The recent Panorama investigation and subsequent review announced by the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC) cast a long-overdue spotlight on the opaque referral practices that continue to shape much of the UK conveyancing market.
The concerns raised are familiar: consumers not being offered a genuine choice of legal providers, referral fees being prioritised over service quality, and a general lack of transparency that undermines trust in the home-moving process.
This isn’t just a regulatory issue, it’s a customer experience issue. When consumers feel that their legal representative has been chosen for them based on a commercial relationship rather than merit, confidence in the system suffers.
At a time when transparency should be the norm, it’s disappointing that many in the sector are still operating with models that obscure consumer choice.
That’s why we’ve built a different model.
Our conveyancing platform connects consumers with a panel of trusted solicitors in a way that prioritises informed choice and transparency. Consumers receive a range of quotes tailored to their needs and can select the firms they want to speak to, with no pressure, no hidden prioritisation, just clarity.
For solicitors, it’s a smarter, fairer way to grow their business – based on merit, service standards, and visibility, not referral agreements behind closed doors.
As the CLC begins its review, it’s time for the profession to ask: are we serving our clients or simply selling to them?
The answer lies in platforms and partnerships that respect the consumer’s right to choose and the solicitor’s right to be chosen based on quality, not kickbacks.
Andy Cullwick, Head of Marketing, First4Lawyers
This article was submitted to be published by First4Lawyers as part of their advertising agreement with Today’s Conveyancer. The views expressed in this article are those of the submitter and not those of Today’s Conveyancer
One Response
Ironic that we have someone running a panel trying to claim they can restore faith in conveyancing. My considerable experience of working for panels does not give me that impression. Indeed these people should be right up there for investigation and bans once referral fees hopefully go the same way.