Law Society fights conveyancing deregulation

The Law Society is set to take a far harder line with the government over the deregulation of conveyancing services after receiving feedback from the solicitors' profession.

The second draft of the Society's response to the Lord Chancellor's Department's In the Public Interest consultation paper expressly opposes the introduction of authorised conveyancing practitioners (ACPs); in the first draft, the Society did not oppose it in principle.

ACPs, along with authorised probate practitioners (APPs), could be introduced by the government activating provisions in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, allowing banks, building societies and others to offer these services.

Following a special meeting of its ruling council last week to consider the second draft, the Society is set to say that opening up conveyancing could hit high street firms hard and harm access to justice.

Also, price competition is not an issue given the level of fees, it will say, while there seems little demand for alternatives.

The complexity and cost of setting up a regulatory framework for ACPs would be difficult and costly, the Society will argue.

The Society will say that the only safe way to open up conveyancing services to non-solicitor bodies is through allowing employed solicitors to offer their services directly to the public.

This would be through a ring-fenced incorporated entity to ensure consumer protection.

However, the Society is set to say in its response - being completed this week - that government 'should carry out further research before taking final decisions even on the incorporated solicitors' practice route because of the dangers to the high street, rural firms and to access to justice'.

This line followed concerns expressed by many council members that the ring-fenced model was being pushed too hard.

Michael Garson, who represents residential conveyancers on the council, said his constituency was 'far more comfortable' with the second draft.

Feedback the Society received as part of its own consultation on the first draft indicated that 95% of conveyancers expected to suffer some loss if the market were opened up.

A quarter said it would lead their firms either to close or to seek a merger.

The figures were not quite as high for probate solicitors.

Otherwise, the Society's response has stayed largely the same: opposing APPs; calling for solicitor-led multi-disciplinary partnerships; defending legal professional privilege; and recommending replacing the QC system with an accreditation scheme without the involvement of the government.

A survey of 580 consumers conducted ahead of the council meeting showed that 84% expressed satisfaction with solicitors' services (53% were very satisfied).

Just 10% were expressly dissatisfied.

Respondents showed strong support for seeing solicitors in a traditional office; with little support for solicitors employed in supermarkets, banks or estate agents.

This peaked at 16% for conveyancing and faulty goods/services advice, but was just 7% for wills and probate services.

Neil Rose