Solicitor or Conveyancer?

Do you use a solicitor or a conveyancer for settlement?


  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
In your experience, do you use a solicitor or a conveyancer for settlement?

The lower costs for a conveyancer are definitely attractive, so why would people use a lawyer? :confused:
 
In your experience, do you use a solicitor or a conveyancer for settlement?

The lower costs for a conveyancer are definitely attractive, so why would people use a lawyer? :confused:

Michael, in the past my purchases have been pretty straight forward transactions and thus have used a conveyancer. However, if I had a hint that things might get complicated, I would go to a solicitor.
Frizzle
 
Generally conveyancers are fine but I have found if there are any issues the conveyancers we have used seem to struggle. We had one conveyancer who handled a few of our purchases but dithered and stressed out about the slightest thing.

We have also made a number of purchases through solicitors and in the main these have gone smoothly. The last purchase was handled by a local solicitor and went extremely well, so they are handling our current purchase.

This solicitor will continue to handle our conveyancing providing they do a good job. If this changes then we would be open to either using a solicitor or conveyancer depending on recommendations at the time.

Regards

Andrew
 
The lower costs for a conveyancer are definitely attractive, so why would people use a lawyer? :confused:

I feel more comfortable with a solicitor, just in case something went wrong (which fortunately nothing has to date). Plus I know the solicitor I use and get a discount, probably for the same price as a conveyancer. :D
 
Michael,


We have just appointed a settlement agent to transact our latest acquistion. The property would exhibit what most reasonable people on this forum would call "complications".....and she is absolutely fantastic !!!


More knowledge than any solicitor I have had the misfortune to deal with, and damn quick. Whips out caveat searches, sniffs out detailed easements, knows the nitty gritty of the finance condition backwards, and knows all of the General Conditions of Sale of Land like the back of her hand.....and there is alot to know.


What will be interesting is seeing her pitted against the Collins St club of the toffs in Melbourne. I'm fully backing her to eat them for breakfast, like I do with 'em.


For a total fee amounting to 0.04% of the purchase price.....I can't go wrong.
 
my first experience with a solicitor was that he was never available to answer calls and wouldnt return calls. Basically was too busy to do his job (or just didnt care). It was very frustrating and subsequently I cancelled his services and have used conveyancers ever since. Most transactions have been easy and uncomplicated.
 
not a simple one

The qual of a lawyer per se isnt worth much.

My experience with most conveyancers is that they are " a drive through" affair.

By that I mean, if all goes well, thats all u will need.

If it goes pear shaped for whatever reason I have found many conveyancers to be "deer in the headlights", with solicitors usually a bit more rounded.

If you get a "dog with a bone" conveyancer that will also do : ).

Look for the person not the letters after the name perhaps ?


ta
rolf
 
Solicitor on short settlements as there is no time to find a lawyer if there are complications. Would be interested to hear what settlement complications other people have experienced..?
 
I can't think of any complications per se, just that sometimes the person you are dealing with knows their stuff and gets the job done with minimal fuss and other people seem to ring you whenever there is a tiny non-issue causing frustration and stress. This not because of the transaction rather it makes you question the competance of the person you are dealing with and whether they are going to get the deal done on time. They usually do but not before you lose some sleep over it. :(
 
I think Rolf has summed it up nicely. A conveyancer can tick the boxes and get things done efficiently, but anything outside the box and most just get freeze and don't help solve the problem. The ones that do are priceless.

Solicitors charge more, but are more qualified to give advice should it become necessary. For commercial contracts I'd generally favor a solicitor. In a lot of cases though, a conveyancer can handle the straight forward settlements better.

Not an easy one to answer, it depends on the deal and the person.
 
I use a conveyancer for mine because when I see something I want I can just sign a contract ,pay my deposit ,add conveyancing works as my legal and get on with my life.
I don't lose a minute of my time thinking about it again until they contact me or text message me a day or two later telling me who has been appointed my file.

I tried to use a solicitor earlier this year,however they wanted me to go to their office and have an appointment. :eek:
That's not for me,I don't even go to the garage for vehicle services,my mobile mechanic comes to me.:p

I use ebay and home couriers so I don't have to drive anywhere I don't want to :p
 
The only complications I've experienced have been caused by my solicitor (actually the clerk...) stuffing up the most basic details.

Got the price wrong by $4000, missed a key detail that had been negotiated between myself and the vendor, failed to tell me that the property wouldn't settle on the agreed date (due to their lack of attention).

It was the vendors and their solicitors who bent over backwoulds to make the deal work.

It took me about a month to get the $4k out of my solicitors (they kindly offered to take the vendor to court to get it...which didn't interest me in the slightest...)

They started to hassle me for payment before they had remedied their mistakes...my biggest mistake was not reporting them for professional misconduct.

So...as far as I'm concerned, next time I'll try a conveyancer...can't be any worse. My feeling is that solicitors treat conveyancing as beneath them, and yet generally it seems to be easy money, as the solicitor doesn't appear to do anything...the conveyancing clerk appears to do all the work.


Murphy
 
Totally agree with the general view that for straight forward conveyancing (residential, Torrens title), conveyancers are much better value for money. If the transaction is more complex (commercial, general/old title, covenants etc) I'd recommend a lawyer but no need to splash out on a city lawyer - a suburban conveyancing lawyer should do a good job and not overcharge.
 
We've only ever used settlement agents. We've had difficulties along the way at different times but the settlement agent has been able to sort things out with a minimum of fuss.

I think it also depends which state/territory you're in as to what you typically use..... here in WA I don't think I've ever heard of someone using a lawyer for the purpose of settlement. Of course I could be wrong :D
 
Can I ask what may seem a dummy's question. (first time home buyer here, be gentle)

When do you get a conveyencer (or solicitor) involved?

I got a sect 32 looked at by a conveyencer yesterday, and I asked about tenants in common and joint tenants. They advised me it's all done in the conveyencing. Ummm at what point is that done? If an offer is accepted? I didn't want to sound too dumb asking the question to them.

Cheers

L
 
solicitor/conveyancer in NSW

I've just been quoted $2,500 in Sydney for a solicitor to do conveyancing on an IP I am looking at. Seems a bit pricey to me.

is this a typical price for a solicitor?

can anyone recommend a solicitor/conveyancer in sydney?
 
Top