The Law Society has published a practice note on deposit protection for client accounts. To a large extent, it updates the previous practice note on the banking crisis (which has not yet been withdrawn). 


’Too little, too late’ seems to be a fairly common reaction to the Law Society’s launch of the Conveyancing Quality Scheme, which is intended to raise professional standards and provide a trusted logo.

Conveyancers failing to advise appropriately on co-ownership options is one of the main causes of professional negligence claims. Bear in mind that the CA recently said: 


‘The purchase of residential accommodation is perhaps the single most important financial transaction which any individual transacts in a lifetime. It is therefore of the utmost importance... that those who engage in these transactions, and those who advise them, should take the greatest care over such transactions, and must... address their minds to the size and fate of the respective beneficial interests on acquisition, separation and thereafter. ...Co-habiting partners must... contemplate and address the unthinkable, namely that their relationship will break down and that they will fall out over what they do and do not own.’ 


The reality is that many solicitors explain the nature and effect of a joint tenancy and/or a tenancy in common, and the implications should one of the co-owners die. But, relatively few explain correctly the implications of what happens if the co-owners separate. 


Suppose you act for lender and borrower and the lender asks for the conveyancing file. Practice Rule 4 says:

‘Where a lender asks for a conveyancing file when you have kept joint files for both borrower and lender clients you cannot, without the consent of the borrower, send the whole file to the lender, unless the lender can show to your satisfaction that there is a prima facie case of fraud. If the client does not consent, you should only send those parts of the file which relate to the work done for the lender.’

’Reasonable endeavours’, ‘best endeavours’ and ‘all reasonable endeavours’ undertakings are found in all types of property contract. However, theactual meaning of such undertakings is often unclear. In general terms, the position is:

A pot-pourri of money laundering points:

law firms within the regulated sector must have a nominated officer (to receive, and make, disclosures). But, this does not apply to sole practitioners (ie individual solicitors who provide regulated services, but who do not employ any people – or act in association with anyone else);

electronic verification can be used for due diligence purposes. The Law Society’s preferred suppliers are 192business and Accuity (they offer preferential rates, but firms can use any other reputable e-verifiers);

take care over ID procedures for clients you do not meet.

You should always make it clear to a client that any indemnity from a third party is only as good as that third party’s ability to pay.

In a recent professional indemnity claim, a partner acted for two sellers of a printing company. The partner noticed that one of the sellers was a guarantor of the company’s lease, and negotiated an agreement by the buyer to provide a deed of indemnity in respect of those potential obligations.

When TUPE was substantially revised in 2006, there was concern that it could catch the situation when a panel law firm lost a tender to provide legal services to a client. If the work went elsewhere, then would that be a TUPE situation?

Those concerns have largely been resolved by a recent EAT decision which focused on whether existing work in progress was transferred. If it was not, then it was unlikely to be a ‘service provision change’ under TUPE.

A recent case involving a negligent conveyancer shows how difficult it can be to assess damages.

The case involved a licenced conveyancer whose client was buying a cottage with a view to redeveloping it, and also acquiring an option to buy adjacent land. The conveyancer was negligent and the option was ineffective. The client claimed damages on the basis that he would have gone ahead with a substantial redevelopment.

Can an individual member of an LLP apply for the LLP to be wound up?

Applying the provisions of the corporate insolvency regime (IA 1986) to LLPs is not straightforward. It is clear that an LLP can be wound up by the LLP or its members collectively, or by any contributory, or creditor. But, it is uncertain whether it is possible for an individual member to be able to wind it up (even if that member is not a contributory or creditor).

Ministry of Justice proposals mean that some 75% of the 1,700 firms currently doing criminal legal aid work will be removed from the market. Needless to say, it will be a fundamental change if it goes ahead. See [2010] LSG 25 March 1.

Suppose your client tells you to put forward arguments that you fundamentally disagree with; can you terminate the retainer, or are you bound to proceed with those arguments (assuming they do not involve impropriety or misleading the court)?

The Law Society has issued a Practice Note which is a useful reminder of the basics of dealing with a bank when acting under a Power of Attorney.

As far as Enduring Powers of Attorney are concerned, is no longer possible to create a new EPA. But, EPAs executed before 1 October 2007 are valid, irrespective of whether or not they had been registered.

These days, sole practitioners are often singled-out as an insurance risk. Indeed, most lenders will require panel firms to have two or more partners, in the expectation that this will reduce the likelihood of fraud. As a result, it is tempting for sole practitioners to get together and create arrangements that may appear from the outside to be a partnership, but in reality remain separate firms.