Law Society president and CEO defeat no confidence vote over conveyancing guidance

Campaigners have failed to unseat the Law Society's chief executive and president after the pair overcame a vote of no confidence at a meeting on Thursday (24 July) which also challenged Chancery Lane's ability to represent members who undertake conveyancing.

The Property Lawyers Action Group (PLAG) claimed that the Law Society had failed to consult with members adequately before making changes relating to new guidance released by National Trading Standards Estate and Letting Agency Team (NTSELAT) which affect conveyancing.

However, the group lost the vote by 84 votes after 123 voted for the motion, compared with 207 against and 20 who abstained.

The dispute, which saw PLAG requisition a debate and vote of no confidence, centred on controversial changes to the TA6 form that introduce the need for sellers to include material information (MI) before a property is listed for sale.

On this point, PLAG challenged the Law Society's decision to "accept without taking appropriate external legal advice that National Trading Standards had the necessary legal capacity to issue its guidance to estate agents on 'material information' being included when listing properties via their online portals (MI)".

In a briefing note ahead of the vote, PLAG claimed that by the extension of 'material information' (MI), Chancery Lane "is seeking to unnecessarily impose substantially increased criminal and civil liability on solicitors, their staff and sellers, together with increased costs".

It added: "This imposition would, like other failed actions, be likely to discourage sellers from putting their property on the market.

"The refusal of the Law Society to release its 'expert advice 'on consumer protection legislation to its members, is frankly an affront to them, and suggests that the legal advice is unsound."

The note went on to describe the TA6 form as "badly drafted, ambiguous", adding that it "fails to provide critical protection to sellers, solicitors, and their staff".

In addition, the group sought to challenge the Law Society's failure to consult members on its decision to become a member of the Home Buying and Selling Council, and the Digital Property Market Steering Group (DPMSG).

It also challenged the decision to accept with other members of the HBSG that MI should be imposed on the profession, the decision to redraft form TA6 "despite the latest iteration significantly increasing the risk of criminal offences being committed by solicitors", and the decision to redraft form TA6 "despite the significantly increased risk of selling clients facing civil claims for misrepresentation".

In a statement issued by the Law Society Council ahead of yesterday's vote, Chancery Lane said the requirement for 'MI' to be provided in the context of the buying and selling process was a statutory one and had been in place since the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 came into force.

It said: "The requirement has recently been given more prominence with the publication of guidance on MI by National Trading Standards Estate and Letting Agency Team, in November 2023.

"We recognise that there are many differing views on that guidance, but we do not see the argument that its publication was outside the powers of NTSELAT, the legislation or case law."

Chancery Lane also said the fears that revisions to TA6 might increase solicitors' liability were "unfounded".

It said: "Concerns about liability are not new and we sought advice from specialist counsel when producing our February 2016 practice note about the Consumer Protection Regulations (CPR). We have recently taken updated advice on the issue from specialist counsel, which supports the position set out in the guidance we have recently published.

"In summary, we explained in those resources that solicitors should not face additional liability as a direct consequence of the amendments to the TA Forms, under either consumer law, tort or the law of contract provided they are used with due diligence."

Regarding the concern that changes to the TA6 form were not consulted on, the Law Society said: "Whilst recent changes to the TA6 were developed in line with our established approach and governance structures we can see that more engagement with practitioners was and is needed to ensure that the new edition of TA6 has wider support within its user community.

"For that reason, we announced on 14 June our decision to extend the period of parallel running of the current and new editions of form TA6, for a further period until 15 January 2025."

Commenting on the vote, Colin McWilliams of PLAG, said: "We are obviously disappointed with the outcome, but we are grateful to the Law Society for a well run event and for allowing us the opportunity to express our views.

"We intend to reflect on the outcome of the vote, and more importantly to rest after a very hard fought campaign spanning several months."

Amerdeep Somal, chair of the Law Society Board and Mark Evans, deputy vice president of the Law Society, meanwhile said: "The Law Society Council and Board fully support the President and CEO and are pleased with the outcome of today's vote.

"We have listened to the concerns raised by some of our members on this specific issue.

"It is important to note that we have already taken steps to address these concerns by postponing the compulsory implementation of the updated TA6 form. We have also launched a consultation to ensure we understand the full range of member views."

Adam Carey