Unemployed Solicitors ?

johnfás

Where did you hear that?

impr0v

About McCanns? The grapevine only I'm afraid - from newly qualifieds in the firm I work for.

myxi

McCann's are looking for 42 vol redundancies before end of April, 25 from solicitors. 10% pay cut for solicitors and 5% for support staff. Trainees being kept on in July isn't looking likely.

From the horses mouth!

TheDemiurge

Best article ever on the recent difficulties in law:-

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123923304833103031.html

grumpytrousers

I was talking to a bloke recently in the legal profession who made the point that one way of making for a bit more 'trade' in the future would be a reversion to the old system where the bank had their own solicitor when certifying title. Yer man made the point that the interests of the borrower and the interest of the bank are not necessarily the same thing, yet you've got the same solicitor, doing the job of two, being paid for by one, and being held to an undertaking by the other, which can be just as onorous, if not more, than the duty of care to the client.

When you consider that all the while that financial institutions *were* cutting back on the costs of paying for their own legal representation (and dressing this up as a 'better deal for the consumer') they were meantime engaged in a process of paying bloody mortgage brokers a commission of 1% for getting another punter onto the loan books.

I'm not going to start dissing brokers, but i've always wondered about 'em meself; i mean, if you can't get a loan from the bank, what can a broker do, except advise you to, er, massage the numbers and he'll see what he can do.

Is anybody noticing a double standard here!

anyhoo, it's all a bit too late for that now, but it *does* make sense. The oldskool three way closing, cumbersome and pain in the hole though it apparantly was, meant that *everybody* had their interests looked after. And whilst it generated extra work, it generated *worthwhile* work. Ts were crossed. Is were dotted. Would a lot of the recent scandals have happened if the banks paid somebody to mind their own business...

maybe this entire post is a propos of nothin, but i feel better having said it!

Jo King

The reason that the "three way" closing ended was that the banks were prevented by statutory instrument from charging the borrower for their costs.
It says a lot for a profession which should be honest and above reproach that even though two members are involved in a transaction a third should be required to supervise!
The recent high profile scandals could have been avoided if the banks had a proper register of undertakings in place. If a bank can find out in 5 minutes that I have an outstanding credit card balance, they should surely be able to find out if a solicitor has give multiple undertakings on the same properties. The banks were just too mean.
The banks gave commissions to brokers because they considered it cheaper than direct marketing. The banks were closing branches and wanted to reduce footfall in the branches. Members of the public avail of brokers because the variety of packages available from lenders make it difficult to select an appropriate one. Whether this is justified or not is another day's work.
A lot of solicitors are remembering the old days with nostalgia. They are not coming back. The public think a conveyance is like another product. Ring around - go to the cheapest. The fallout can be seen in the increase in the cost of professional indemnity insurance. That is not going to change. The best thing the profession could do would be to push to have the law of conveyancing reformed so that it becomes simpler.

dats_right

Jo King wrote: »

It says a lot for a profession which should be honest and above reproach that even though two members are involved in a transaction a third should be required to supervise!

What utter tosh! Firstly, you are talking about a situation where 99.99%+ of solicitors' undertakings to banks were complied with without issue. Whilst there have been much publicised abuses of the system by a handful of "rogue" solicitors, and whilst not condoning those abuses, I think it was inevitable that those type of abuses would be perpetrated by a very small number of individuals. Afterall it is a sad fact that there will always be a small minority of people in every walk of life, but particularly those who have the opportunity every single day to get their hands on large quantities of cash.

Secondly, It seems that you are confusing the role of the 'third' solicitor i.e. that of the bank in a three way closing, he is not there 'to supervise' as you put it, rather his role is to ensure the bank's security is adequate and registered. The purchaser's solicitor primary responsibility is to ensure that his client (the purchaser not the bank) obtains a good marketable title to the property and that their client's interests are protected generally. Whilst the 'old way' of three way closings involved a certain amount of duplication of work between the purchasers solicitor and the bank's solicitor their respective duties were very much distinct and their was no possibility of a conflict of interest arising. Which is in contrast to the current situation where the position is blurred and conflicts can sometimes arise. Purchaser's solicitor have now also to undertake certain responsibilities to the bank, for this extra responsibility they don't get a bean in extra remuneration.

Jo King

I did not say that the third solicitor was there to supervise. That was the clear import of what the previous speaker suggested. the 1987 regulations simply stop the lender from charging the borrower for the investigation of title. There is nothing to stop the solicitor from charging his own client for the work involved. Some do.
The present situation was negotiated between the Law Society and the lenders. Why did the Law society agree to a situation where there are conflicts of interest?

Building Societies Regulations 1987
"Any costs incurred by the Society in respect of, arising from or in connection with the legal investigation of title to any property offered as security by a member shall be paid by the Society and shall not be recoverable from the member either as a fee specifically stated to be in respect of such costs or as part of any fee charged in respect of the loan."

grumpytrousers

Jo King wrote: »

I did not say that the third solicitor was there to supervise. That was the clear import of what the previous speaker suggested. the 1987 regulations simply stop the lender from charging the borrower for the investigation of title. There is nothing to stop the solicitor from charging his own client for the work involved. Some do.
The present situation was negotiated between the Law Society and the lenders. Why did the Law society agree to a situation where there are conflicts of interest?

I didn't mean to imply that the banks solicitor was there to 'only' supervise; i was trying to make the point (badly - it was late:D ) that the banks interest, per Dats Right, is not exactly the same as the purchasers.

As for why the Law Society acquiesced to the bank on this matter, I've no idea. Any solicitor i've ever spoken to thought it was a bad idea then, and a worse idea now. In fact, my pal told me that apparantly the latest edition of the undertaking that a solicitor has to give the bank (and again, this work is free, gratis and for nothing) is constant updates as to how the registration of a clients purchase is going. Where previously a solicitor could write to the bank and say 'I've lobbed all the stuff in at the Land Registry, I'll be in touch when it's done and dusted' the Bank can now (and what's to stop them) write every other day after a number of months has elapsed and demand an update - with failure to provide such an update being a breach of the undertaking.

Like I say, this is work that has to be done by somebody, the purchaser will end up paying. Jo makes the point that some solicitors can charge more for doing the banks work - and I guess they can, but the public don't appreciate that, and don't like it; it would - i think - be better if this could be more transparant, and a bank looking out for their registration rather than subcontracting it out would make more sense.

Jo King

"Ts were crossed Is were dotted" implies you are referring to the sloppiness that has passed for conveyancing practice in the years since. The solicitor is entitled to charge his client for the extra work in complying with the banks conditions. The reason many do not is because of market pressures. The real grumble is about the abolition of scale fees and the introduction of competition in the pricing of conveyancing. Cutting prices has meant cutting corners in many cases. The reality is scale fees are not coming back. If solicitors do not want to do the work they should quote an economic price and let Joe Public go to Cut Price and Hope For the Best Solicitors down the road.

dats_right

Jo King wrote: »

I did not say that the third solicitor was there to supervise.

Really? Because I thought you said exactly that, but perhaps you might explain what else you had meant when you said:

Jo King wrote: »

It says a lot for a profession which should be honest and above reproach that even though two members are involved in a transaction a third should be required to supervise!

Jo King

"I did not say that the third solicitor was there to supervise. That was the clear import of what the previous speaker suggested."

That is what I said. Taking one sentence out of context does not prove a point.

dats_right

Jo King wrote: »

That is what I said. Taking one sentence out of context does not prove a point.

I've re-read you original post and it is quite apparent to me that I did not quote you 'out of context' as you claim, your clear and unambiguous words were:

Jo King wrote: »

It says a lot for a profession which should be honest and above reproach that even though two members are involved in a transaction a third should be required to supervise!

You even added additional empasis to the point you were making by using an exclamation mark! Nor does anything in the rest of your piece suggests that this wasn't in fact the point you were making.

Quite clearly you did indeed say that a third solicitor was required to supervise, now perhaps it is the case that you didn't intend to say it or whatever, but the fact remains that you did say it and your claims to the contrary are disingenuous.

Jo King

My words were unambigous but not unqualified. The reason i added emphasis was as a paraphrase of the previous post. I am perfectly well aware of the official role of the banks solicitor at a closing. The previous poster had referred to is being dotted etc. The clear implication of that is that standards are lower than they should be. I was not adopting his opinion as my own.
Blaming the demise of the three way closing for the ills of the profession is wrong. In the time of scale fees, solicitors could charge a half percent of the purchase just for the additional work involved in the mortgage. This was in addition top the standard fee of £100 plus 1%. Lack of professionalism is what has led to the present situation.