Licensed Conveyancers to change name.... but to what?

From: Solicitors Journal 12/04/10:

 

The Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC) is considering changing its name as part of a push to obtain greater rights to regulate litigation and advocacy, Solicitors Journal has learned.

Meanwhile, it has emerged that ILEX Professional Standards, the regulatory arm of ILEX, is to seek extended conveyancing, litigation and advocacy rights for its members.

According to regulatory website legalfutures.co.uk, ILEX will apply for the new rights by the end of the year. It has already applied to the LSB for litigation and probate rights for legal executives and to regulate the work of associate prosecutors working in the CPS.

The Legal Services Board’s consumer panel, which backed the CLC’s plans for greater rights, also suggested that a change of name might be necessary.

“Many consumers would presumably expect a professional called a ‘licensed conveyancer’ to undertake conveyancing,” the consumer panel, chaired by Dianne Hayter, said in a paper published last month.

“Given this will not necessarily be the case, the CLC should consider if it needs to change its name or make other branding changes in order to avoid consumer confusion.”

Simon Blandy, director of policy and standards at the CLC, confirmed that the organisation would be considering a new name.

“We want to provide further opportunities for licensed conveyancers and an element of choice for those who are already in the marketplace,” he said.

This is clearly symptomatic  of the continued dumbing-down of the profession; I don’t mean that in a disparaging way necessarily – it’s  just the way things are moving.

The key question, of course, is what the name should be changed to. 

Any suggestions?  ;-)

Obviously, it needs to express clarity to the public, and without incorporating one of the inflated and pretentious suffixes all too common these days such as ‘consultant’, ‘specialist’ or ‘executive’.

Plus, if licensed conveyancers want to broaden their remit, they’ve got to accept the negative trade-off.  While they can currently claim to be ‘specialist property lawyers’ – yes, I know, I know – if they want to handle a wider range of work, some of that speciality is going to be lost.  Naturally the title needs to convey that, while at the same time making it clear to the public that they aren’t, in fact, solicitors.

Or maybe that distinction is growing less important now?