The Lawyer Asia Pacific 150 is the only research report to provide a ranking of the top 100 independent local firms and top 50 global firms in the region. The report offers critical review of some of the fastest growing firms and their strategies, a country-by-country guide to leading legal advisers and legal services market trends, plus exclusive insight into the current business development opportunities in the Asia Pacific. Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
You rightly say that "it is time for the conveyancers to give the public what they want" ('Get real or get out' The Lawyer 22 August).
All the evidence suggests that the majority of the public want a proper quality service and are not greatly concerned about the level of fees.
The public also want certainty and reassurance in the process of conveyancing; cut-price, cut-corner work cannot give that.
I find the present level of fees impossible to justify on any rational ground.
When a local search can cost well over £100 why is a solicitor unable or unwilling to charge more than £350 for a conveyance and a mortgage of £100,000 house?
Why is it that estate agents continue to charge commission of at least 2 per cent in such a weak market?
If the public want their solicitors to be there in the future, to have reasonably-equipped offices with modern technology, and to be properly trained and up-dated in the law, the service is going to have to be paid for.
Doctors and dentists expect to be paid properly for their work, so why not solicitors?
By what ethical principle do solicitors have to offer their professional services for inadequate remuneration?
Do you honestly believe that banks and building societies would be prepared to undertake conveyancing services and run at a loss?