New conveyancing protocol

According to Clutton Cox, they were one of only 12 firms to respond to the consultation by the Law Society on its new conveyancing protocol: http://goo.gl/uhpYh

As I also responded, that means only 10 others throughout the country did - what a disappointment

What is also disappointing is that the Law Society has not included in the scheme a requirement for member firms to (for instance) adopt the Law Society's Code for Completion by Post - and a lot do not seem to know what the Code says, but decline to adopt it anyway - nor to update their repetitive raft of property information forms so as to produce a single, well-drafted form for clients to complete

Instead, they are duplicating some of the supervisory functions of the Solicitors Regulation Authority and concentrating on telling lenders, insurers and anyone that will listen that a good conveyancer should be part of the scheme - despite the fact that it is only open to solicitors, not licensed conveyancers. Presumably this is to get lenders and insurers to insist on firms joining if they are to be on lenders' panels and get insurance cover, thus ensuring jobs for those at the Law Society with no improvement in efficiency or protection for the benefit of clients

Ahhh! What it is to be so cynical!

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

"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?