Lawyers, convenyances and other professionals charge a fee for the services they provide. No law society attempts to set or regulate prices as this would violate laws regarding collusion, price fixing, price maintenance, market forces etc... State and Commonwealth. So the "scale" fee may be $,000's and the market rate is $1,200. That's capitalism. But think Caveat Emptor !
I'm always concerned that a comparison of prices should be based on more than just the price. This can be misleading eg:
- + Disbusements and these include inflated on-costs and are not specified
- Card surcharges
- "Plus GST"...A sure fire way to identify a shonk. They doent even understand consumer law which requires all prices to be GST inclusive without exception.
- An assumption that no face to face meeting time is included.
- A very high rate for additional advice, queries etc
However by far the greatest concern (and I'm not a lawyer so I'm happy to have arrows fired at me) is attempting to compare lawyers and conveyancers. Sure they both appear to do the same job. However when it all goes wrong only one of them is qualified to address a resolution. Only one of them can intiate legal action, send a demand (and enforce it) and to provide advice on the ways to resolve a concern. Its a bit like asking a company CPA financial controller to give tax advice.
Conveyancing is just the means of settling a contract so the buyer achieves title. So it stands to reason only someone who is legally qualified to write a contract, amend a contract and to enforce contract terms should be engaged. This doesnt mean everyone "needs" a lawyer to do conveyancing. It just explains why a conveyancer should be much cheaper than a lawyer. The low price should recognise the lack of LEGAL practicing qualifications and the user of such services should understand the high cost of then instructing another party to start from scratch when a issue does arise.
But I also woudnt use a lawyer who only infrequently does conveyancing. Lawyers that focus and specialise on conveyancing and advertise in property mags are often low cost, competitive and dedictated to this line of work. But they can also get the school experience kid over involved too so do your homework.
My mate had a law firm (Packer something...LOL he still calls them Packa AHoles) settle his sale of his sub div property. Four years later his council insisted he had to pay unpaid rates for the back house or they were going to put a charge over title but he was living in the front. Yep - He was effectively living in his neighbours property and paying that persons rates and guess who had a trail of debt ?? Thank God same bank acted for both mortgages and understood issues. His lawyer had made a mess of it. The Law Society appointed another lawyer to fix it !! No cost.
I'm always concerned that a comparison of prices should be based on more than just the price. This can be misleading eg:
- + Disbusements and these include inflated on-costs and are not specified
- Card surcharges
- "Plus GST"...A sure fire way to identify a shonk. They doent even understand consumer law which requires all prices to be GST inclusive without exception.
- An assumption that no face to face meeting time is included.
- A very high rate for additional advice, queries etc
However by far the greatest concern (and I'm not a lawyer so I'm happy to have arrows fired at me) is attempting to compare lawyers and conveyancers. Sure they both appear to do the same job. However when it all goes wrong only one of them is qualified to address a resolution. Only one of them can intiate legal action, send a demand (and enforce it) and to provide advice on the ways to resolve a concern. Its a bit like asking a company CPA financial controller to give tax advice.
Conveyancing is just the means of settling a contract so the buyer achieves title. So it stands to reason only someone who is legally qualified to write a contract, amend a contract and to enforce contract terms should be engaged. This doesnt mean everyone "needs" a lawyer to do conveyancing. It just explains why a conveyancer should be much cheaper than a lawyer. The low price should recognise the lack of LEGAL practicing qualifications and the user of such services should understand the high cost of then instructing another party to start from scratch when a issue does arise.
But I also woudnt use a lawyer who only infrequently does conveyancing. Lawyers that focus and specialise on conveyancing and advertise in property mags are often low cost, competitive and dedictated to this line of work. But they can also get the school experience kid over involved too so do your homework.
My mate had a law firm (Packer something...LOL he still calls them Packa AHoles) settle his sale of his sub div property. Four years later his council insisted he had to pay unpaid rates for the back house or they were going to put a charge over title but he was living in the front. Yep - He was effectively living in his neighbours property and paying that persons rates and guess who had a trail of debt ?? Thank God same bank acted for both mortgages and understood issues. His lawyer had made a mess of it. The Law Society appointed another lawyer to fix it !! No cost.
