Skip to main content

Should Insurers and Lenders be Demanding guardrails?


Left to our own devices, most of us get attracted to things that are bad for us. I am in my mid-40s and trying to improve my general health and fitness, yet I often find myself making short-term decisions such as eating a bar of chocolate or having an extra beer. ‘The diet and fitness regime can always start next week’.
We all get caught up by temptations and falling into a short-term trap.
Over the last 20 years I have witnessed many in the conveyancing industry knowingly sacrifice proper risk management in pursuit of making legal work fractionally cheaper for the client or indeed their firm.
We know that that drinks pumped full of sugar are bad for us but it is likely to take a sugar tax to have a big impact in the same way that the plastic bag tax has.
Guardrails seem like an unwanted intrusion on personal freedom. Until we get used to them. Then we wonder how we coped without them.
In the most risk-laden work law firms undertake, conveyancing,’guard rails’ such as lawyer checker, Jet, COMPLETIONmonitor and Safemove exist, yet many firms fail to use those services even though few lawyers would ever deny that they have a crucial role to play when managing risk. After all,  each move to reduce risk in conveyancing has costs either in time or money and sometimes both.

It is wrong to think that we are all always rational, have complete access to the information we need, have plenty of time and never make errors. If all that were true, PI insurance would be a lot cheaper - and lenders would not need to constantly prune their panels.
Instead, lawyers with some degree of humility understand that sometimes they can make errors and that cultural guardrails such as intelligent checklists not only help us avoid mistakes, but give us the reinforcements we need to get back to productive work and ultimately a healthier business.
Even more rationally, the small amounts of time saved by not investing in risk prevention are enormously outweighed by the costs of making mistakes. Just think: inflated PI premiums, barrister fees, reputation damage or going out of business .
As one of the architects behind a conveyancing risk management tool I do have a vested interest in arguing that law firms should use ‘guardrails’. Does that mean I am wrong though?

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...