The recent Panorama investigation into conditional selling has reignited a much-needed conversation in our industry. For years, there have been concerns about how referral arrangements are handled between estate agents and legal professionals, and now, the spotlight is firmly on practices that compromise client choice and transparency.
The programme revealed dubious sales tactics at two of the UK’s largest estate agencies – Connells and Purplebricks – highlighting how some agents pressure clients into using preferred mortgage brokers and conveyancers in exchange for inflated referral fees. This behaviour damages public trust and undermines the professionalism of those working to high standards.
At RG Law, we believe referral relationships can and should be a force for good. But that requires open discussion, ethical standards, and above all, a focus on service.
Referral fees: Not the problem, but the practice
Referral fees are not inherently wrong. When handled transparently and ethically, they allow estate agents and law firms to collaborate, creating a seamless experience for buyers and sellers. After all, agents are often the first point of contact and are well placed to recommend a trusted legal partner.
The problem arises when these relationships become transactional – where recommendations are made based on the size of the fee, not the quality of service. In these cases, clients may feel pressured into using a particular firm, often without realising that a fee is being paid behind the scenes.
At their worst, excessive referral fees can compromise the legal process itself. If a law firm pays hundreds of pounds just to win an instruction, it may be forced to operate on unsustainable margins – leading to slower progress, higher caseloads, and less personalised service.
Transparency and trust must come first
The Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC) has announced a review, beginning in 2026, to examine referral fee arrangements, with a focus on transparency and consumer choice.
Some argue that abolishing referral fees would create a level playing field, allowing law firms to build relationships based solely on service performance. However, referral arrangements are common in other sectors, such as financial services and mortgages, and rarely attract criticism.
Singling out estate agents while allowing similar practices to continue elsewhere appears inconsistent.
Best practice is to review referral agreements, ensure written disclosure and keep records that clients have been informed of any referral fee paid. Clients deserve to know when a referral fee is being paid and should feel confident that they’re being recommended a legal partner based on merit – not monetary arrangements.
This is why RG Law focuses on service-first relationships. We want agents to work with us because we’re excellent conveyancers who take care of their clients, not because we offer the biggest fee. When we get it right, agents benefit too: their client is happy, the sale progresses smoothly, and their reputation is enhanced.
A culture of conditional selling
The Panorama programme highlighted examples of corporate agents allegedly pushing buyers and sellers to use in-house services, with suggestions that transactions may be prioritised depending on those choices.
As someone who began my career in estate agency back in 2003, I’ve seen first-hand how these sales-driven models evolved. At the time, I worked for Halifax Estate Agents and was expected to promote financial products, including bank accounts, during property viewings. It’s a reminder of how embedded these cultures have been in some parts of the industry.
What matters now is where we go from here. We need to shift the focus from upselling to understanding what clients genuinely need and delivering it with integrity.
The hidden costs of poor practice
Clients, especially first-time buyers and sellers, often don’t realise the impact that behind-the-scenes arrangements can have on their experience. When legal firms are under financial pressure from high referral fees, service quality can slip. Communication suffers. Delays increase. Stress levels rise.
This doesn’t serve the client, the agent, or the conveyancer. It’s a lose-lose situation.
Instead, we should be building partnerships that deliver real value. That means:
- Clear communication between legal and agency teams
- Transparency with clients from the outset
- Focus on service delivery, not just transactions
Raising standards together
The call for regulatory reform is growing louder. While there are recommendations around disclosure of referral fees, there’s still no mandatory regulation for estate agents, nor an independent ombudsman with enforcement powers.
Until change comes, it’s up to us as professionals to raise the bar. We want to lead that change by showing that legal and agency teams can work in genuine partnership – one based on mutual respect and shared commitment to the client.
Let’s use this moment to move forward. Let’s rebuild referral relationships on trust, quality, and care – because when we put the client first, everybody wins.
4 responses
Conveyancing is not an industry, it is a profession. Credibility out of the window immediately unfortunately.
Sorry but I totally disagree. There are some real charlatans out there that will knowingly refer awful, high volume, unqualified factories for a huge referral fee. They will knowingly cause their clients pain and anxiety and be okay with that for their hundreds of pounds. It’s actually rather sickening. There’s also a trend between those that do this. Crap firms work with crap agents. I was unsurprised to see Muve on the Connells etc group panel for example. Of course they’ll pay awful splits and stack them high to sell cheap because that’s their model and the clients suffer. It’s truly disgusting and should be banned.
The primary issue for some of us is HOW, this is done.
With the word ‘recommend’ having become twisted. Where what an estate agents says, knowingly is received differently by the member of the public, to what was actually said.
To use ‘recommend’ while not adding ‘because we’re being paid’ is obfuscation, dishonesty and, frankly playing fast and loose in terms of misdirection and disingenuous language.
To ‘recommend’ while being paid. Without having a solid reason based on lived experience. Is to deceive.
How about you get over that little hurdle?
Would you still be happy if agents were compelled to state verbally either that they’re getting paid off the back of saying it? Or indeed stated ‘We PROMOTE ‘x’ as an option’
No, none of you would.
Why? Because you know full well that sleight of language keeps this charade going.
Once again, who loses out?
The paying public
How can you “trust” a legal partner that pays to have work sent to them? Are they no good off their own back? No and they know it. Conveyancing has got more complex in the last 30 years and the factory guys are putting people with no qualifications and 2 weeks (or less than) training on the front lines. No wonder everything has gone to pot!