The Property Lawyers Action Group (PLAG) have confirmed it has received the 100 votes required to submit a formal request for a Special General Meeting at The Law Society following the publication of its Requisition earlier this week.
PLAG was founded in October 2023 as ‘an informal non-profit group of property lawyers who have become increasingly concerned by the way in which the legal profession is heading‘ according to an open letter to Law Society CEO Ian Jeffery in April of this year. In the time since PLAG has stated its opposition to material information and the recently updated TA6 property protocol form.
It had previously warned that if the updated protocol form was not made voluntary, it would push for a vote of no confidence in the Law Society. On Tuesday 5th June PLAG published a ‘Requisition for a Special General Meeting’ in line with the Law Society byelaws, initiating the first stage of proceedings to tabling a vote of no confidence. It has since confirmed it has met the 100 vote threshold that enables them to take their case to the next stage.
Speaking to Today’s Conveyancer a Law Society of England and Wales spokesperson responded to the latest developments, saying
“It is disappointing that PLAG has felt it necessary to take this step. The transformation of the home buying and selling process is both inevitable and ongoing in our digital age and it is our goal to support the profession to take a leading role in shaping these longer-term changes.
“While solicitors play a very important role in the conveyancing process, the changes are ultimately about making that experience easier and better for buyers and sellers. Should 100 members support the call for a Special General Meeting (SGM) we will of course hold one as our constitution requires.
“Our focus however remains on supporting conveyancing solicitors and their firms with the transition to using the new TA6 forms and we have developed a range of resources to assist.”
Earlier this week The Law Society published a new practice note and ‘frequently asked questions‘ (FAQs) providing guidance on the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) and the implications for conveyancing firms when it comes to material information.
In a statement published alongside the Requisition, PLAG are critical of The Law Society’s acceptance of material information, saying
The Society received warnings of the vastly increased risk of criminal offences being committed because of MI but despite such advice, it gave no advance warning to the profession, so that solicitors could put in place appropriate safeguards, to protect themselves. Furthermore, the Society has, to quote the vernacular, ‘doubled down on its belief in MI, despite being advised of the increase in criminal liability for its members. This is extraordinary.
The ‘criminalisation’ of conveyancing undertaken by solicitors could be the start of the criminalisation of other areas of legal practice if the Society fails to change course.
3 responses
This is starting to look like one side wish to improve the process, and the other wish to protect their own methods, ways, and potentially revenue/profit.
Which, given that I believe some on the PLAG purport to support ‘improving the process’ means we now understand that should have ‘for ourselves’ tagged on.
Rubbish. PLAG are experienced conveyancers who know what will and won’t improve the process. The new TA6 will not improve the process. It’s almost twice as long as the old old, sellers won’t have a clue how to answer many of the questions, and this will generate more and more enquiries.
The number and nature of enquiries being raised in conveyancing transactions is a big cause of delay. The new TA6 will only exacerbate the problem.
That’s before we consider factors such as increased civil/criminal liability on sellers and their conveyancers if inaccurate information is inadvertently given.
I do not think that there is any argument from anyone that the process needs to be updated and improved to benefit everyone; conveyancers, solicitors, agents, brokers, buyers, sellers, lenders and the like. The biggest problem we have is the way the Law Society have gone about it. The statements they have put out smack of arrogance and there has been a lack of transparency, consultation and guidance. The Law Society are trying to change the fundamentals of Conveyancing without seeking to engage. There is seemingly a lack of understanding of the work Conveyancers do and the risks undertaken and how those are to be mitigated. I think a lot more people would have been receptive to the changes that are needed had the Law Society gone about them in a different manner. From what I can see, the Law Society are doubling down on this which is why the vote of no confidence was called. Serious, genuine and thought-out concerns from those people who actually do the work have been seemingly, completely ignored. If the Law Society wishes to behave is this manner, we won’t have Conveyancers available to do the work. A lot of very good Conveyancers left after the 2008 crash and retired/gave up post covid that have not been replaced, lets not make it worse.
I hear a lot of estate agents saying stop whinging, get on with it and just send it all out to the client and let them sort it out. They seem to forget that of the fundamental principles of our work i.e. protect the clients interests at all cost. Not to mention extremely high and crippling indemnity insurance premiums that limit investment and real change in our industry. Should the changes be implemented, I can foresee the premiums increasing which only serves to increase client costs and limit the investment firms place in Conveyancing.