Despite 26 years of good service, we have recently suffered the blow of withdrawal of our conveyancing panel membership by Lloyds Banking Group. We are obviously taking immediate steps to seek the rescission of this decision.

It is important for firms to appreciate that, according to the Law Society, Lloyds plans a further reduction in their panel membership on volume grounds in the not-too-distant future. All small high street firms are, therefore, at considerable threat from this development.

This development also raises wider issues. When Lloyds Banking Group was created, the then government waived the competition requirements due to the parlous position of HBOS. Is it right that such a dominant player within the conveyancing market should now abuse its market power to reshape the conveyancing market by effectively taking small firms out? What does this say about consumer choice?

Forty-one per cent of Lloyds Banking Group is owned by the taxpayer. Is this redefinition of the conveyancing market really in line with government policy? It seems to be completely against its policy of encouraging small businesses.

The reason put forward for this step is ‘low volume’. We are a tightly organised, closely controlled firm with a good negligence and complaints record and good response to client satisfaction questionnaires. We would strongly question the evidence that ‘low volume’ leads to greater risk of fraud and/or negligence. Am I the only person who thinks that the real reason behind this development is to give Lloyds access to the referral fees paid for volume conveyancing business by the larger ‘conveyancing factories’? Am I the only solicitor who thinks that this decision by Lloyds may be planned by them to shape the conveyancing market for their own financial benefit?

It would appear that high street conveyancing solicitors are to be one of the people to pay the price for the well-documented failures of the bankers.

Although the Law Society has provided welcome advice, it appears to be unable to do anything more proactive about this restriction of consumer choice by large providers within the conveyancing sector. The requirement of volume to belong to a conveyancing panel also changes the delicate professional balance in such cases. Are consumers best served by solicitors who are literally in the pockets of the banks?

What, therefore, are we to do as conveyancing solicitors affected by these developments? I have written personally to each of my affected clients inviting them to complain in the strongest possible terms to this organisation. I also intend to encourage them when placing their mortgage business to look to organisations which allow proper consumer choice for legal representation; rather than organisations such as Lloyds. I and the current partners of this firm intend to withdraw their personal assets from this organisation and place them with organisations which respect the business model that we have run successfully for the past 26 years.

Other affected solicitors may wish to do likewise.

David Johnston, Clifford Johnston & Co, Manchester