Conveyancers should be free to act for both sides, consumer panel says
The Legal Services Consumer Panel has called for the Solicitors Regulation Authority to scrap the conduct provisions that prevent a solicitor from acting for both seller and purchaser, and for both lender and borrower in a conveyancing transaction.
Responding to the SRA’s current consultation on its new handbook, which seeks views on the current provisions, the consumer panel said they should be removed, and consumers should instead be protected by the general conflict rule.
The panel, which was set up by the Legal Services Board to advise it on the interests of consumers, said there should be safeguards in place to ensure that lawyers understand their responsibilities when acting for both sides, and that they deliver informed consumer choice.
However, it noted that allowing one solicitor to act for both sides could ‘minimise inconvenience caused by exchanges of correspondence and reduce avoidable cost’.
In its consultation response, the panel pointed out that licensed conveyancers had ‘long been permitted to act for both sides, apparently without any problems’.
Under the SRA’s favoured approach, solicitors would still not be permitted to act for both parties if they identify a substantive client conflict of interest. However, removing the detailed provisions is intended to give solicitors more flexibility to act for both sides where there is no conflict. Client consent would be required before the solicitor can act for both sides.
The consumer panel said any change to the rules should be based on evidence. It called on the SRA to conduct research into whether the rule change would affect public confidence. It said the SRA should also ascertain how many sales have fallen through as a result of issues discovered by the conveyancer, as this could be an indicator of how frequently conflicts occur.
The consumer panel’s view broadly followed that expressed by the National Consumer Council in 2007 when the SRA issued a previous consultation on the issue.
Comments
another nonsensical review!!!
Why advise the SRA to conduct research, the cost will inevitably be passed onto the individual solicitor through PC fees.
The above article already highlights the fact that the 'not so over burdened, over-regulated, less scrutinised' licensed conveyancers are already permitted to conduct such matters.
Putting 'conflict' aside, acting for both clients is more cost effective to all parties concerned... one can envisage a unique competitive marketing strategy arising from licensed conveyancers over solicitors in this particular area of expertise.
On a slightly different note, Panorama on the BBC earlier in the week exposed the highly lucrative market of wills and probate... this area needs further discussion and safeguarding within the legal profession, other than what was reported on the programme it begs the question, "why become a solicitor?"
Conveyancing: acting for both sides
Conflict will likely be rare indeed in relation to "pure" real estate title issues. It's all the ancillary stuff that's bound up in the [mainly domestic] conveyancing package - especially leaseholds - that's likely to be more troublesome: and, perhaps paradoxically, attract the greater focus from the client. WHO sets the "rules" about costs if conflict results in a solicitor saying he can't continue to act and/or the client terminating the retainer 'cos he considers the solicitor is sufficiently conflicted and unable to advise impartially? And how does that slot in with "no completion/no fee?" The average client is unlikely to be up to thinking about such matters, especially if he thinks/ is led to believe he's saving money by "sharing" the services of the one adviser.