The small number of disciplinary cases against licensed conveyancers should not be construed as light-touch regulation, the chair of the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC) has insisted.

Speaking at the annual Society of Licensed Conveyancers (SLC) conference in Derby, Dame Janet Paraskeva said the low level of disciplinary action was indicative of “assisted compliance” – a model she described as a “collaborative approach” to achieving compliance and a “unique strength” of the CLC.

“We can also describe that as helping you deal with issues before they become a real problem or cause actual harm to the client or public interest,” she added.

Paraskeva said the CLC wants to avoid having to impose disciplinary sanctions as far as possible. “That is a symptom of failure of the process of client protection and our assisted compliance approach,” she explained.

However, if there is persistent non-compliance or if actual harm occurs, then the CLC is prepared to use its disciplinary tools, Paraskeva insisted. “Our approach to regulation is intensive, involving as it does very close monitoring of the regulated community and close working with them to achieve compliance,” she said.

Paraskeva also observed that assisted compliance depended on “frankness and candour” from lawyers and firms, because otherwise, “you will be much more likely to find yourself facing disciplinary action”.

Also necessary, she added, is co-operation with the Legal Ombudsman (LeO), whose costs Paraskeva described as “eye-wateringly high”; last year, the charge to the CLC-regulated community was £655,000, even though only around 300 complaints reached it.

“In some cases, complainants are told that their complaint has no merit or the offer from the firm is reasonable,” the chair said. “In others, LeO recommends that the firm improve its offer slightly. This kind of quick action is a great approach and is how the LeO scheme was intended to operate.

“But it does need firms to cooperate with it. I am sorry that we see examples of a very small number of firms not engaging effectively or at all with the process. This is not in their interests as it will likely mean that resolving the complaint will end up costing more time and money than it needs to.”