Are Solicitors losing influence with their clients

[Importer]

As I said earlier, most of the tasks mentioned are "paralegal" tasks.
They are tasks that can easily be handled by lower level, lower qualified people for a much lower fee, as is done in USA / Canada.

I think in the future we will see a lot more "paralegals" a lot less Solicitors and an opening up of the closed shop currently cloaking the legal industry.

Following the 2009 land conveyancing act, we are moving towards a much more simplified, electronic conveyancing process which hopefully will take much of the mystique out of conveyancing and an ability to close house sales within a few days as is done in many other European countries already.

Lots of our graduates are leaving Universities nowadays with good masters degrees in all disciplines . A lot of these people are armed with excellent research skills and there is no doubt that these people will further develop DIY law for the less complicated / less risky tasks into the future.

I think its correct to say that Solicitors will need to work much harder in meeting their clients needs and for a much lower price. Then again thats follows a readily identifiable trend across many professions, not just Law

 

[Brendan Burgess]

"I have recently advised a friend in an employment law case not to use a solicitor. The final outcome was compensation of €40k , €30k of which went in legal fees. He was a senior guy who could have done much better by himself.

In another case, where a friend took my advice and did not use a solicitor, he got no response at all from his employer. I then advised him to use a solicitor and he got an immediate response. "

. One is contradicting the other. Because without the solicitor the second guy was getting nowhere.

Hi Bronte

Maybe my point wasn't clear.

I think that people should attempt to resolve these issues and even go to the EAT without using a solicitor.

But, it's not a hard rule. When my friend was getting nowhere, we changed tack and got a solicitor involved. It was a shocking waste of resources. While he got a good settlement, I think that the former employer paid as much in legal fees as he did in compensation.

 

[Vanilla]

One thing I've never understood is why is it so complex and my conclusion is that is is deliberately so in order to keep it the bread and butter of the legal professionals.

The reason that conveyancing is so complex is partially due to the two types of title, the way planning matters affect 'good' title and also due to the system we have whereby charges or burdens run with property. None of these can be attributed to practitioners. There is a distinction to be made between the lawmakers and practitioners. In fact the law reform commission, which is made up of many practitioners, have recommended much more sweeping changes than have actually come about.

In relation to fees- I know of nobody charging a percentage fee anymore in relation to probates- it's based on the work to be done. And it is a free market, anyone can shop around for quotes. I also would have to point out that solicitors are bound to give a clear written estimate of costs at the earliest possible time on their file and in most instances, this is immediately after taking instructions. Yes, you will hear of complaints where people weren't given an estimate or it wasn't clear but these are the exception. In the nature of things, the clients who are satisfied with their service don't need to make that public.

Following the 2009 land conveyancing act, we are moving towards a much more simplified, electronic conveyancing process which hopefully will take much of the mystique out of conveyancing and an ability to close house sales within a few days as is done in many other European countries already.

In reality, the 2009 act resolved a few obscure title hangovers from the last few centuries that actually affected a tiny amount of titles. What was recommended by the Law Reform commission and what happened in the act are two different things.

It has done little or nothing to affect the vast majority of title in Ireland.

In fact some of the provisions of the act have meant more people need to change aspects of their title in order comply with updated practice directions arising from the act, particularly in relation to rights of ways.

It's all very well reading the blurb about the act or even reading the act itself but unless you are working in the area you have no idea of the reality.

 

[Importer]

Bought a property in Finland a number of years back.

All the title information is held electronically and the conveyancing was all done in an hour after filling out a few screens on the computer.

Its only Solicitors in this country who insist that it must be complicated.

I do agree that It's complicated in this country to the extent of all the legacy easements and rights of ways that are still not registered with the PRA. The recent digitization is also throwing up a lot of problems.The 2009 act was intended to deal with these problems and pave the way for econveyancing.It didnt do a very good job.

I'm pretty sure that the conveyancing process could be greatly simplified and electronified if it was properly tackled and resourced by the legal profession. Unfortunately by doing that we would also be taking away the "Solicitor's lunch". Id be surprised if we see any great progress any time soon.

I think that the disorganisation of our conveyancing process and the way it interfaces with the planning authorities is backward and makes us a laughing stock of Europe.

As for Vanillas comment that only Solicitors can really understand these things. I have no comment about that at all.

 

[Time]

A big part of the problem with conveyancing is that the PRAI are very awkward to deal with as a lay person. They will invariably tell you to use a solicitor. It is almost as if it is a pre-programmed response they have as their default position is dealing with solicitors.

Also you get certain public bodies that say "Oh we will only accept such a request from a solicitor." I have successfully complained to the Data Protection Commissioner and the Ombudsman where this line has been trotted out in the past.

 

[Purple]

at the end of the day, the client instructs, the solicitor merely advises.

That's the crux of it. If the solicitor is no good then use a different one but don't blame them if you take your eye off the ball and a deal falls apart. If the solicitor is employed as an agent to manage the deal that’s one thing but if they are employed with only their legal hat on then that’s all they should do.

There are good and bad solicitors just as there are bad “everyone else’s”. Caveat Emptor still applies when you are buying services as well as goods.
There’s so much competition in the market now that if a solicitor is busy it’s because they are offering good value for money.

 

[Vanilla]

Its only Solicitors in this country who insist that it must be complicated.


As for Vanillas comment that only Solicitors can really understand these things. I have no comment about that at all.

First of all, how do solicitors insist it must be complicated? It is what it is- solicitors have not made it that way, nor do we have the power to change it. As I pointed out, the Law Reform commission made recommendations that the government did not implement. The Law Society has made recommendations about e-conveyancing that- wait for it- have not been implemented. It's ridiculous to blame solicitors for the legal system that we have.

Secondly I think you'll find I did not say only solicitors can really understand these things- but that sounds much better as a soundbite. Read the post.

 

[Importer]

Yes "it is what it is" but why on earth are Solicitors so willing to accept the Status Quo. Surely if radical reform is needed in the conveyancing area and the legal profession is intent on making the necessary changes to bring it into line with other jurisdictions, then I would be very confident that its possible to achieve such a thing in a reasonable time frame. Its a bit pathetic to hear from you that the Law Society has failed to do X and the Law Reform Commission has failed to do Y so therefore the body of Solicitors is rendered helpless !! Surely the Solicitors have a voice and an input into the framework that they are working in.

Somewhere else in this thread it was mentioned that solicitors are slow to change and that charge was defended vigorously. Im afraid that charge is absolutely true.

The whole legal profession will have to get this sorted out. Solicitors for Buyers, Solicitors for Vendors and more recently separate Solicitors for banks to make sure that the other Solicitors are doing their jobs properly !!
Then letters back and forth about Johnny having a right of way to carry water to a well over another mans land. Im sorry this is just ludicrous and backward.

So yes the 1st step is saying - "It is what it is"
The 2nd step is doing something about it. When are we going to get to the 2nd step ?

 

[Time]

Turkeys will not vote for Christmas.

 

[Vanilla]

I did not say the Law society or the law reform commission failed to do anything- this is something they cannot change- the only thing that can change our system is legislation.

Legislative change is in your hands and in the hands of every voter in this country. It has nothing to do with individual solicitors. It is the government which makes law. You vote for the government. We live in a democracy. Which part of that do you not understand?

 

[Importer]

Legal Bills are usually introduced to the house by the Minister for Justice

The content of the bills is usually developed by the Minister and his Department following consultation with the various interest groups and following lobying from the relevant law commissions, representative associations and so forth.

Im sure that Solicitors would be better placed than most through their representative body to loby the Minister to introduce necessary legislation for their profession. Solicitors are the ones who know exactly where the problems are and are in the best position to propose the necessary solutions. I still cant get it why you think, this is not the case.
Solicitors are not as helpless or toothless as you would like us to believe and in my view are a critical part in the progression of any new legislation in this area.

The democracy bit ONLY comes in at the end of the process (not the beginning). The elected representatives will vote for the bill when it comes before the house(s) This is after all the heavy lifting has been done.

Same question to you - Which part of that do you not understand

 

[j26]

A big part of the problem with conveyancing is that the PRAI are very awkward to deal with as a lay person. They will invariably tell you to use a solicitor. It is almost as if it is a pre-programmed response they have as their default position is dealing with solicitors.

If you get that response it's probably because you're looking for advice on how to do a particular case. The reason for the PRAI is as a registration authority, not as a source of free legal advice.
There's also the possibility that you're looking for advice on how to defeat someone elses rights, for example adverse possession, or cancelling a judgment mortgage. The PRAI is bound to be neutral - to be otherwise would leave it open to be in sued for bias - so will obviously be very reluctant to help on these other than directing you to the correct forms and Practice Directions.
Also consider that conveyancing involves far more than just title. PRAI staff may well be aware of that fact.

Notwithstanding that, in the main, the PRAI tries to be as helpful as it can.