The Law Society has confirmed the date and time for the Special General Meeting (SGM) in response to the petition launched by Property Lawyers Action Group (PLAG). It will be held on Tuesday 23 July 2024 at 2 pm.
The SGM follows the receipt of a requisition from 100 members under bye-law 22(1) after an online petition by PLAG earlier in the month which gathered the requisite 100 votes in less than 24 hours. PLAG has said it would call for a vote of no confidence in Law Society CEO Ian Jeffery and President Nick Emmerson at the SGM. It is the first time an SGM has been hosted in more than 13 years when criminal legal aid lawyers forced an SGM for a vote of no confidence in then-Chief Executive Des Hudson.
The SGM has come about in response to the perceived lack of consultation following the launch of the fifth edition of the TA6 Property Information Form. PLAG has submitted a ‘Statement in support of the Requisition of even date for a Special General Meeting’ in which it outlines a number of grievances including
- Standing of Solicitors: Since the Legal Services 2007 Act (Act) an emasculated Society has stood back, as successive governments have run down the various branches of once respected civil and criminal legal systems, thereby diminishing both the rule of law and the role played by solicitors.
- PLAG: PLAG, a values-based organisation, came into existence last year because of the failure by the Society to defend the vital role of solicitors in conveyancing. At the heart of PLAG’s concerns was the idea, blindly accepted by the Society, of sellers being required to provide ‘Material Information” (MI) before a property was listed for sale.
- MI: There are significant doubts concerning the lawfulness of the guidance issued by National Trading Standards (NTS) regarding MI because of a lack of legal capacity on the part of the NTS. MI is a bundle of data, a legal title, searches, and other material, including answers to a questionnaire, which masquerades as a ‘single source of truth’.
A snap poll by Today’s Conveyancer suggests wide support for a no confidence vote with 90% of nearly 200 respondents saying they would support the proposals. The Law Society confirmed earlier this week the updated 5th edition form, which was due to become mandatory for CQS registered firms from 25th June 2025, will be delayed until January with further consultation promised.
“It is disappointing that PLAG has felt it necessary to take this step,”
says Law Society chief executive officer Ian Jeffery.
“However, the SGM is an opportunity for members to discuss with us the future of the home buying and selling process and how the Society can best represent its members, as changes are made over time to that process, to enhance the experience of consumers.
“There will be a vote on the no confidence motion if one is required on the day, but in any event, we will listen to and carefully consider the views of our members, expressed at the meeting and more widely.“We have already taken steps to address the strength of feeling express by members by postponing compulsory implementation of the updated TA6 form. This allows for six months consultation to ensure we understand the full range of member views.”
The Law Society has published a full response ahead of the SGM, which will take place in-person at Law Society HQ 113 Chancery Lane, London at 2pm and online. Only Law Society members can attend and vote at the SGM. Registration is required no later than 9am on Monday 15 July.
5 responses
The TA6 is the tip of the iceberg. The Law Society has failed for several decades to refuse to take a stand and support residential conveyancers as more and more tasks have been placed on them which are clearly not part of the legal conveyancing process, e.g. money laundering – surely this burden should have been put upon the financial institutions (and heaven knows they can afford to take this on given their profits!!!) as they are at the forefront of the monetary chain, climate change – what the heck has that got to do with legal title to a property?? Surely surveyors are better placed to explain the effect of climate change on the structure of a building and surrounding area?
The TA6 is merely the straw that broke this camel’s back and it is about time TLS stood up and took notice of its many conveyancing members and LISTENED TO THEM. They failed abominably to even talk to their member in cities, small towns, etc who handle conveyancing day in day out. We are losing excellent mature conveyancers by the droves because they are turning their back on their profession due to stress, overload, and disillusionment, and now TLS is adding to the burden of those who remain. Not only that – TLS have failed to observe one of the most fundamental elements in the process Caveat Emptor.
Unless they listen AND take action, the conveyancing system in this country is going to grind to an even slower timetable and more and more conveyancers will take to employment elsewhere, such as a lovely conveyancer I much respected who left to set up her own business in the crafting industry and is proud that she is making a success, as well as being far less stressed and tire.
Absolutely mirror the comments of Elizabeth Rogers.
Also, the Dreamvar case another serious case in point that legal firms are taking the hit because we have insurance to cover it but subsequently many firms have closed because they cannot either obtain Professional Indemnity cover or it is too expensive for them.
Something needs to change as the non-simple “tick box” conveyancing transactions are becoming increasingly hard to cover as experiences property lawyers are increasingly becoming even more rare as we are leaving the profession and/or retiring early!!
All very disappointing and sad.
I want to know what is the Law Society doing to challenge the historic post war policy that requires all solicitors to insure crooks – just think of the Axiom Ince debacle? The Law Society should be campaigning to lessen the impact on solicitors instead of acting as an extension of the HBSC and other vested interests. The only interests they should be protecting are their solicitors. The Law Society is misrepresenting the collective voice of solicitors by ostensibly ignoring them. It is no wander so many are disillusioned with their approach. I agree with everything said above, something has to change and it starts with that meeting. Ignore us at your peril.
I have been informed by TLS they will not release their ‘specialist advice’ that it is claimed there is no increase in liability for solicitors or sellers. This is a ridiculous claim given the TA6 has gone from an 18 page document to 32 pages, yet no further liability in criminal or civil law, that might explain why the TLS refuses to disclose an opinion us the members have paid for.
Under similar legislation if you passed over such information you own it for criminal and civil liability so maybe nor surprising in view of the current uproar TLS officials seek to give such a misleading impression.
The lack of essential protective measures, such as disclaimers, is appalling that even the largest trading standards department in the country, Birmingham Trading Standards, had endorsed previously in similar legislation. This further shows a total lack of appreciation of the liability’s us solicitors, our staff and our seller clients are facing from an organisation that is meant to be looking after our interests and those of our seller clients.
I speak as a person who co-wrote a Code of Practice with Birmingham Trading Standards on similar legislation and had to defend a number of companies and individuals.
Who is to say that the Law Society won’t copy the (previous) government? Consultations should be genuine and be done BEFORE the event rather than after. The previous government appeared to ignore everyone who wrote in regarding the Home Buying and Selling Process consultation and simply focused on those who agreed with their view to attend an oral hearing to say how great ‘digitisation’ is/could be. Yet these people are not coal face conveyancers, like to use the media to put out thoughts that when you think them through are not practical and when asked questions they cannot answer regarding the fine detail. I sincerely hope this is a genuine consultation rather than one to show face. The Law Society seem to be digging their heels in publicly that they want to overturn “buyer beware” into “seller beware”. They’ve never had to deal with sellers that constantly misinterpret questions on the old edition of the TA6 – the new 32 page form will confuddle even the brightest of sellers.