill as well)
As Phipps & Co have only relatively recently returned to Tenterden, re-absorbing the Day Peto & Co practice that had previously spun off from them, this merger seems to indicate that they are actively managing their future - as one would expect from good accountants!
Good luck to them in their latest phase of development
Phipps & Co, who also have offices in Rye, will merge with Gibbons Mannington, who also have offices in Rye (and in Bexhill as well)
As Phipps & Co have only relatively recently returned to Tenterden, re-absorbing the Day Peto & Co practice that had previously spun off from them, this merger seems to indicate that they are actively managing their future - as one would expect from good accountants!
Good luck to them in their latest phase of development
Monday, 15 February 2010
Speedy service
Even for ex-clients, we offer a speedy service
We acted when husband and wife bought a house together in 2006. They are splitting up, and he does not want to use us as we have acted for her on various transactions over the past few years. They have therefore gone to a "neutral" firm to handle the sale of the house.
This morning, we received an email from the wife, asking for a particular piece of information from our purchase file. We emailed this to her by about 10am, and have just heard back:
"Thanks so much for the speedy reply. I've just dropped it off at the solicitor's and they couldn't believe it!"
It's nice to be appreciated, even (especially) when we don't get paid
We acted when husband and wife bought a house together in 2006. They are splitting up, and he does not want to use us as we have acted for her on various transactions over the past few years. They have therefore gone to a "neutral" firm to handle the sale of the house.
This morning, we received an email from the wife, asking for a particular piece of information from our purchase file. We emailed this to her by about 10am, and have just heard back:
"Thanks so much for the speedy reply. I've just dropped it off at the solicitor's and they couldn't believe it!"
It's nice to be appreciated, even (especially) when we don't get paid
Monday, 8 February 2010
What does Google have to do with referral fees?
"You don't buy it with ads [or referral fees]. You earn it, and you earn it customer by customer, search for search, answer by answer." - Eric Schmidt of Google on Fox Business News in 2009
Despite that comment, Google chose to advertise during the televising of the Super Bowl on 7 February, so perhaps people's views, or circumstances, or both, change
Until very recently, I was adamantly against paying (or receiving) referral fees for getting (or giving) work opportunities - the only effect seemed to be to increase costs to the consumer (or reduce profits to the service provider). This still seems to me to be the case in respect of residential conveyancing: some agents are keener to earn their £125 referral fee than to ensure that the conveyancing work is handled properly. In my view, this is very short-sighted, but there we are, at present.
However, I have just joined two organisations that are, in effect and in part, referral organisations: Quality Solicitors, to whom I pay an annual subscription for marketing and referrals, and Contact Law, to whom I pay a percentage of my fees on cases referred to me by them. In both cases, this means that I get referred to me transactions that are within my target market for commercial transactions and which I would very probably not get a chance to pitch for otherwise.
In addition, some of the larger local firms are actively courting - and offering to pay for - referrals from me in respect of work I would not handle myself. This is effective marketing for them and I would not refer unless I felt it appropriate for the client. However, while I would welcome an additional income stream, I still feel a residual reluctance to "taint" a referral in this way.
The difference is, perhaps, subtle: I make it clear to prospective clients who are referred that I have an arrangement with the referring organisation, that I pay them a fee (an annual subscription or a percentage of fees charged to the client) and that the client has a choice whether to instruct me or not. Equally, I would not refer a client to a firm I did not think was right for them. I do not think many estate agents do the same; indeed, I know of several who say or imply that the prospective client must use their "panel solicitors" if they are to sell or buy through them, even when they indicate that they already have solicitors they are happy with.
I do have some concerns over my existing arrangements. I discovered, for instance, that a prospective client was recommended to me by her accountant but, when she phoned directory enquiries to get my telephone number, they insisted on putting her through to Quality Solicitors (on a premium rate line) instead. I have raised this with Quality Solicitors, and they have assured me they will stop that practice - which they had not themselves instigated: that was the idea of the particular directory enquiries service.
The public interest argument in favour of referral fees is that it provides a service to the public who do not know what solicitors might cover their particular needs and can go to a service that, in theory, can identify an appropriate solicitor. Unfortunately, greed will inevitably taint the operation: the desire to earn the referral fee is likely to discourage referrers from mentioning that the consumer has any other option. This is where solicitors have to be whiter than white, but they do not have a particularly good track record in that respect.
There is also the argument from fear: if we don't pay referral fees, other organisations will, but that seems to me to be a particularly poor argument.
On the whole, I think solicitors should earn their reputations, including their reputation for independence and integrity, not try to buy them. However, I will give both Quality Solicitors and Contact Law a fair chance. In addition, I will continue to demonstrate to estate agents, accountants, IFAs and other introducers that they can safely recommend me on the basis of the quality of my service and not to get a referral fee; I think that is a better business and professional model - a genuine recommendation, not a bought one
Despite that comment, Google chose to advertise during the televising of the Super Bowl on 7 February, so perhaps people's views, or circumstances, or both, change
Until very recently, I was adamantly against paying (or receiving) referral fees for getting (or giving) work opportunities - the only effect seemed to be to increase costs to the consumer (or reduce profits to the service provider). This still seems to me to be the case in respect of residential conveyancing: some agents are keener to earn their £125 referral fee than to ensure that the conveyancing work is handled properly. In my view, this is very short-sighted, but there we are, at present.
However, I have just joined two organisations that are, in effect and in part, referral organisations: Quality Solicitors, to whom I pay an annual subscription for marketing and referrals, and Contact Law, to whom I pay a percentage of my fees on cases referred to me by them. In both cases, this means that I get referred to me transactions that are within my target market for commercial transactions and which I would very probably not get a chance to pitch for otherwise.
In addition, some of the larger local firms are actively courting - and offering to pay for - referrals from me in respect of work I would not handle myself. This is effective marketing for them and I would not refer unless I felt it appropriate for the client. However, while I would welcome an additional income stream, I still feel a residual reluctance to "taint" a referral in this way.
The difference is, perhaps, subtle: I make it clear to prospective clients who are referred that I have an arrangement with the referring organisation, that I pay them a fee (an annual subscription or a percentage of fees charged to the client) and that the client has a choice whether to instruct me or not. Equally, I would not refer a client to a firm I did not think was right for them. I do not think many estate agents do the same; indeed, I know of several who say or imply that the prospective client must use their "panel solicitors" if they are to sell or buy through them, even when they indicate that they already have solicitors they are happy with.
I do have some concerns over my existing arrangements. I discovered, for instance, that a prospective client was recommended to me by her accountant but, when she phoned directory enquiries to get my telephone number, they insisted on putting her through to Quality Solicitors (on a premium rate line) instead. I have raised this with Quality Solicitors, and they have assured me they will stop that practice - which they had not themselves instigated: that was the idea of the particular directory enquiries service.
The public interest argument in favour of referral fees is that it provides a service to the public who do not know what solicitors might cover their particular needs and can go to a service that, in theory, can identify an appropriate solicitor. Unfortunately, greed will inevitably taint the operation: the desire to earn the referral fee is likely to discourage referrers from mentioning that the consumer has any other option. This is where solicitors have to be whiter than white, but they do not have a particularly good track record in that respect.
There is also the argument from fear: if we don't pay referral fees, other organisations will, but that seems to me to be a particularly poor argument.
On the whole, I think solicitors should earn their reputations, including their reputation for independence and integrity, not try to buy them. However, I will give both Quality Solicitors and Contact Law a fair chance. In addition, I will continue to demonstrate to estate agents, accountants, IFAs and other introducers that they can safely recommend me on the basis of the quality of my service and not to get a referral fee; I think that is a better business and professional model - a genuine recommendation, not a bought one
Sunday, 21 June 2009
Suits
I try to avoid wearing a business suit for work - I am more comfortable in sports jacket and trousers, and I think clients and potential clients are more comfortable not dealing with "a suit"
Last week, however, I had to wear a suit on three of the five weeekdays - once for a funeral, once for a meeting at another solicitor's office and once to attend an auction on behalf of a client.
On each occasion, there was no doubt that a suit was appropriate, but it set me to wondering why: where is the distinction between the occasions when it is appropriate to dress down and when it is not? I don't think it is a case of wearing a suit on outside appointments and dressing down when on home territory - though that is a part of the reasoning, I think
The funeral, I think, is obvious - it is a mark of respect and, to an extent, evidence of solemnity
The other occasions are similar - demonstrating, to the client as much as to anyone, that I was treating his business with respect and seriously. As I was representing the client on each occasion, respect and seriousness were both appropriate
This is not to say that, when I am in my own office, dressing down is an indication of a lack of respect or seriousness, but I suppose it is true that, on my own territory, I can set the rules more (I would not dream of trying to do so on "foreign" territory), and I choose to have a deliberately less formal or stuffy attitude - I think it helps remove some of the barriers between solicitor and client and enables the client to accept that we are on the same team.
Otherwise, I feel there is a real danger of a client treating his or her own solicitor as part of the problem - another "suit" - rather than as a friendly expert who is on their side
"Approachability" is an important quality for most professionals, and one I try to display
Last week, however, I had to wear a suit on three of the five weeekdays - once for a funeral, once for a meeting at another solicitor's office and once to attend an auction on behalf of a client.
On each occasion, there was no doubt that a suit was appropriate, but it set me to wondering why: where is the distinction between the occasions when it is appropriate to dress down and when it is not? I don't think it is a case of wearing a suit on outside appointments and dressing down when on home territory - though that is a part of the reasoning, I think
The funeral, I think, is obvious - it is a mark of respect and, to an extent, evidence of solemnity
The other occasions are similar - demonstrating, to the client as much as to anyone, that I was treating his business with respect and seriously. As I was representing the client on each occasion, respect and seriousness were both appropriate
This is not to say that, when I am in my own office, dressing down is an indication of a lack of respect or seriousness, but I suppose it is true that, on my own territory, I can set the rules more (I would not dream of trying to do so on "foreign" territory), and I choose to have a deliberately less formal or stuffy attitude - I think it helps remove some of the barriers between solicitor and client and enables the client to accept that we are on the same team.
Otherwise, I feel there is a real danger of a client treating his or her own solicitor as part of the problem - another "suit" - rather than as a friendly expert who is on their side
"Approachability" is an important quality for most professionals, and one I try to display
Sunday, 19 April 2009
"The anonymous uniform of the professionally uninterested"
That phrase caught my eye when I read it during the past week. I think it was in reference to (for example) bank employees in uniform who don't really care about customers, only about achieving their targets
Yet I think it applies more to professionals who assume that a suit is required uniform - without necessarily looking at it from their clients' point of view
For myself, I rarely wear a suit if I am staying in the office - clients tell me they prefer to see me in a sports jacket and trousers, even in shirtsleeves, and that they find dealing with suited professionals very daunting - it is another barrier to overcome
I do wear a suit (normally) if going out on appointments - something to do with being a visitor and on my best behaviour, as opposed to being "at home" and welcoming - though I have not tried to work out the psychology
Does it matter?
Yet I think it applies more to professionals who assume that a suit is required uniform - without necessarily looking at it from their clients' point of view
For myself, I rarely wear a suit if I am staying in the office - clients tell me they prefer to see me in a sports jacket and trousers, even in shirtsleeves, and that they find dealing with suited professionals very daunting - it is another barrier to overcome
I do wear a suit (normally) if going out on appointments - something to do with being a visitor and on my best behaviour, as opposed to being "at home" and welcoming - though I have not tried to work out the psychology
Does it matter?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
