Law Society CEO Ian Jeffery and President Nick Emmerson overcame a vote of no confidence at the Special General Meeting (SGM) held on Tuesday, July 23rd, 2024.
The SGM was convened to address widespread dissatisfaction within the conveyancing community regarding the new TA6 form. On the motion of no confidence the Law Society prevailed with 123 votes in favour, 207 against, with 20 abstained votes.
A briefing note, published by the Property Lawyers Action Group (PLAG), provides an executive summary of the key issues, detailed commentary on the background, further insights into what it regards as the risks of prosecution for solicitors due to inaccurate replies in the TA6 form, and a concluding analysis.
The Law Society of England and Wales officially launched a consultation on the proposed TA6 form after deciding to postpone the implementation of the updated fifth edition earlier this month. The consultation follows significant backlash from the conveyancing community over the lack of prior consultation regarding the updates.
Initially intended for introduction in June, the mandatory rollout of the updated form has been delayed with The Law Society confirming both the current fourth edition and the fifth edition will be acceptable under the Conveyancing Quality Scheme protocol until the consultation concludes on January 15, 2025.
In a recent article, the Law Society of England and Wales’ CEO responded to the controversy, stating that the consultation launched last week was the “right response” to widespread criticism.
The Property Lawyers Action Group (PLAG) has cited numerous concerns about recent actions by the Law Society. In his statement, a PLAG member articulated the group’s apprehensions and rationale for supporting a motion of no confidence.
“Many solicitors view the ideas of the groups mentioned in the motion with the utmost concern. Certainly, it’s just as I’ve been in contact with, especially when it is clear that the Law Society is more than just a neutral observer.”
They highlighted the birth of the Property Lawyers Action Group, attributing it to strong links and controversial material information.
“The publication of the latest edition of the TA6 was a catalyst for the special general meeting. The TA6 is not the only issue; there are much wider issues that were addressed in the requisition.”
Addressing the Digital Property Market Steering Group and it’s goal to digitise the entire home buying process, PLAG added
“The law tech sector, significantly represented in this group, is, in my opinion, overly powerful, saturated by greed, and guilty of considerable hype when marketing its products to solicitors.”
“There are significant questions about computer veracity and the ability of clients to cope with large volumes of data. The Digital Property Market Steering Group also promotes the idea of open data, which should raise questions for the Law Society and solicitors about client confidentiality and data security.”
“There are many reasons, in my opinion, why the Law Society should not have joined these two groups without a mandate following genuine consultation with its members.”
They also addressed the issue of members’ confidence in the Law Society. Referring to an article in Today’s Conveyancer, he said:
“The Law Society asserted that the consultation on the TA6 was the right response. This sort of implied ethical considerations; however, a number of us are confused because the Law Society had already received the requisition for this meeting today.”
Drawing from Tom Bingham’s book, “The Rule of Law,” he stressed the need for a strong, independent legal profession. “Why has the Law Society betrayed its rich history by compromising its independence without seeking a mandate from its members?” he questioned.
In response to the motion CEO Ian Jeffrey addressed several key issues raised by the Property Lawyers Action Group (PLAG) and emphasised the Society’s commitment to constructive engagement and reform. He said:
“In the short time I’ve been here, the Society has taken the government to court on access to justice. We launched the fifth edition of TA6 too early. We should have communicated more than we did, and we understand the strength of feeling and we’ve heard it. It’s been a learning experience, and we’re sorry that it’s come at the concern of hardworking members.”
To address these concerns, Jeffrey announced an extended consultation process, stating:
“But to put things right, we’ve now launched an extended round of consultation on the TA6, and you have our commitment. This is a genuine consultation with no predetermined outcome, and we have an open mind as that consultation begins.”
“Our forms data show that solicitors are accessing both current versions of the TA6 in meaningful and similar quantities. With that input, we can design together a new and better TA6.”
“The consultation process now launched, including dedicated sessions on managing liability, is the right way to rebuild connection and trust. We enjoy the broad support of the profession, but we don’t always get everything right, and when we need to correct things, that’s what we’ll do.”
Another speaker in property law said in favour of the motion that through engagement with various trade associations, the Law Society has picked up material information battle and run with it instead of sensibly testing the concept by consulting with solicitors; adding they fear the Law Society has been used.
Comments against the no confidence motion from a head of a residential property team criticised incorrect statements about material information. They said:
“The Law Society has not been pressured into accepting material information, nor is it something which the Law Society has imposed on this profession. It’s been a matter of law that consumers should receive material information since 2008. That’s why I believe that there’s a simple fundamental error and that also means that the vote should be rejected.”
“Research with over 11,000 buyers indicated that consumers want more information at an early stage, with 93% of respondents in favour of upfront material information to ensure that they are fully informed with issues before viewing a transaction. I urge you to vote against the motion.”
A Law Society National Council member suggested the Law Society is at war with its own members.
“How did we get to this? I will tell you how; everything is secret at the National Law Society. I’m an elected council member but can’t tell my own electors what I say. There is no openness and no transparency. The current problem with TA6 form has risen from the secrecy at the law society. A vote for the motion is a vote for openness.”
The Head of Legal Services at The Law Society addressed key concerns raised by PLAG regarding the revised TA6 form and its implications for solicitors’ liability:
“One of the complaints made in the motion is that the revised TA6 significantly increases the risk of criminal offenses being committed by solicitors and the risk of clients facing civil claims for misrepresentation”
Explaining after obtaining a legal opinion from specialist legal leading counsel on behalf of the Law Society, they are satisfied that neither the revised TA6 form nor the national trading standards guidance alters the basic position regarding criminal or civil liability.
She further clarified that the principles governing liability for misrepresentation in contract and tort apply in the same way as they did before the TA6 form was revised; adding the perceived risk of increased liability has not materialised.
“Since 2008, the residential conveyancing profession has transacted in the region of 15 million properties. The Society is not aware of a single reported prosecution of a solicitor for breach of the material information rules.
Although there may have been different views on the guidance, the Society does not see its publication as being outside the powers of National Trading Standards, Estate and Letting Agency Team, or as being inconsistent with the 2008 regulations.”
Amerdeep Somal, chair of the Law Society Board and Mark Evans, deputy vice president of the Law Society, said:
“The Law Society Council and Board fully support the President and CEO and are pleased with the outcome of today’s vote.
We have listened to the concerns raised by some of our members on this specific issue. It is important to note that we have already taken steps to address these concerns by postponing the compulsory implementation of the updated TA6 form. We have also launched a consultation to ensure we understand the full range of member views.“
One Response
For The Law Society to claim no additional civil or criminal liability when they wanted to go from an information document of 18 pages to 32 pages is absurd and illogical, especially when this is strict criminal liability legislation.
The basic legal principle is if you pass over information you own it for liability purposes, especially when there is no disclaimer in place that will make many concerned over liability and professional indemnity costs that will rise according to specialist brokers once claims come in.
Those that may wish to protect seller clients, and avoid liability claims for not advising their clients of the full dangers may also wish to look at s239 of Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 that makes it clear sellers can face criminal liability, who will no doubt claim they were not advised properly by their solicitor.
Out of the many thousands of solicitors only 207 voted to support the President and CEO in such a critical vote which may be telling of the unrest felt over the general feelings of all solicitors on how The Law Society is conducting itself.