The only way this type of work can remain profitable is to delegate the more routine areas to employed solicitors and support staff. In view of the heavy demands upon the time of most principals it is quite likely that a more detailed explanation is available for a client from an employed solicitor rather than the principal. By placing principals under greater pressure the likelihood of making mistakes is increased with consequent professional indemnity claims. Alternatively, experienced principals will be forced out of the profession. Most cases I have read involving defective certificates have involved principals, usually under pressure from a client or referral source.
Employed solicitors are generally able to take a more independent stance in the circumstances.
This ruling can be considered an attack on sole practitioners and small practices and if there is professed Society policy to eliminate such practices it should be openly stated by the Society. I have already had the experience of a major client indicating that they will have to employ a larger firm in view of my difficulty in completing a large volume of mortgage certificates. I was also dismayed that upon telephoning two senior officers at the Society on both occasions, we were openly criticised for the fact that we were paying inadequate PI premium as we engaged employed solicitors rather than having all the solicitors as principals of the firm. I believe this type of criticism reveals the lack of practicality by the Society's officers and their removal from the real world of everyday legal practice. There is not enough profit in legal practice to sustain the existing number of principals and many employed solicitors are not seeking partnership.