Date set for Law Society no-confidence vote over material information

A date has been set for a vote of no confidence in the Law Society amid furore over its stance on material information rules.

The Property Lawyers Action Group (PLAG), launched last year, initiated the procedure for a special general meeting (SGM) last month to hold a vote of no confidence in the professional body’s leadership.

The group claims material information is being imposed on the property sector without sufficient consultation and unfairly opens conveyancers up to legal liability.

Its opposition has contributed to the Law Society delaying compulsory use of a new TA6 form.

More than 100 Law Society members have backed holding a vote on the professional body at an SGM scheduled for Tuesday 23 July.

Solicitors must register for the SGM using the Law Society’s online form and can attend online or at the professional body’s headquarters at 113 Chancery Lane, London. 

The PLAG said in a statement: “Criminalising solicitors and their staff is highly likely to discourage solicitors undertaking residential property matters.

“Professional indemnity premiums for residential conveyancing are already high, the new form will simply exacerbate the situation, increasing the same whilst at the same time putting smaller firms out of business and driving clients into the arms of factory outfits. 

“This cannot be in the best interests of the consumer.”

The group claims there has been a deliberate effort to attempt to pass off guidance from Trading Standards as both a legal requirement and a guide to best practice for conducting property transactions. 

The PLAG statement added: “It is our view that the Property Information Form must be entirely independent from the malign influence of material information. 

“Irrespective of one’s own opinion on the concept, it is intended for estate agents and not for conveyancers. Indeed, there will be many transactions in which there is no estate agent involved, rendering an material information-centric form entirely farcical. Anecdotally, most agents still appear to be ignoring the guidance almost entirely, making it even more absurd that the Law Society is attempting to force it upon solicitors.”