Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Pleased to see our representative body Law Society jumping in to defend us. Oh wait, too busy putting out press releases by the vice president Cristina Blacklaws (but oddly enough not the president) about brexit and gender fluidity. She is no doubt too busy from her relentless game-changing to deal with something like this.

The only "cultural resistance" I can see is a cultural resistance by regulators and quangocrats who seem unable to avoid being total morons.

Still, at least she's come out with her stated goal. She feels consumers bear a risk on price (i.e. the poor souls might be asked to pay for the service they've received). She instead believes that solicitors ought to bear the risk on price.

Just think about that for a minute. There is no point saying "legal services can not be commoditised" or "it's impossible to predict" etc. They KNOW this already. They however believe the risk of unpredictability should be borne by the firm and not the client.

So that phone call "how much does it cost to witness a document", with the answer £5. When the client turns up with a stat dec with three exhibits, we should take the risk and still charge only £5.

When in fact it is an ID1 from some remote law firm doing a marital transfer of equity, you'll still be expected to do it for £5, despite the extra work involved.

When in fact it is the same ID1 and a certificate that the leaving husband has had full legal advice, you'll still be expected to do it for £5. Even though three years down the line when the wife applies for ancillary relief and wants more than just the half share the husband paid, the husband will say it's you fault for having let him sign the transfer in the first place. Even though you told him not to anyway, but he insisted "because it's all amicable".

So WHY should the provider take the risk on price? Is it because we're all swimming in so much money that market forces aren't enough to bring price down?

Is it because there is evidence of price manipulation, or consumer misleading?

Is it because we don't have a compulsory legal ombudsman they can moan to, and the right to have the bills assessed and taxed?

Answers on a postcard.

Your details

Cancel