Brokers chasing speed and low fees may be stepping into risks their clients – and their own reputations – can’t afford
Mortgage brokers are under relentless pressure to deliver: faster offers, quicker exchanges, smoother completions. In that environment, “fast and cheap” conveyancing can sound irresistible to clients and agents alike.
But from the legal coalface, the picture looks more complicated. According to Jaz Dhaliwal, the drive for speed and low fees is already reshaping parts of the market – and not always in ways that leave brokers or their clients better protected.
Where standards are really slipping
Jaz is clear that this isn’t about lawyers refusing to modernise or work efficiently. It’s about where business models built on volume and price start to bite.
She sees the impact most clearly in three areas: inadequate upfront investigation, poor file ownership, and an over‑reliance on process over judgement.
On investigation, she’s seeing more cases where key issues are surfacing dangerously late in the transaction.
“I increasingly see matters where key title issues, restrictive covenants, rights of way, lease defects or planning irregularities are identified only days before exchange,” she said. By that point, the client is emotionally and financially committed, the chain is tense, and brokers are fielding panicked calls.
The second weak spot is how files are handled in high‑volume set‑ups.
“In some high‑volume setups, a buyer might deal with three or four different people during a transaction. No one feels true ownership of the file, so small issues like a missing building regulation certificate don’t get properly interrogated,” Jaz explained. These aren’t always failures of competence, but symptoms of a system where “no one has the time or authority to stop and ask, ‘Does this actually matter?’”
The third concern is a cultural one: replacing professional judgement with blind adherence to process. Checklists and workflows are essential, but they’re not a substitute for someone experienced being allowed to pause, probe and challenge.
As Jaz puts it: “Speed isn’t the enemy but rushing without understanding is.”
When rushed instructions become real risk
Brokers may think of hurried instructions or incomplete information as something that “just causes a bit of delay”. In reality, the consequences can be much more serious.
“This usually happens where there’s an assumption that ‘this is standard’,” Jaz noted.
Gifted deposits are a prime example. “A broker may tell me ‘It’s just mum helping out’ but the paperwork doesn’t reflect that properly, or the lender hasn’t been fully informed. If we proceed without clarifying whether it’s a gift or a loan, that creates AML and lender‑reporting exposure for the solicitor.”
Those issues don’t evaporate once the keys are handed over. “Rushed instructions don’t just create delay; they can create regulatory problems that don’t go away after completion,” she warned.
The red line: what brokers must not ask
With chains under strain and agents breathing down their necks, brokers will sometimes find themselves tempted to “lean” on the lawyer. Jaz is sympathetic to the commercial pressures, but she is clear on the red lines.
“A broker should never pressure a conveyancer to exchange contracts without all material issues being resolved or properly advised on,” she stressed.
She cites situations where searches reveal a proposed road scheme or nearby development and the response from the wider chain is: the client’s happy to take the risk, can’t we just exchange?
“The problem is that the client being ‘happy’ doesn’t remove the solicitor’s duty to advise properly and report where required,” Jaz explained. A client cannot waive away the solicitor’s regulatory and professional obligations.
“Equally, brokers should not ask conveyancers to ‘take a view’ on matters,” she added. Those three words – “take a view” – are often code for “ignore the risk”. That’s not something a regulated professional can or should do.
“We understand the commercial pressure; chains, deadlines, clients panicking — but pushing a conveyancer to cut corners doesn’t speed things up.” More often, it stores up conflict for later or forces everyone to scramble when an unaddressed issue finally comes to a head.
How to talk honestly about “cheap vs thorough”
Against this backdrop, how should brokers frame the choice of conveyancer to clients who are understandably price‑sensitive?
“I think honesty goes a long way here,” Jaz said.
Rather than presenting conveyancing as a generic tick‑box service, brokers can explain that different firms work in different ways. “For example, a very cheap service might rely heavily on automation and junior staff, which can work well for very straightforward transactions but may struggle when anything unexpected crops up. Price matters, but so does accountability.”
By contrast, a more thorough firm may feel more demanding at the outset. “A more thorough firm may ask awkward questions early on about deposits, alterations, or lease terms. This is often what prevents a deal from falling apart two days before exchange.”
She has seen many cases where a client opted for the cheapest quote, only to regret it. “I’ve seen plenty of transactions where a client chose the cheapest option, only to switch firms halfway through because issues weren’t being dealt with. That costs far more in money and stress than getting it right first time.”
For brokers, the key is not to disparage budget options, but to help clients understand what they are – and aren’t – buying at each price point, and why a slightly higher fee can, in some situations, be a form of insurance.
What “safe but efficient” really looks like
So what should brokers look for – and encourage – in a conveyancing process that is both robust and timely?
“A safe but efficient process is one where groundwork is done properly,” Jaz said. That means clarity at the beginning on crucial points.
“Knowing early on if a deposit is gifted, if the property has been altered, or if there are unusual funding arrangements allows those issues to be dealt with calmly, rather than under pressure,” she emphasised.
The second ingredient is empowered, experienced fee‑earners. “It also involves experienced fee‑earners who are allowed to use judgement. Checklists are helpful, but they don’t replace someone stopping and saying ‘This doesn’t look right’.”
From a broker’s perspective, this is where good collaboration pays off: comprehensive, accurate initial instructions; clarity around the client’s circumstances; and openness to early, sometimes awkward, questions from the lawyer.
In Jaz’s words: “Efficiency comes from clarity, not haste.”
