It’s fair to say that 2024 will not go down as a vintage year for the development of the reputation of those involved in residential property. Satisfaction levels in the house buying and selling process were on the same trajectory as the popularity rating of Rishi Sunak, but sadly, after the election, the property world was not treated to the same honeymoon period afforded the new government.
If “society gets the politicians it deserves” it’s valid to ask whether the same applies to lawyers as our representatives at Westminster. Are market forces responsible for determining the level of service and expertise that people can expect from lawyers?
Having spoken to hundreds of lawyers across the country over the past year, I can confidently say that the overwhelming majority are caring, honest and decent individuals. So why do we end up with comments like last week where they were described as “chimps with typewriters?”. While much of the criticism comes from the sheer frustration, should lawyers bear the brunt of the responsibility?
Blue on blue doesn’t help
Agents have been frustrated for years by their experiences of a lack of responsiveness and proactivity from lawyers. Combined with a feeling that lawyers are arrogant, difficult or just plain obtuse, this generates a toxic environment which spills over into public debate and social media.
The situation isn’t helped by those lawyers that attack others publicly with their opinions of their lack of technical ability. Esso executives will be delighted at the amount of petrol they are throwing on this particular fire with a noisy minority describing others as “clowns” and “muppets”. The irony is that these “blue on blue” attacks do little to further the cause of those waging civil war against their own profession, but instead undermines attempts to drive up respect.
What are the core issues?
The responsibility for the majority of service issues are caseloads and the increased risk of litigation. Lawyers don’t take calls, can be slow at responding and are usually reactive rather than proactive, because they just don’t have time. With lawyers often running 70-80 cases by themselves, receiving over 200 emails per day, with a chronic lack support from either colleagues or effective technology, no-one should be surprised at their lack of proactivity and poor responsiveness.
High caseloads are due to the challenging double-punch of public demand for low-priced services and referrer demand for high referral fees.
In addition, law firm owners choosing to take on this work, have little choice but to hire inexperienced staff or outsource the work to countries offering lower cost employees. If lawyers accept referral agreements where they are paid £300 per case, they will have to run four times more cases than those charging £1200 – no wonder they don’t have time to be proactive.
The other problem is, like the rest of society, we face an increasingly challenging public. If blood donor clinics need notices with “abuse will not be tolerated here” there is a broader issue at work here. With lawyers facing increased levels of complaints and legal action, they have no choice but to be more cautious – “taking a view” is simply not an option any more. It is also why we see the increasing discussion about the quantity, quality and relevance of pre-contract enquiries, as lawyers struggle to reduce the risk of being sued, combined with the employment of less experienced staff.
How do we solve this?
Law firm owners must have more confidence in the service they provide, to enable them to walk away from unprofitable agreements and invest in sales and marketing to find new routes to market. This will enable them to drive up fees which will reduce caseloads, free up time to train new people and invest in new technology.
Referrers should review whether their current arrangements actually benefit all parties, or cause more stress and fall-throughs due to the effect on caseload volumes caused by high referral fees.
Finally, if law firms invest in technology that reduces the risks involved in transactions, this will both speed up the process but also provide further protection against our increasingly litigious society. Because let’s face it, unlike the five year term for politicians, the current system is not going away any time soon.
Peter Ambrose is the owner of The Partnership and Legalito – specialists in the delivery of conveyancing software and services
