Public need protection from so-called ‘legal advisers’

The deceased, let’s call him Jim, didn’t like solicitors. Thought they took too long, charged too much and ripped you off.

So when he wanted advice on how best to deal with his will and inheritance tax issues, he chose to go to a firm of 'legal advisers' who suggested he set up a trust, write a will, and thereby achieve the best arrangements for his widow and extended family. This would also save tax.

He agreed to pay £7,000 for this work, and was satisfied by the documents produced which seemed to him to be in order.

Only they weren’t. Not the tax advice. Nor the trust advice or document. Nor the Land Registry transfers. Nor the will. Nor the estate account. Nor the Probate Return.

All wrong.

And now Jim’s poor widow is embroiled in a court case with the extended family and faces a potential tax bill which should have been paid at the date of transferring any assets into the trust.

The widow and the extended family both have solicitors now, who agree on one issue – this mess has been caused by the negligent and ignorant work by the 'legal advisers'.

But they are unregulated. They are not required to be insured. And running as a limited company, able to liquidate in the face of any serious claim against them.

And yet Jim died believing they had done a good job, because how would he know different?

The Legal Services Board has recently conducted a survey on client satisfaction on legal work by unregulated suppliers.

At the latest Sole Practitioners’ Conference, the Legal Services Board told us that clients had reported a high level of satisfaction with unregulated suppliers of trust and probate work.

But who did they ask?

The client - now deceased - knew no more than he had a tidy document, which he was advised would achieve his aims. He had no idea if the advice or the documents were correct – it is his poor beneficiaries who find out after his death and have to deal with the fall out.

If the work had been done by a solicitor, there would be recourse to regulatory complaint and insurance funds to compensate and correct the situation.

If not – the resulting mess has to faced and dealt with by the executors and beneficiaries at huge expense and distress.

This does not apply only to probate and trust work.

In the family court, I have seen 'Mackenzie friends' egging parents on to totally unhelpful attitudes and submissions causing increased animosity and court hearings. For which, of course, these unqualified individuals are frequently being paid.

And my conveyancing colleagues regularly complain about having to do the work for the other party if there is anything slightly outside the standard transaction and the other side is represented by unqualified staff acting off a set crib sheet.

The Law Society must step up its campaign on this issue for the benefit of members and the public.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority should publicise the risks of unregulated and uninsured advisers to protect the public.

And the Legal Services Board should carry out its survey again – but ask those who live to experience the results of the advice whether they are satisfied.

By definition, the original client cannot know if the plans he paid for actually work after his death!

Penny Raby is a family lawyer, the previous chair of the Sole Practitioners’ Group and currently executive committee member and conference director