Conveyancing Quality Scheme picks up speed - will it work?

Well, it's been a busy month out and about reminding people who I am, what I do, and why they should recommend me to their clients, but finally the light is dawning and the market seems to be gently improving.  Of particular interest to me this month is the Law Society's new Conveyancing Quality Scheme (see here: http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/productsandservices/accreditation/conveyancingqualityscheme.page) which is causing quite a stir amongst property lawyers.  The idea is to further regulate conveyancing lawyers with a new kind of kitemark and in order to obtain this accreditation, firms are required to fill in enormously complicated forms, credit, fraud and CRB check anyone involved with the work, and promise to stick to a new code of client care (amongst other things).  Whilst well received by some organisations - for example the Conveyancing Association (see their press release here:

http://www.theconveyancingassociation.co.uk/pdfs/20101020%20Response%20to%20LS%20CQS.pdf) and some property practices (check out the view from Arc Property Solicitors here:

http://www.arcpropertysolicitors.com/blog/conveyancing-quality-scheme-conveyancing-kitemark/) there are also those (many of whom who prefer not to be quoted!) who have commented that this is just another administrative burden for them: they know how to do their jobs, they are SRA regulated in any case and there will always be the prudent many fighting to prevent damage being done by the negligent few.  Of particular concern to those of us in practice is the lack of formal statement by the Council of Mortgage Lenders confirming they will require practices to be members of the scheme to retain their panel membership (and thus be able to act for both purchaser and borrower in a property purchase) but the very potent rumour that they are likely to insist upon it eventually.  The difficulties encountered by small firms with panel membership are already pushing some to breaking point: how with this development affect them?

 

Despite the criticisms levelled at the new Scheme, with the support of all major lending institutions and insurers, it is likely to become well known in the coming year and in particular once the Law Society begin their public campaign, designed to reassure clients (as well as lenders who have expressed increasing concerns about rising property fraud in the last eighteen months) that higher standards are being enforced across the profession.  For a firm quoting the same cost in legal fees the difference in winning an instruction could, in the future, be the addition of this quality standard on their notepaper and website. Clients sometimes need all the reassurance they can get.

 

At the risk of sounding like an old duffer, I do think that any initiative that attempts to raise standards and weed out those firms providing a poor service and inadequate legal advice has got to be a good thing in principle.  Clients want to know that they can trust the advice they are being given, and that a reputable organisation (like the Law Society) is behind those professionals that they are dealing with.  Together with the new Legal Ombudsman, I would say this is more "power to the people".  If clients are not happy dealing with a firm not part of the Scheme - they won't have to - although somewhere along the line I suspect they will be made to cover the cost of this latest intervention into our practice standards.