Law Society chief humbled
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The solicitors' leader, Martin Mears, was forced to back down on fixed fees for conveyancing yesterday, after his opponents seized on advice from the Master of the Rolls that the plan would probably break the law.
Instead, he got no more than a commitment to consult members to try to find a way to stop cut-price conveyancing, and was forced into the humiliating step of having to agree to get legal advice from a barrister on all options.
One proposal is to try to persuade the Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Bingham, to accept that it would be in the public interest to introduce a minimum scale of conveyancing fees - if the Law Society promised to enforce quality standards on solicitors.
The Law Society's ruling council met in London for what had been expected to be a showdown between the old guard and the newly elected Mr Mears, who had stood - with his deputy, Robert Sayers - on a policy of fighting for higher conveyancing fees.
After a stormy morning session, the leaders agreed over lunch to adopt large sections of a policy Mr Mears had described at the start of the meeting as a "wrecking amendment". Mr Mears had to apologise for his phrase. Opponents had pointed out the damage to the image of the profession if it pursued an unlawful policy to try to increase their incomes, especially if it was doomed to failure.
Mr Sayers had produced a policy which would effectively have banned cut- price conveyancers by taking away their Law Society insurance cover, because they were supposedly a bad risk. They would have been forced instead to seek cover from commercial insurers, probably paying prohibitively high premiums. In effect, cut-price conveyancing would have been banned.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments