There is often no better way to explore how you operate as a conveyancing firm than by sharing your lived experience with others in the same industry, and to be able to hear from other firms on the ways and means by which they deal with, what are often, the very same issues and problems you are working through.
At our most recent All-Member meeting we did just that with a Conveyancing Workshop, hosted fantastically by Sam Strong from Eden Conveyancing, and which attempted to get all attendees talking, and discussing what they (and their firms) were currently going through.
Based off our affiliate member, Landmark Information Group’s, Residential Conveyancing Market Research Report which looked ahead to 2025 in the sector, the Conveyancing Survey workshop was designed to tease out some of the questions raised by the research, particularly with regards to the transaction process, its frustrations and how we might work together with all stakeholders to cut down on these.
Firstly, what of that research? Well it asked what were the biggest frustrations with the transaction process? Unsurprisingly 53% highlighted how long it takes, but 47% said the ever-growing regulatory and administrative burden, 43% the workload volume coupled with insufficient resources, 31% the poor communication amongst all stakeholders, and 31% being chased/having to chase stakeholders.
Those last two aspects of being a conveyancer were of particular interest to those within the group, perhaps because they are often the most tangible frustration that an individual conveyancer would have to deal with on a daily basis.
It felt right to explore these in a little more depth in order to potentially get to the bottom of how we might get a marked improvement in these areas. Communication, again unsurprisingly, was highlighted as a huge potential issue for all concerned, particularly stakeholders who do not communicate/update all stakeholders as a matter of course.
There were, quite rightly, many who felt one of the key consequences of a lack of regular and ongoing communication was the action it led to, namely constant chasing or attempts to chase which often resulted in further frustration.
Managing outward communication to stakeholders was highlighted as a strong way of dealing with this general problem. Firms who had a ‘little and often’ approach to information, offering for example clients little nuggets of information regularly often meant they didn’t receive as many communication attempts from clients.
This was because they had enough information to keep them going, and secondly, they were also not overloaded with information which required them to seek an explanation on what it all meant.
Also, making clients aware of when there might not be any information to impart, when there was going to be a period of silence, also cut down on inward communication because they were not expecting to hear anything and therefore didn’t think they’d missed something.
Managing client expectations on when and how they would be communicated with was crucial, as was making sure they knew about any ongoing action and how long it was likely to take. In other words, giving them a realistic appraisal of timescales meant they were not expecting things to happen overly quickly, and as a result, they were not phoning/emailing to find out why that self-imposed timescale had not been met.
One of the other major issues for all firms remains workload and the resources available to deal with that workload. We’re all acutely aware recruitment has been difficult for many firms, particularly when it comes to experienced conveyancers who are very much in demand.
We asked the question how firms coped with a situation whereby they might have seen the number of experienced staff reduce, particularly at times when volume was very strong?
Many talked about how important a strong management team is here, being aware of the pinch points within a firm, and also identifying where staff might be struggling or at risk of burn-out. It was also pointed out that the drop in experienced staff might not be so damaging if you had a good mix of experienced/inexperienced people working together – an inexperienced Associate working with a more experienced Fee Earner, for example.
Other potential areas where such problems, and the risks associated with them, could be mitigated included the greater use of AI to reduce the admin burden, regular one-to-ones with staff, ongoing training particularly for the less experienced, and also how firms might create specialist teams to help manage workloads in different areas of the firm.
Also, and this might not be seen as good news for everyone, was a focus on reducing hybrid working arrangements. A number felt having people in the office was more conducive to meeting these staffing/resource challenges, enabling those with less experience to gain more by working side-by-side with colleagues, and allowing managers to monitor issues and staff wellbeing much more effectively than they would necessarily be able to, if those staff were at home.
What was really interesting was that one firm has simply raised their fee to an amount meaning their teams have manageable workloads, not just in terms of providing the advice but also in terms of delivering customer service. As a result, when they scrapped home working, deciding that staff morale was better when they were in the office, no-one left and they have no issue recruiting. Yes they have less client conversion at the higher fees, but they have more profit, happier clients and happier staff members.
Overall, it is of course a matter of horses for courses when it comes to tackling these challenges, but there was a lot of consensus on what does work and what can add to the problems. We will certainly be repeating such workshops at future meetings as the feedback we received, on the information shared and the solutions put forward, was invaluable, and is likely to make a considerable difference at a large number of firms.
Beth Rudolf is Director of Delivery at the Conveyancing Association (CA)
