There’s a price to pay for slashing costs
You’d have thought that, after writing about legal services for so long, I’d know better than to jump at the cheapest offer when it came to my turn. Sadly not.
Recently I completed a housing transaction with a pile ‘em high, sell ‘em cheap online conveyancer. Wooed by a razzmatazz website and fixed-fee offering, I secured a cool £100 discount on the local solicitor’s quote. What could possibly go wrong?
As it turns out, quite a lot. Phones went unanswered, correspondence was unattributed and an extra, unforeseen, cost thrown in halfway through the transaction.
By all accounts, it’s a familiar tale and the Legal Ombudsman this week spotted the trend. In his report for the annual review, chief ombudsman Adam Sampson noted how price competition had steered some firms’ behaviour from ‘cheap and cheerful’ to ‘cheap and shoddy’.
Too many law firms are promising what they can’t deliver, cutting corners and making unrealistic offers on cost. Consumers are being lead on to think they’re getting a bargain when it fact their case is being put at risk by the rush to the bottom. I don’t deny there are firms that don’t perform exactly as they promise (though there are plenty more offering an excellent service I’m sure).
But why are consumers making such ill-informed judgements? Why are they rushing to the discount aisle like shoppers crowding round the nearly-out-of-date items in a supermarket?
Could it be anything to do with the drip-drip endorsement of fixed-fee offerings by the Legal Ombudsman himself?
In March, Sampson told the Guardian that with ‘cheaper, more predictable pricing, one of the key barriers between citizens and legal service will be removed’. At the time he warned that new providers were coming to the market with a new pricing structure that would blow traditional firms out of the market.
In the same month, Elisabeth Davies, chair of the Legal Service Consumer Group, advised consumers to ‘shop around for the best deal’.
Of course, the last thing Sampson and Davies would want is to see a reduction in standards, and, to be fair, both have consistently told consumers to ask questions as well as hunt for bargains. But at the moment lawyers are being given conflicting advice.
On the one hand, firms have to slash their prices and compete with the likes of the Co-op, whilst on the other they’re being warned not to reduce the level of service.
If consumers want to pay less, that’s their right. But inevitably they may have to pay the price in the end.
Follow John on Twitter
More News blogs
- Woolwich, crime and mental health
- Privatising the courts
- ‘Christmas tree’ bills
- AXA says what we all think on referral fees
- Airports: four decades of cancellations is enough
- Bringing back the death penalty
- Judicial tension over costs budgeting
- Britain’s fragile legal legacy
- Facebook and flexible friends
- ‘Going to court was worse than the abuse’
- Our only certainty is uncertainty
- UKIP’s law and justice policy
- Lord Judge and eternal vigilance
- A blow to EL claims
- SRA right to raid compensation fund - for now at least
- The yes and no of Scottish independence
- APIL can celebrate survival, if little else
- Grayling achieves the impossible
- Rise in small-claims limit may be good for litigants
- The problem with the language judges use
- Criminal legal aid: what now?
- Has ending compulsory retirement been good?
- Insurers use referral fee ban to feather their own nests
- Treatment of whistleblowers
- Police deserve fair play, too
- This judgment is sponsored by Budweiser
- Cruel springtime for justice
- Firms are getting cold feet over DBAs


Comments
cheap v expensive
It's a simple concept really; if you want the honeymoon suite in the boutique hotel, with private jacuzzi and breakfast in bed, you pay ££££, if you can't afford that, you go for a package holiday, pay £££ and expect a clean but basic apartment on a self catering basis with access to a shared pool. People don't pay the latter and expect the former.
Some people fly BA, others no frills Easyjet. Some shop at Waitrose, some at Lidl. It's a question of knowing what you're supposed to be getting for your money.
This is perhaps the dificulty with legal services. Maybe solicitors ought to put in big bold letters that their discounted service means a limited service; that the basic job will be completed but only covers essential calls and emails/letters as determined by the solicitor or x number of calls / emails/letters. I can see the client crying out, "hang on, what if I feel confused about something unexpected that the buyer has raised during my conveyanace and I need to discuss it with you and get your advice? What if something unforeseen crops up in respect of the property I am buying and there is a problem with the land registry documents or planning permission etc". The answer is, that's fine, we can assist but it will cost extra. It's like putting another item in your trolley.
Why should the solicitor saying they would need to charge more be different in principle to the person on the Easyjet flight deciding they want the inflight meal after all and want to take heavier baggage and so are asked to pay a supplement for those?
Legal services work is not 100% predictable, even in the most supposedly commoditisable areas, and this is where it differs from other goods and services. However, the principle that the cost of providing a certain level of service, even before the unknowns creap in, still stands.
cheap v value
Unfortunately high volume legal services just appear to be another market where 'cheap' is often confused with 'value'. As most consumers will buy only a handful of homes over a lifetime perhaps it's no surprise that there is a level of ignorance about the complexity of even the simplest transaction.
The most recent private transaction I carried out was the sale of a single residential plot 100 miles from home. I'm not sure an online conveyancer could have coped with the multiple titles, defective title, potential Chancel repair issue, easements, right of way and wayleave diversion. My local high street solicitor performed admirably, and quickly. I could sit down and see her whenever I wanted to and my calls were answered same day.
You ask why so many consumers make uninformed judgements? The answer is in the question really. My slight advantage when approaching a private sale is 15 years of commercial property transactions as a surveyor.
All solicitors can really do about this is continue to educate consumers, use real life case studies and ask satisfied clients for referrals. Sadly most solicitors I've come across are appalling at asking for the latter - even thought referrals are generally very freely given.
The problem is that clients
The problem is that clients want a high quality bespoke service, but are only prepared to pay for a cheap no frills one.
Shop around
The advice to "shop around" is idiotic. Yes, you can shop around for the cheapest lettuce, because you know what lettuce looks like. But most people have no idea what legal services look like: they would not know how to judge a competent solicitor from an incompetent one. A sophisticated commercial client may well be able to shop around effectively, but the average man in the street can only hope to establish which solicitor will do the job more cheaply than the others. And it does not take a a genius to know that, if you pay peanuts, you may well be getting a fixed-price monkey.
Well, that's what a market
Well, that's what a market provides-all sorts of quality of service, at all sorts of price.
It is what our rulers (including people like Sampson) wanted, it's what they've got. Pity we can't have a market in bureaucrats but unfortunately we have to pay for a poor product at premium prices.
It remains to be seen if all
It remains to be seen if all these new providers will want to slog it out with solicitors offering cheapo legal services. Corporations are going to find it very difficult to undercut sole practitioners operating from home and doing their own typing.