‘Titanic battle’ predicted as ABS processing begins

This so called battle of the 'established order' versus the 'established brand' is the perennial conflict in every sector of business when changes in regulation are initiated. One can only hope that the winners, I use the plural with quiet optimism, is the best at servicing the legal needs of the general populace.

Profit is the ultimate goal for any successful business. However, the path to that goal is the defining factor. There is the pile-em-high-sell-em-cheap model and there is the achieve-maximum-profit-through-excellent-customer-service model. They both have their merits depending on the nature of the business. I for one would hope that legal services is delivered through the latter model. I am not against profit by any means but I hope that the SRA would be judicious in vetting each applicant and that there would be future safeguards placed upon the successful applicant so that the public is receiving the best possible legal service.

These are interesting times we live in.

I think as a minimum most solicitors would at least appreciate a level playing field, not in terms of economic power, but in proper regulation consistently. There hasn't been a level playing field for many years, maybe this is an opportunity to at least give the average solicitor a chance to survive if not thrive.

@thelawmap

Yes, but this is a heavily regulated industry. It is not sellng clothes where you have a choice between trying to sell shoes made by an Italian designer for £800 each, or getting a containerfull made by eight year old in a Bangladeshi village and selling them for £8 each.

The product is the same. There is only one product. If it is conveyancing, let's say, there is only one product and that is the sale / purchase being done properly. It isn't possible to say "oh we do conveyancing on a 'Primark' basis, so it only costs you £50 plus VAT, but we give a miss to doing local searches as they're a waste of time".

Neither is it possible to say "We do charge £3,500 plus VAT for a freehold sale, and the same for a purchase, but we do it better than others" - the regulations do not permit this.

So what can the new entrants to the market do to make profit? It seems to me it has absolutely zero to do with "customer service" or "improving standards". It comes down to three things.

Firstly, they can spend more on "marketing", pay bribes (sorry, "referral fees"), give backhanders, and see how far they can lie to "customers" and get away with it ("oh, we're sorry, we didn't mean to say that, it was our media spokeswoman getting the wrong end of the stick")

Secondly, they can rip clients off, and charge them for unnecessary services, or charge "extra" for things that would be ordinarily included. (or to put it how an ABS will describe it "cross-sell" products that are of interest and leverage added value to the consumer market place)

Thirdly, they can charge their services out at "solicitor" rates, whilst actually providing the service using unskilled workers. There is a growing army of ex-public sector administrative employees, who can work shifts / part-time / whatever, who can be sat behind a desk and told to press buttons on the computer and read back what the computer says. They would happily do the job for £13,000 a year.

Most solicitors would not want to do the above even if they could, as that is not what they came into the profession for. A syndicate of shareholders needing to maximise profit couldn't give three flying ..... and would happily do all the above and more, under the supportive guidance of the SRA.

So it's not about a "level playing field". It is about highlighting to the public that these new entrants are not solicitors, and pushing that hard. Of course the most depressing thing is that OUR representative body is in six weeks time going to be THEIR representative body!!!!

We need to fight back and educate the public. Yes these clowns may do a good job in some cases, and the chances of a mistake a rare. Solicitors also make mistakes. But would you trust something important to somebody who three months ago was selling timeshares in Spain?

I have seldom heard anything so snobbish and patronising as the so-called third option presented in the previous blog. If that is going to be the approach of some solicitors to ABSs then they deserve to go under. And perhaps go and sell time shares in Spain.

I doubt it.

Quality should conquer quantity, although market forces will likely determine the winners.

Submitted by Nicola Matheson-Durrant on Sat, 07/01/2012 - 15:17.

The 'traditional' legal services sector still just dont get it, do they? Neither does any company who really believes that paying a huge licence fee, aka 'funding that old and tired club', and subjecting themselves to another layer of regulators is really going to make them money, and going to tempt the general public. You have got to be kidding. No-one ever did re-float the Titanic, did they? Think about it! LOL!

I don't think you've quite got the idea.

Nobody in their right mind truly believes that the "new" providers will ACTUALLY provide a better service. As you point out, they can't.

But provided the "consumer" (not client) is led to believe the service will be better, then things will be fine, won't they? And if they're not, well tough, because what was there before will have gone. Which presumably was the point anyway!