Hewetson Shah are leading legalsearch and recruitment specialists.We offer expert assistance in searchand recruitment for the Bar, PrivatePractice, and In-house counsel.ARS_185x125 15/3/06 7:01 pm Page 1We act for barristers’ chambers, law firms andcompanies, as well as for individual candidates.We cover the whole market in England & Wales aswell as international and key emerging markets.We are in the process of establishing our firstinternational office.We have over 50 years’ combined experience inthe legal services sector. Our consultants havesuccessfully transacted numerous high profiledeals over the years including establishing officesfor international law firms in foreign jurisdictions,headline partner and team moves, restructuringof whole clerking rooms and implementingmanagement structures within chambers.Our in-depth knowledge of individual law firm andchambers’ strategies, the legal market and widereconomic trends puts us at the forefront of legalsector search and recruitment.For further information please contactGuy Hewetson on +44 (0) 203 008 5598Anil Shah on +44 (0) 203 008 5599James O’Brien on +44 (0) 203 008 5596Ekaterina Rozenbaum on +44 (0) 203 008 5597or log on to www.hewetsonshah.comHewetson Shah, Central Court,25 Southampton Buildings, London, WC2A 1ALwww.hewetsonshah.comLost heirs?Unclaimed assets?With even the smallest amountof information, our highlytrained staff can piece togetherthe most complex family tree.www.angliaresearch.co.uk246-8 Princes Museum Street St, Ipswich, IP1 IP1 1HT 1RJ Tel: Tel: 01473 226725Fax: 01473 226687 Email: info@angliaresearch.co.uk DX: 3215 IpswichSBT1273 Charlton Grant Anglia Research Ad.indd 1 12/06/2012 11:26
The views29Keeping up withthe changesAs happens in all businesssectors from time to time, keyterminology and phrases can beupdated almost overnight, and thesearch industry is no exception.From October this year, wewill now see Personal Searchesbeing referred to as RegulatedSearches and Official Searchesbeing referred to as Council Searches. It’s important tounderstand the very sound reasons for the changesbeing implement to avoid them being overlookedamidst a cacophony of groans about the time and workinvolved in updating systems.The Council of Property Search Organisations(CoPSO) made the decision to change the terminologyin respect of searches to reflect the realities of thepost HIPs world. Member companies, such as SearchesUK (which subscribe to the Search Code), operatein a tightly regulated environment -recognised inthe language attached to their search products, nowtermed Regulated Searches.Equally, CoPSO believes it is a little misleading to usethe term Official when referring to searches producedby Local Authorities. There is no basis for the use ofthis word in any statute and it implies that any searchnot produced by a Local Authority is, in some wayor another, unofficial which could be prejudicial in theminds of lawyers and consumers buying searches fromregulated providers. CoPSO has therefore decidedto implement the term Council Searches to describesearches provided by Local Authorities.James Sherwood-Rogers, Chairman of CoPSO, said:“It is important that property lawyers have a clearchoice in selecting where to source their searches, andare uninfluenced by outdated language. We hope thatthe distinction will enable lawyers and consumers tomake a more informed decision about which search toopt for.”There are pros and cons for both type of Search andthe subject has caused much debate as to which is bestfor clients and why… ultimately, there are no definitiveanswers, just personal views either for or against oneor other. Whatever type of search you prefer, whenordering through CoPSO members, you are guaranteedquality data, obtained either directly from the LocalAuthority or (in the case of Searches UK) by a qualifiednetwork of locally-based Search Agents.Andrew Stenning, Managing Director, Searches UKwww.searchesuk.co.ukQ: Will the Legal Ombudsman‘list of shame’ force lawyers toraise standards of customerservice and focus efforts toeffectively deal with complaintsin-house?A decision has beenA: made to publish quarterlyinformation relating to complaintsabout lawyers, which is nowavailable to the public.The list shows the names oflaw firms involved in complaints,which have led to a formaldecision by an ombudsmanin order to create greater transparency, promoteconsumer interest and provide objective information.When looking at the information published, it maybe difficult to draw a conclusion about the law firmswhich appear on the list, particularly when complaintsare made and no remedies are ordered. This ultimatelymeans that the lawyers had in fact dealt with the matterproperly.I believe it is important for consumers to make aninformed choice about which legal provider they use,but the information published in the current format willin all probability not make that choice for them.The legal ombudsman does not have jurisdictionover all legal service providers, many of which areunregulated, such as will writers. The name and shameapproach may not give the consumer a true reflectionof the market.If greater transparency is required it may also bebeneficial to publish positive client testimonials.Another area for concern is the lack of data inrelation to the size of firms and/or the number oftransactions they undertake. For example, a solepractitioner may have the same number of complaintsas firm which employs over 1,000 lawyers.We have to ask ourselves, has a balance been struckbetween protecting consumers and encouragingindependent and strong legal advice? And has theinformation published added value to the consumer,or does this system need to go back to the drawingboard?By Lorraine Harrison, Head of Compliance and ClientCare, RalliOn Twitter? Follow Ralli: @RalliSolicitorsML // November 2012
Change language