Report comment

Anonymous @10.14 AM - The point is that the panel has clearly paid no attention to whether what it recommends is possible and if so how helpful it will be in bringing transparency or clarity.

The point is that we are asked, first and foremost, to advise. The client has a problem and seeks our help in resolving it. We advise what options are available and the costs of those.

What the panel's recommendation does is to ignore the nature of the job; that the client is not to be expected to know what they want/need before receiving the advice. Many have problems they did not see coming which require particular approach (eg a client for a "straightforward will" might have a disabled child, requiring advice as to the potential problem and the relatively complex provisions to put in place to deal with it).

I could probably list a menu of 40 or 50 different charges which could feasibly become relevant to a "simple will" instruction. I could probably put a figure on each and stick it in our front window. I could probably do the same in a "simple divorce" and a "simple conveyance" and in all the other "consumer"-type areas. But what clarity and transparency would the 10-page booklet that would generate bring to the client?

We are under duties to be clear on costs, and as others have pointed out have an ombudsman quite willing to hold us to those duties. Perhaps the SRA need to knuckle down on this more - I don't know, because I can't see that anyone, including the LSCP, have done any research which proves that clients are dissatisfied on any significant scale - all the LSCP's research seems to be concerned with cheapness and nothing else.