Recent research revealed that the two most popular reasons for men to visit Amsterdam is the red-light district (“De Wallen”) and the freedom to take recreational drugs. Although that statistic was obviously made up, it sounds perfectly reasonable – both are obvious attractions, although for the sake of this article, let’s gloss over the whole drugs thing.
For anyone who hasn’t been there, the Amsterdam red-light district revolves around the concept of putting women on show behind windows for men to select like lobsters in a restaurant’s tank, which by any measure is an abhorrent practice. However, what is equally abhorrent is the argument that justifies its existence – “they are meeting a market demand.”
Which was exactly the same response I received from a panel manager on LinkedIn last week when I expressed an opinion that panel managers were the cause of many of the problems we see in the house buying and selling process today.
It’s a fair question – can we blame the existence of panel managers for conveyancing delays? It pretty blindingly obvious that we can.
The fundamental issue – caseloads
Discussions between agents and lawyers over the conveyancing process have been escalating in recent months, most of which degenerate, pantomime-like, into back-and-forth arguments. Agent typically opens with “lawyer standards have never been lower”, to which the lawyers replies “oh no they haven’t”; and the agent responds “but conveyancing hasn’t changed for 20 years” to which the lawyer replies “oh yes it has.” Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs at the Hackney Empire, this aint.
One thing is clear – the process HAS got slower over the last five years and the cause is primarily too many cases being worked by too few people, skilled or otherwise. In our company, we have found the figure for optimum efficiency is around 65 cases for a full time lawyer and legal assistant working in a paperless environment with a decent case management system. We have seen service problems arise when the number goes above that, so where firms run significantly higher caseloads in less efficient environments, the issues multiply. I just hired a lawyer from a small firm doing panel work who was running 150 cases by herself, being paid about £250 per case. She admits she barely knew the names of her clients let alone anything about the case.
Volume is driven by low prices – those suggesting that law firms increase their fees need to acknowledge this as these are typically set by panel managers who need to pass on margin to their customers. Where there is a high volume-per-conveyancer firm in a chain, and it’s important not to confuse volume with the size of firm, everyone is affected. Despite the protestations of the LinkedIn panel manager this is not just “another person’s business decision, so why worry” because it affects everyone’s business.
Fairtrade Conveyancing?
The Fairtrade charity was established in 1992 with the aim to protect coffee growers in Mexico against exploitation, quickly followed by cocoa growers in Belize. These days it is a well-known brand and people know when they are buying a Fairtrade product that they are not contributing to the abuse of workers.
Maybe law firms that haven’t sold out to panel managers should publicise this – they could have a badge for their website; “We Say NO To Panels” or “Fairtrade Conveyancing” so agents, brokers and clients would know they are not contributing to the conveyancing problem. Now, before any trolls start warming up their stumpy troll-fingers, exploitation has always been part of history and we are not for one moment comparing this scenario with, say, the cotton plantations in the southern US, but it’s abuse and it needs to stop.
So, here’s the answer
In the last couple of weeks, we have been approached by two London agents who have reached the conclusion that panel firms were damaging their business and are dropping them. It’s only two but it’s a start.
Conveyancing delays are not going away, so rather than complaining that ”the conveyancing process is broken” or “lawyers don’t know what they are doing” we need to get rid of high caseloads and this can only be achieved by removing the supply chains that promote them.
Maybe a visit to Amsterdam to look at the faces of the women in “De Wallen” to witness first-hand the effects of exploitation might change a few minds.
Peter Ambrose is founder of conveyancing specialist The Partnership.
Before I thought of anything remotely intelligent to post, the first thought that came to mind was the story of Tyson Fury buying a live lobster in a restaurant for some ridiculous figure and then freeing it in the nearby ocean. Perhaps Tyson should go to Amsterdam and free all of the ‘ladies of the night’?
However, would they all want to be freed? I recall one relatively well-known conveyancer saying to me he didn’t dislike all panel managers because they made him sign up to a Service Level Agreement and that helped him work more efficiently.
But, back to that lobster, apparently it died, wrong ocean or something.
So the moral of my convoluted tale is, conveyancers, make sure you have your own SLA to work to and stick to it.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Having been involved in the initial setting up of the first panel manager I can speak from experience here. Getting involved with them is selling yor soul to the devil. What they are looking to do is “buy” the client from the Introducer, and then “sell” like a commodity. Once they have their claws into that client it’s a battle to sell other services, like removals, insurance and Wills. Staff are working on commission so the hard sell means that clients going through them often have no idea what type of Company they are dealing with, and often think they are Solicitors. A misapprehension that is rarely corrected.
As an extra layer in the conveyancing process they add nothing, except excess fees to the client.
I have seen a few of them advertising their wares recently. Clearly a pro-active attempt to try and recruit Solicitors who may be concerned a potential downturn is going to hit business, and increase their panel numbers.. To anyone who may be tempted by what they offer I say, “Don’t do it”. Try and imagine a worst case scenario where you are forced to accept work at a fixed (low) fee and if you try to add on anything extra you are immediately threatened with dismissal from the panel. Where your staff are open to bullying from clients and Estate Agents, and you have to accept the situation, because you are in hock to the panel manager who can always dangle that threat of removal. Where you have no choice but to take numbers and pile it high do it cheap, to keep your place. They are not your cases, they are the panel manager’s cases, remember that. And what they are really after are access to your Estate Agent conteacts. Don’t worry about quoting anyone anymore, just have your Agents send you clients via them and they will do the necessary for you. You run the risk of losing those contacts in the long run once you extricate yourself from the mess. Believe me, think that worse case scenario but being ensnared is even worse, far, far worse. The only people who benefit are those that run the panels.
They sell a service which does not exist to everyone to whom they speak. You are always only one telephone call away from an abusive call from the Company Head telling you his facts of life, and it’s his way or the highway. I saw Peter’s comment last week on the subject and the lukewarm response from the Panel Manager. Unfortunately for him some of us know his Company a little too well.
There is a Firm in my area who always were a good solid Solicitors with a fine reputation. They sold out to panels a few years ago and are now no more than a conveyancing factory who are another nightmare to deal with. The classic example of what happens when you get in so deep your business model becomes entrenched and you can’t escape.
When that first Company was set up the Director was always amazed how long he was getting away with what he was doing. They have now somehow been allowed to continue for nearly thirty years. Without any doubt panels should be the first set of people removed from the conveyancing process if things ever change. That may not improve the process, but it certainly will not worsen it, and an awful lot of clients will be exposed to better service and lower fees, since those fingers will be removed from the pie.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Yep, pay more, get more. Absolutely.
A constant theme among the moaning. Its not untrue either.
The problem is that this simply isn’t how the free market works. Until conveyancing accepts that constantly saying ‘we need to charge more’ isn’t the correct starting point nothing will change.
Now, a cold, hard, ruthless recession might come along and solve your problem for you in the short to medium term. The low profit high turnover bunch will quickly fail and all those responsible souls who ran a fiscally sound enterprise and have reserves will be fine. Clearing the path for the exit to happier times with only the fit remaining.
In the absence of this however we’re back to the basics. The basics is where you’re going to have to start. You can either be cheap, and attract lots of custom, and generally execute badly due to the lack of time, benefits and resources cheapness ensures or you can be good and build up the type of reputation that ensures your services are in such demand that you can charge more. There is always a market for the excellent, for those who are so highly regarded that the public know their money is well spent.
We’ll all pay more to the builder who has a reputation for brilliance, we’ll all pay more for free range organic raised Chicken because it tastes better and is healthier than the battery farm alternative. It’s very, very simple.
The truth is that conveyancing lacks innovative thought. It has almost no clue how to promote itself to the public. Can you think of agents that promote heavily? Of course you can. Flyers, roundabout boards, TV, car air fresheners (yes, really), sports sponsorship….. They’re masters of self pimping. Even the moving industry is better than the legal end. Numerous race cars, football clubs, flyers, skilful signwriting of vehicles etc etc.
What do we ever see from lawyers / conveyancers?
In the same way as EA’s and movers will compete heavily and veraciously to offer better service. EA’s offering reduced contract terms, virtual walk throughs, videos, open house days, moving in gifts, and more. Movers offering elevated packing services/materials, extended move plans, zero hold-over fees, cleaning services ever greater written guarantees and levels of training and insurance. Not too mention increasing vehicle and storage quality.
Where is the comparative? That’s not said as a criticism. Its me asking where and how in the last decade there has been a concerted effort from an entity at this end to actively identify and target a measure of service affecting the outcome for the client that may lead to increased reputational value and therefore fee chargeability, via desirability?
It still strikes me that broadly conveyancing hasn’t yet accepted that they are servants. I suspect that this is a hangover from the halcyon days up to @2006. The days prior to internet explosion of information and cheapened perception of a lawyers value. The days of ‘LA Law’ and solicitors being sexy.
Days that are over.
Conveyancing needs to accept they are servants to the clients. Drop the snobbiness that does exist. Identify what those clients actually want. Do it. Do it better than the others, sing from the rooftops, create a product the public can see the value of. Then charge for it.
EA’s and Movers broadly did this post last recession. Its time for you too. I and others are begging for it, the sooner conveyancing yields better service we’ll all benefit. When that results in higher earnings for conveyancers I’ll be just as happy about that too.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I’ve been to Amsterdam red light district and what is very noticeable is how unattractive many of the women are. Or put another way, you must be desperate to want to use the service and an industry that has not changed for centuries …. now what other service comes to mind that is similar?
This relentless talk about conveyancing industry is (yes there is some good conveyancing about) does not change the fact that the industry has not progressed forwards but arguably backwards and complaints of this and that, standards, extra workload, needs etc etc ……… on and on winging. If its broken, FIX IT and that can only be done by the conveyancing industry.
Why will the conveyancing industry not come into the light? For a very, very long time a solution to time delays and communication has been staring them in the face but little, to no movement. So many other industries have facilities to gather, produce and communicate instantly with each other …. but not conveyancing as a whole.
I still have not seen a response to my post over the last few weeks for ‘Realtime on-line SECURE conveyancing record keeping’ which allows all to see progress with all actions raised, submitted and completed. You do it in the laborious slow paper form! ALL Parties can send request, updates, submissions under say a traffic light system without permitting confidential details to be read except by the conveyancers. My bet is it would reduce delays by 50% and a click of a button with 1-31 management.
But then the ugly conveyancers don’t like to shown up by the likes of the estate agency industry and hide behind a drawn curtain … as in the red light district. If that offends you as a conveyancer, remember I have always said not all conveyancers are ugly but if the hat fits!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback.
Regarding the centralised platform solution – I think that there was no response, because there was a collective; “Hmmm… now that is one huge chocolate elephant problem”. The issue is working it into existing workflows ( if they exist ! ) of lawyers and that’s where it gets a bit tricky.
However – the good news is that I’ve got an idea of how to solve the problem – haven’t found an appropriate metaphor for the part of the elephant we’re starting with, but I figure it’s something like the kidneys cos they’re quite complicated, right?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
You can do it Peter, if not it ain’t going to happen without something like the The Council for Licensed Conveyancers or possibly Law Society getting on board for the solicitors. The programming is not Hercules of a task for the IT Guru’s who no doubt will see £’s coming out of the elephant (which end!). It will only be as good as the programming. I’m amazed that something that would actually give them more time to earn more money isn’t enough enticement.
A central secure file server costs would be covered by a licence use fee.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Thanks Woodentop 🙂
The reality is that Law Society did try to do this a few years ago and sadly it withered on the vine. That was due ( in my opinion ) to scope-creep – THE classic technology problem. Started off as a communication platform and morphed into a case management system – that was never going to work.
You’re bang on – it’s not a technology problem because the fundamental issues are quite simple to address.
Its the adoption that’s the elephant in the room.
( Who knew that elephants were such a flexible metaphor ! )
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
[Sentence removed as it breached posting rules]I’m not sure solicitors, fee earners or conveyancers would really consider themselves as being exploited in the most personal and physical ways these ladies are. Get over yourself.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Solicitors, soliciting – see the connection?
Which one is the oldest profession?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Just to quote from my article; “Now, before any trolls start warming up their stumpy troll-fingers, exploitation has always been part of history and we are not for one moment comparing this scenario with, say, the cotton plantations in the southern US, but it’s abuse and it needs to stop.”
Exploitation is exploitation.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Look on the bright side Peter. Last time you wrote about Panels all hell broke loose because of the comparison you made. Only one dissenting voice this time!
There is a discussion to be had on the thorny question of panels but it seems to be overlooked time amd time again. I can’t understand why that is?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Very fair point Alan.
There’s an element of weariness on the topic I believe. It IS a thorny topic and confused with the referral fee argument.
If an agent wants to put together a recommended panel of lawyers because they can show that this improves conversion rates, then as long as the fees do not price out the lawyers they want to work with, this works just fine. We are finding people starting to do this now and it makes total sense.
The problem comes, as you so clearly put it, is where the business whose sole reason for being is making a margin, which is where you get a conflict of interests.
I stand by my assertion that the root of most of the problems today is case-per-conveyancer ratios.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Case per conveyancer ratios – I was working with a fee earner with 400 files last week. He was on the verge of a nervous breakdown and totally unable to cope. As they put it in Fawlty Towers “there was enough material for a whole conference there”. Proved your point completely. A classic example of why the pile it high, do it cheap model is a threat to competent conveyancing.. Suffice to say when someone will not increase their fees to solve the obvious problem, there is not a lot I can do to help them.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
400 files?
Seriously Alan this is ridiculous – I have never heard a number that high before. Absolutely no chance to succeed.
I’m willing to bet my mortgage that it was a small firm with limited technology to help with this kind of volume.
I might hazard that it’s almost a self-fulfilling prophecy – those taking on huge volumes will fail of their own accord.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I kid you not Peter I have never seen anything like it! And your third paragraph is spot on. No case management system, no obvious system other than turn off the phones, don’t speak to anyone and bumble through blaming everyone else for the mess you have created for yourself. I spent one week there attempting to assist but had to walk away as it was an impossible situation and they would not listen to me. How the SRA allows anyone to practice in that way is beyond me, clients were receiving an unbelievably bad service.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
And THERE, in one word [ SRA ] is the real kicker.
How many times have we heard that “only solicitors should be doing this work … because this guarantees expertise”.
It’s nothing to do with the badge or experience – I’m sure this chap was extremely experienced, but that doesn’t translate to an effective service – its the delivery model that determines outcomes. If that means junior staff supervised and advised by more experienced lawyers, then fine.
But let’s not be blind-sided by the badge.
VERY interesting insights Alan – and so important to share with readers – there’s a lot of misunderstanding out there of what is going on these days in lawyers’ offices.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“I was working with a fee earner with 400 files last week. He was on the verge of a nervous breakdown and totally unable to cope.”
I was working (temporarily) with a firm like that many years ago, and the owner did have a breakdown and left me to carry the can. It was the worst six weeks of my life.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
take on less jobs or leave it is surely that simple
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Sadly it’s not.
The fear ( and rightly so ) of business owners, is what happens if I turn away work and it doesn’t rematerialise. It’s a genuine concern and one that cannot be over-estimated.
For reference – in the last year, we have three times turned away work for periods of over 2 months each time – we can only do this because our business model supports it.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Very interesting point Rob.
As you say – that was many years ago – are we saying that maybe this problem was always with us, but in more isolated areas and with more people in the market, less frequent than today.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register