In-Deed set to buy high street firms
A property legal company has revealed its intention to buy up high street firms.
In-Deed, launched this year by Rightmove founder Harry Hill (pictured), will use the £4.5m secured through an Alternative Investment Market flotation in June to secure ownership of high street firms, build its brand and expand beyond conveyancing.
Further money-raising moves are being planned for 2012. Firms on the company's radar will have to be 'successful and profitable provincial legal practices', preferably with established residential conveyancing departments.
Hill, former chief executive of estate agent Countrywide, said: 'We're making great progress in building a national conveyancing brand and the next logical step is to establish a strong presence on the high street.
'This will allow us to continue to build our customer base nationwide and begin widening our legal service offering beyond conveyancing.
'We intend to be selective about firms we invest in and, in line with our mission to offer outstanding customer service in a market not currently noted for this.'
In-Deed was founded in May and claims to simplify the legal process for buying a house working on a no-completion, no-fee basis.
Comments
"Estate agent" and
"Estate agent" and "outstanding customer service"?
"Estate agent" and "outstanding customer service"
http://www.solicitor.info/solicitors/solicitor.php?id=1137&name=Countrywide%20Property%20Lawyers
Ha ha, here comes the Xmas turkey
'nough said.
This, I think is the start of
This, I think is the start of the *real* emergence of ABSs onto the market.
The phony war started with QS and CLS.
Quality Solicitors is just another Claims Management Company, nothing more, nothing less (although it's pet propaganda outfit, the Gazette tries to suggest otherwise).
Co-op Legal Services will just be an expansion of what they already do, i.e. call-centre type set up based in Bristol, with a churn 'em in, churn 'em out, style of working - albeit come next July they will no doubt cross sell heavily into their branches, etc.
But now the real battle for the High Street has begun ...
All sounds very exciting to me.
I agree with DorncCoop - except Coop are already cross-selling in other outlets. I did see a (poor) joke doing the rounds on Twitter
Shop assistant - "Did you know we also do legal services?"
Customer - "great I've just killed my granny"
Only a matter of time until the likes of Coop and QS are taken more seriously by the profession and the public at large.
He's mad... kissing frogs?
He's got to be mad. Other reports mention a comment about 'kissing lots of frogs to find a prince'.
Mr. Hill, that's from a childrens fairy tale, there are NO Princes, no matter how many frogs you kiss. And the same goes for solicitors firms you'll make a return on, none!
Do the maths.
How many will £4.5 Million actually buy? If we say that they buy out small practitioners (ie sole practitioners and two partner firms) and they pay on average £50,000 per business (very cheap), they will be buying 90 firms. If, say they pay £200,000 each for 10 partner firms (very cheap), then they buy 22 firms. The maths simply say that this is a minnoiw operation. Are they going to make a profit on these firms? Probably not, even by cross selling.
If they get half way between
If they get half way between the two, i.e. 56 firms, spread nationwide then:-
They will get the goodwill, WIP and working capital of 56 firms.
They will get the local advertising spend of each of the 56 firms.
They will have a brand known nationwide. Ever heard of John Lewis, or House of Fraser? How many branches do they have?
They will make QS look like the muppets they are, and they will encourage economic activity into the high street, which can only be good for anyone offering a service that clients want.
Big deal
56 out of over 3000. Big deal. What is that. Just under 2% and they will have to buy rubbish if they are to get so many firms.
Scary Picture
I was too frightened by the photo to read the article!
You've been framed
you won't buy many 'successful and profitable provincial legal practices" with a fighting fund £4.5M especially if you want to give them all a flashy rebrand
Acquisitions
One assumes that people leaving comments on this site are, in the main, lawyers. If so, the editorial content of several is "disappointing".
In-Deeds shareholders indicated when we floated the business (oversubscribed) that they supported our plans and were not averse the idea (in truth before the Greek and Italian situations) of subscribing more cash if and when required-so one should not assume that our buying power is necessarily limited to £4.5m if we can seek out excellent opportunities on their behalf.
Harry Hill
In-Deed Online plc
Welcome to our nightmare
Harry, you've got a lot to learn. Most profitable high street firms are IFAs and then Estate Agents. Solicitors come third, because our fees have been consistently undermined. You must look at the overheads before you go into this market. They are huge. Also, buying up parts of businesses, as you have told several legal publications you will do, runs the risk of constant disputes with those solicitors running firms you have bought. You will not have the protection that the judiciary have afforded the SRA and will soon be mired in litigation. You are coming into a world full of nightmares not a world of profits.
Nothing new here. Just free
Nothing new here. Just free advertising, so well done to that business - well not that well done as the public won't see it or care.
Fees Undermined
Dear Anon,
By whom, do you believe, have lawyer's fees been undermined?
HH
Dear Harry, I'm not the anon
Dear Harry,
I'm not the anon you refer to -but as you know fees were undermined by lawyers themselves, unlike estate agents who had much more sense than to drive fees down and sensibly stuck to percentage fees!
Anyway all the best with your venture-a bit of commercial reality is what's needed in the legal profession-I hope you provide it.
regards
a solicitor who wished he could have done what you want to
So have I understood this
So have I understood this correctly?
Solicitors who undermined their own fees in conveyancing (and were pressured by others in the commercial arena to do so in return for being supplied with work) are not being client focused and are not providing "outstanding customer service".
And estate agents who underpinned a much higher level of fee on a percentage basis, automatically increased via rising house prices over the last three decades, ARE being client focused and "providing outstanding customer service"?
Have I also correctly understood that Solicitors employed by estate agents in the future will not have any pressure place upon them not to advise their clients that they do not have to accept the offer of mortgage lending via the estate agents' preferred business partner, and that they may obtain a better cheaper loan elsewhere, more suited to their individual circumstances, and avoid hefty commission/referral fee payments, by obtaining independent financial advice?
Or will such solicitors have their independence and professional and legal duty compromised by the requirements of their employer?
I'd be interested in your views Mr Hill (seriously).
Harry Hill is commercially
Harry Hill is commercially oriented.
Solicitors were professionally oriented-in other words their ethos was to look after the best interests of the client first. That is very laudable but the Law Society and the SRA (together wth the government of both political hues) decided that professionalism is no longer wanted.
There is little point blaming Harry Hill for understanding the commercial realities and seeking to utilise them. The blame lies with the Law Society and the SRA for not standing up for professionalism. In particular, the SRA has done its utmost to destroy the profession and promote the "commercial approach".
Of course, it will result in a much less beneficent regime for clients, as did "Big Bang" with banking, selling will be the ethos (whether best for the client or not). But lots of money will be made before the inevitable disaster (just as with banking).
So whilst supporting your general criticism, the reality is otherwise. Again, the fault lies with the Law Society, who positively encourage the destruction of the profession, and the surrender to "marketing" rather than substance.
Tame solicitors for estate
Tame solicitors for estate agents is the last thing that is needed. Besides in places like Cambridge where property prices are high there are only a handful of high street firms left with established residential conveyancing departments. Most have merged into very large regional firms and will be off target for Mr Hill.
I'm not in practice so a lot
I'm not in practice so a lot of what has actually been happening on the high street has only caught my attention peripherally or anectdotally.
I am though in the process of exploring the possibility of selling my house and hence have been talking to estate agents.
One, a local branch of one of the national chains, offered to introduce me to "their solicitors". I explored this a little and discovered the firm in question are not solicitors at all but licensed conveyancers. Given that my potential transaction will involve a deal of estate planning including trusts, wills etc, I demurred saying I would prefer "proper lawyers" and I was well placed to chose my own advisor.
This did not meet with favour and the pimpled youth (honestly he didn't look old enough to be out on his own) who started to explain how much easier everything would be if I used "their solicitors" (he still hadn't understood the firm he was pushing are not solicitors). I continued to resist at which he became almost threatening trying to explain that the transaction would probably fail if I didn't use his firm.
I was enjoying myself now (having decided never to darken his door again) and asked if his firm would receive a referral fee and if it did how much of that he would pass on to me. He started to splutter somewhat and said nothing, as if I did I would be making a profit. I explained that as his conveyancer presumably did not whistle money up out of thin air the only way they could pay him a referral fee was by charging it (hidden or otherwise) back to me and it was only fair that I should get my money back.
By now I was struggling not to laugh out loud so I brought the conversation to an end and walked out on to our happily still traditional high street past the independent optician, butcher and baker.
The point of this is not to tell how I enjoy the sport of estate agent taunting (probably soon to be banned along with bull baiting, cock fighting and contested scrums) but to ponder what might have happened if I had not been a grizzled old cynic but an ill infomed first time buyer. I rather suspect the conveyancer would have got the instructions, the estate agent the referral fee and another nail would have been banged into the coffin of an indepedent legal profession. It will only get worse once Mr Hill and his ilk own solcitors firms.
Too late! The profession lost
Too late! The profession lost its independence when the Law Society Council allowed the payment of referral fees-contrary to the will of the vast majority of the profession.
a local branch of one of the national chains, offered to introdu
Absolutely agree with your comments.
So many suckers get sucked in to the useless conveyancers being offered to them as you might have done..
But brand names will bring no improvement, so I wish someone would come along and really come up with a good idea to make quality (not in name please!) stand out over the rubbish.
Since when was it part of a
Since when was it part of a Solicitors job to advise a client on the merits of their mortgage? We are not Financial Advisors...
Even if we did, the delay caused by a fresh mortgage appln., new fees etc. would very often be a good reason for the client to ignore said "advice"...
Advising clients of the
Advising clients of the availability of independent financial advice and its potential benefits is clearly not providing financial advice.
The potential disadvantages to the speed/progress of the transaction pointed out by Arthur N can easily and briefly explained to any client.
The client can then decide whether to proceed, or not, as the case may be.
What can possibly be objectionable about that?
Unless, of course, the client has been referred by a third party who has an interest in the financial arrangements going ahead, and who may not be so bountiful in referring future clients if it doesn't?
Being commercially oriented should not mean abandoning the duty to always put clients interests before anyone else's - whatever the SRA says.
Don't explain it to us, we
Don't explain it to us, we already know! Explain it to the SRA-and best of luck because they won't take the blindest bit of notice, except probably to target you for investigation.
I too have been targeted by
I too have been targeted by aggressive estate agents wanting the legal work on the sale and purchase of my home. I instructed Right Move to market my property, and crossed out the section of the contract giving permission to be contacted by their licenced conveyancers. Despite this they still thought they had the right to contact me to try to sell their services.
Dear Harry Hill
I find In-Deed's approach to improving service levels, transparency and the overall conveyancing experience a laudable one. I hope it works.
However, I cannot help but feel you are missing a trick. The fact that the greater majority of buyers and sellers take a Solicitor recommendation from an agent (60%, 70%? - what does your research say?) is crazy.
Aside from the fact that the lion's share of fees is paid to the agent by way of referral, there is a clear (never clearer) conflict of interests. How can a buyer possibly guarantee an impartial solicitor investigation of title when it is the agents hand feeding the solicitor?
The consumer is simply not getting the right advice at the right time from the right people.
Forget own goal PR like 'Gazanging' and the 'Ageing effects of moving' (both of which erode market con