Report comment

I think a fundamental point is being missed here: these transparency principles are about ensuring that the consumer (still hate that reference as a preference to client) is able to determine conclusively that they got what they paid for or better.
If a consumer wants a solicitor of more than five years experience dealing with their house purchase or handling their mother's estate then that is what they should get and pay for.
All that is required to make this work for solicitors is to make clear that to engage X to do this will cost you £ because their experience matches or exceeds your requirements.
This requires a culture shift from:
"stand over there while we do the work...no there...right in the corner...we'll tell you when we're done...and we'll tell you what to pay" to a more consumer orientated:
"If you want Gladys who has experience of X Y and Z it will cost you £ but if you use Gertie over there she'll give you the penguin and it'll only cost you £"
Thus it will be for the consumer to decided whether they want a junior paralegal doing their work or a solicitor of 10, 20, 30 years experience, not the firm; and there should be less of fronting matters with an experienced solicitor only to have an over the weekend paralegal doing the work for the price; which is what critics of conveyancing sheds have been squawking about for years isn't it?
I do think though that the SRA should be transparent that it intends such transparency only for "retail" or high street firms and not "merchant" or magic circle firms as the latter are very unlikely to list how it is they are getting away with acting for Russian oligarchs in property purchases while staying compliant with the Money Laundering Regulations:

AR