Let your next career move come to you.

Law Society scrambles to warn firms which repeated its lies
The Law Society has scrambled to warn firms to stop repeating its misleading claims, which have put hundreds of them in potential breach of the SRA Code of Conduct.

It follows the ruling this week from the Advertising Standards Authority that the Law Society misled the public about its Conveyancing Quality Scheme accreditation.

The Law Society advert claimed that all firms which obtained its CQS watermark "go through rigorous examination and testing to demonstrate that they have a high level of knowledge, skills, experience and practice". But the ASA, acting on a solicitor's complaint, found that the Law Society's claims "exaggerated" the level of knowledge, skills and experience firms had to possess. Between 2014 and 2016, the Law Society approved 291 out of 293 applications on the basis of a basic, self-completed form in what appeared to be a rubber-stamping exercise. One which netted it £1.5m a year. Applicant firms' staff only had to pass multiple choice tests after accreditation was given. And re-accreditation was overwhelmingly granted without follow-up checks. As a result, in a hugely embarrassing decision for the Law Society, the ASA said its ad was misleading and had to be withdrawn.

  Hey look it's the Law Society. 

However, the Law Society also provided thousands of leaflets containing the same guff to its 3,047 CQS-accredited firms to hand out to prospective clients. And many of those firms, understandably, also slapped the misleading wording on their websites and in other promotional literature, where it remains. Which means that the Law Society has potentially put them in breach of Outcome 8(1) of the SRA Code of Conduct, which stipulates that “your publicity in relation to your firm or in-house practice or for any other business is accurate and not misleading".

RollOnFriday raised the issue with the Law Society at 9.30am on 23 November. Precisely three hours later, in a totally unconnected event, 3,047 firms received a curt email from the Law Society explaining that it had removed the offending statement from its promotional material "and would encourage accredited members to do the same". Indeed.

The SRA, asked whether it was going to take action against the Law Society and/or the hundreds of firms put in breach by their own professional body, referred RollOnFriday to the Law Society. It is the latest shambles to engulf the CQS scheme after the Law Society was found guilty of abusing its dominant position by compelling firms to buy its training. 
Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 24 November 17 07:55

If an "accreditation scheme" does not involve rigorous testing to check the expertise, knowledge, skills, experience etc of the people involved, what the hell is the point of it?

Maybe they should re-brand it as the "Conveyancing Marketing Scheme" or the "Ooh Look I Can Fill in a Form and Write a Cheque Scheme".

Anonymous 24 November 17 07:59

The law society and the SRA, only one word comes to mind: “omnishambles”.

A collective waste of skin.

Roll On Friday 24 November 17 08:12

So if the qualification is basically worthless then do the people get both a refund and payment for their time in obtaining it? Perhaps someone will see a class action coming on in that respect........
Victims can also sue for damages under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (and later amending regulations) which make some misleading advertising a criminal offence.

Anonymous 24 November 17 09:41

The website of the Law Society states: "The Law Society is the independent professional body for solicitors. We represent and support our members, promoting the highest professional standards and the rule of law."

The time has come for the members to ask whether they want to be represented by the Law Society and whether the the Law Society is enhancing or harming the reputation and image of solicitors.

The Law Society has been held to have abused its dominant position in relation to the CQS in an action brought by Socrates Training when the LS required members of the CQS to buy its AML training from the LS and no other provider. During the course of that particular case, the LS was condemned by the judge: "I have to say from any responsible company I would regard this as a pretty shoddy product and I would expect the Law Society, the body that represents the solicitors of England and Wales, to operate in what it produces for the Court to a high standard". After an apology from counsel for the LS, Roth J states: "...if you had not given us that explanation, we would have been misled".

It is currently subject to a claim for judicial review by a provider of the QLTS relating to the LS's endorsement of only one QLTS preparation provided, BARBRI. (Has it learnt nothing from the Socrates case?). This tie-up is being used by BARBRI in its website: "QLTS Prep by BARBRI is the only QLTS preparation course exclusively endorsed by the Law Society of England and Wales." We really do need to know what the LS is getting for its endorsement and what criteria it has used to select BARBRI for this marketing endorsement.

It has recently leaked the personal data of 1,400 solicitors (with its website stating: "The Law Society offers services and publications to help firms prepare for GDPR and we will be adding more.")

And as for the CQS scheme itself - do conveyancing firms have any real choice other than to sign up the scheme? It is a "must have" product. As found by Mr Justice Roth in the Socrates case as a situation "where for the majority of conveyancing solicitors there was little option but to seek CQS accreditation". The costs to firms of complying with this scheme is a mandatory extra cost to them.

What is the point of the Law Society? Is its purpose to make enough profits to keep itself in existence? Is it competent enough to represent the solicitors of England and Wales?

Anonymous 24 November 17 10:13

This by far the biggest case of misleading advertising to affect the legal profession. It involves not just the Solicitors' professional body wilfully misleading the public, but hundreds of firms joining in (albeit they were just doing what the Law Society told them to do), and hundreds of thousands or even millions of clients misled.

If the SRA does not bring disciplinary proceedings against those concerned at the Law Society it is simply failing to do its job.

Anonymous 24 November 17 10:43

The CQS accreditation scheme is a money making scam, pure and simple. I've lost count of the number of managing partners and compliance officers who have proudly declared that their CQS application forms contained a load of tosh and made up in-house risk management policies. After all, who's checking??

Anonymous 24 November 17 11:09

Don't forget that the Law Society was also responsible for the Veyo fiasco which cost the profession at least £10m in wasted IT development costs.

Anonymous 24 November 17 11:14

One may also look at the President's Panel of Arbitrators. The list is not published and no one knows how these arbitrators are selected by the Law Society.

Anonymous 24 November 17 13:30

Anon 9:41 - Do you think that listing fuck ups means that The Law Society does nothing good?

Anonymous 24 November 17 13:39

Anon at 10:13 is correct in writing of "hundreds of firms joining in (albeit they were just doing what the Law Society told them to do), and hundreds of thousands or even millions of clients misled."

The firms, however, were ideally placed to know that the statements were misleading. They may have taken the lead of the Law Society, but it is the firms themselves who seem to be equally culpable.

And is it true to refer to the Law Society as the regulator? But if the regulator, the SRA, is not too bothered about pursuing the Law Society, then it may not be too bothered about the firms who have also been using misleading advertising.

Anonymous 24 November 17 13:50

Anon at 13:30. The suggestion is that the Law Society has proved to be, and continues to be, an embarrassment to the profession.

The suggestion is that the Law Society seems to be intent on looking after its own interests even if this means abusing a dominant position to increase revenue (for what, exactly?), being less than forthcoming before a court and, had it not be challenged, misleading a court, and making up spurious claims about rigorous testing and examination to mislead the public into a false belief.

Had this been a firm, then we can be pretty sure that the SRA would have taken an interest before now.

If you want to list the good that the Law Society is currently doing, the you can use this forum to do so. This may also serve to answer the question: what is the purpose of the Law Society?

Anonymous 26 November 17 12:58

In the Law Society Gazette of 6th Feb 2017 appeared this:-
CONVEYANCING: HSBC has announced that it will increase the loan threshold imposed on sole practitioners registered under the Society’s Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS) from £150,000 to £350,000. The change came into force last week. Society president Robert Bourns said: ‘HSBC’s decision shows that those dealing with conveyancers know that when a solicitor is CQS-accredited they can be relied upon to be at the top of their game. It is a welcome change that will benefit both solicitors and their clients.' Your comments please.

Anonymous 29 November 17 10:31

Anon at 13:50: "The suggestion is that the Law Society seems to be intent on looking after its own interests even if this means abusing a dominant position to increase revenue (for what, exactly?)" - you do realise they are a not-for-profit organisation, right?