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

Identity theft

Boys & Maughan's tips to combat ID theft are a useful, if on the whole common sense, reminder of how to avoid ID theft. One point that I had not recognised before is that company directors' full names, home addresses (usually) and signatures (often) are available from Companies House. In addition, as it happens, so are their dates of birth - useful material for a fraudster.

Another example of the way in which the online, interlinked information society works against its own security

At Nelsons Property Lawyers, we are actively working on advice to protect against property theft - watch this space for developments

The price of justice

In the Guardian today, Marcel Berlins is delighted with the Jackson Report, expecting it to drive down legal costs - of civil litigation, anyway. Maybe it will, but I think he is unfair on lawyers.

OK: legal costs are high; I don't dispute that. However, to say they are disproportionate is, often, unfair. However small the claim, the lawyer running (or defending) it is expected to be an expert in the court procedure and the relevant law - judges love criticising solicitors for getting anything wrong, and penalise them by disallowing their costs or, in extreme cases, making them paying the opponent's costs.

As you will understand, this makes litigation solicitors risk-averse: they cover all the bases, even in the smallest cases, resulting in high bills

So: if you want the costs of litigation to be proportionate, your expectations should be proportionate, too - don't expect a gold-standard service for a nickel-standard claim and you might get a nickel-standard bill.

I should mention that this opinion is relatively unbiased, as I do not handle court work myself

(Rant over!)

Three strikes and you're out - daft!

How can the government think it is fair, proportionate, feasible or right to terminate a household's Internet connection because someone using it is accused of breach of copyright?

Quite apart from the weakness of the evidence and the risk that the transgressor is piggy-backing on someone else's insecure wireless network, terminating an entire household's connection is unfair on any members not unlawfully downloading.

It is a disproportionate sanction anyway - hardly reducing social exclusion, especially as it is the poorwr sections of society who are the most like

Do lawyers milk it?

"An exact legal opinion on a claim could vary, depending on how expensive your lawyer is" - I read this recently (cannot now remember where) and thought, "How true!" Whatever the merits of a case, there will always be a lawyer willing to argue it - for a fee, of course.

In a number of cases, this seems to be just to make money or because the client insists. Two current examples:

1 Ms X's relationship with her partner broke down. She left the house he had bought and (as agreed at the outset) stopped contributing to the mortgage, etc. Despite the clear wording of the agreement they had both signed at the outset and despite the fact that my client has no money, her ex is trying to prove that she owes him for her perceived under-contribution to the household expenses, and his lawyers are writing unnecessarily complex and threatening letters to get her to pay what she does not owe and cannot afford. I have responded, pointing out that the best solution for both parties is to walk away from the collapsed relationship, but I suspect he will spend money on trying to prove he is right, even though it does him no good. Meanwhile, the lawyers are milking it

2 Mr Y had to liquidate his company two years ago when he realised he could not trade through a sudden difficult period. He is far and away the main creditor and has lost far more than all of the other creditors put together. Though the only money he took out of the company was reimbursement for proven expenses incurred on the company's behalf, he is being pursued by the liquidator, through solicitors, alleging fraudulent preference. Every few months, a letter arrives, claiming that some sequence of transactions or another is indicative of misuse of company funds. Each time, Mr Y and I go through the scant details supplied, he reaches deep into his memory and explains what he thinks the circumstances were, and I detail that to the liquidator's solicitors. It all then goes quiet but, just as I think I can archive the file, another set of accusations arrives. As far as I can see, the only purpose of this is to ensure that the liquidator's fees and his solicitors' swallow up all available funds and the creditors get nothing instead of 50% of what they are owed

A less cynical view, of course, is that lawyers are trained to consider every possibility, and as a result often make things more complicated than they need be - not deliberately or to make more money, but just because that's the way they are. Perhaps I should try to adopt this more charitable view

Home Information Packs (again!)

I know I keep banging on about this, but it is my view that a combination of inadequate consultation by government, vested interests in the property industry trying to stifle change and competition on price rather than value resulted in a huge missed opportunity. Home Information Packs, properly prepared, can be of great benefit in streamlining conveyancing, to the benefit of all concerned: buyers, sellers, agents, solicitors.

However, the crucial term is "properly prepared" - HIPs that take no account of the individual property and its idiosyncracies are almost useless - basically a waste of paper. On the other hand, a properly prepared and comprehensive HIP enables the buyer's solicitor to report on a very large part of the transaction at a very early stage, highlighting potential problems and outlining the scope of further investigations that might be needed

With a good HIP, we are usually waiting only for the draft contract and full property information form (both of which could, in my view, be included in the HIP in the same way as for an auction) or the mortgage offer (or both!) before a buyer client can exchange contracts

HIPs have the potential to do almost everything the government claimed for them, but they need to be properly prepared, not prepared on the basis of the cheapest that complies with the regulations.

I have revisited this subject because Rob Hailstone of HIPAG (Home Information Pack Action Group) fame is forming The Bold Group to campaign for "proper HIPs", and so I have been stirred to post again

Will the Tories scrap HIPs?

Comment from Rob Hailstone of HIPAG -

"Grant Shapps has recently reiterated his intention to "scrap" Hips. What he hasn't said publicly, is whether he will amend or replace them. However, the Conservatives have made it clear that they want to improve the home buying and selling process. It is therefore, highly unlikely that Mr Shapps will allow us to go back to the home buying and selling process, as it was, pre Hips.

"When the Conseravatives held their own home buying and selling review last year it was made clear to them, by Owen Inskip and Kirstie Allsopp, that whatever format the Hip eventually takes, providing 'information up front' will be essential. As an ex conveyancer I believe we should build on the developments made over the last few years so that creating a property legal pack, that is as 'exchange ready' as possible, should become standard practice.

"It has to be accepted that the political situation is not as clear as it was a while ago, the Conservatives winning with a safe majority is not a forgone conclusion. Mr Shapps might not even become Housing Minister and scrapping Hips will probably be way down the Conservatives 'to do' list, after Afghanistan, the economy, health, education etc. Some pundits now forecast a March election but it would appear that the safe money is still on an election in May.

"Whatever the outcome politically, I believe that Hips will either be with us for a while or any worthwhile replacement pack will still require the involvement of a good Hip provider and a local solicitor/conveyancer."

For what it is worth, I agree completely!