Skip to main content

Client Care 101

Let’s call this lesson “Client Care 101”.

It begins with the letter you send to clients at the beginning of a new instruction. Although not a regulatory requirement, lawyers are obliged to advise clients about complaint procedures, etc.  Retainer letters have been best practice for years now - although, much to my surprise, some firms open files even if the letter is not countersigned. Many firms will have their standard letter or terms checked by a risk consultant often being lulled into a false sense of security in thinking that this document need not be changed until the next time the risk expert takes a look at it.

But beyond the basics, the retainer letter should be a more sophisticated tool.

Unless you have a separate sales team, the likelihood is that as a conveyancing lawyer you will have at least some involvement in winning instructions or requoting an existing client. And chances are that you will talk about the the sale or purchase process and the virtues of retaining your firm's services. All the effort is made in converting the client into into an instruction. You are busy and not necessarily inclined to invest too much time finding out about the transaction in detail with a view to making it clear what you don't cover. At this stage it’s all about the sale.

It’s as if as conveyancers we are reluctant to explicitly advise clients what the retainer does not include. Based on numerous conversation with underwriters and claims handlers it this reluctance can actually cause negligence claims. One underwriter went so far as to tell me that the vast majority of claims stem from a risk that could have been picked up when the client was first taken on and combated by limiting the retainer.

It is such a simple thing in hindsight, but if there is a specific area that you don’t believe you are being instructed to work on, there is no harm at all in saying so in the retainer letter or in your ROT (or preferably both).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Argie Bargie over Home Information Packs

In response to a question from Conservative MP David Amess on what methodology would be used to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the Home Information Pack programme, Communities and Local Government Minister Ian Austin was involved in heated argument. The wording of the debate ( reported in Hansard ) makes interesting reading, so I thought I would share it with you : Mr. David Amess (Southend, West) (Con): What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement. Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement. Mr. David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local...

Paperwork is not a shield: Why your SRA aml audit demands more than just a dusty manual

The Solicitors Regulation Authority continues its aggressive crackdown on financial crime with a recent fine issued against Whiteheads Solicitors (Staffordshire) Ltd . This decision serves as a stark reminder that the regulator is looking far beyond simple paperwork during an SRA aml audit . The firm was fined 2,584 GBP plus 600 GBP in costs following an investigation into its compliance with the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017. While the firm had a firm-wide risk assessment and general policies in place, the SRA identified critical failures at the matter level. Key compliance failures included: Failure to conduct adequate client and matter risk assessments . The SRA found a consistent pattern where the firm failed to sufficiently assess client matter risk levels as required by Regulation 28. Inadequate scrutiny of source of funds . In one specific property transaction, the firm failed to properly investigate the origin of funds provided by ...

The High Street Practitioner’s Guide to Surviving the FCA

For a sole practitioner or the MLRO in a small high-street firm, "AML compliance" often feels like just another mountain of paperwork standing between you and your actual work. When you are juggling a heavy conveyancing caseload, a sensitive probate matter, and the day-to-day survival of your practice, the last thing you need is a new regulator with a reputation for being data-heavy and "zero-tolerance." But the ground is shifting. As the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) takes over AML supervision from the SRA, the "high-street way" of doing things—relying on long-standing local reputations and gut instinct—is being replaced by a requirement for hard, documented proof. The end of "I’ve known them for years" In a small town, you often act for the same families for generations. You know their business, their parents, and their reputation. Under the old mindset, that felt like enough. Under the FCA, it isn’t. T...