The apology follows a mass mailing campaign to thousands of members of the public promoting the provision of wills in collaboration with Co-operative Legal Services, amongst others, and containing the phrase “you don’t have to see a solicitor”.
Many solicitors are reported to
be up in arms as a result. Ben Pepperell
of Pepperell Solicitors in Hull accused Will
Aid of a “blatant disregard for everything we’ve done”.
So what’s the problem? Why shouldn’t anybody promote their – or others’ – services on the basis that they can do it at lower cost than competitors who, they suggest, are over-qualified?
That perennial challenge to
balance quality and price to produce something that is perceived by a chosen
market to be value for money is
central to everybody’s business.
Ultimately, wherever you are in the picture, it’s a largely personal
view.
But what has prompted me and
others to say that this recent move by Will
Aid constitutes a slap in the face is that for years they’ve marketed their
very successful campaign in collaboration with solicitors firms up and down the
country. A key if not unique selling
point for the Will Aid scheme has
been that the participants have their wills prepared by solicitors.
For those who aren’t familiar with the scheme it has been running since 1988 engaging a growing
(presumably) number of law firms up and down the country. The central feature is that solicitors offer
to draw up a will for their client who, instead of paying money to the
solicitor, then makes a donation to Will Aid.
Whilst there’s no compulsion on
the client to donate a certain or even a minimum amount – anything at all – the
suggested levels are £95 for a single will and £150 for a couple making mirror
wills. We’ve found that most clients are willing to donate that
much and so each transaction means they make a significant payment to the
charity.
It’s true that solicitors
perceive a potential benefit in the exercise, even though they’re not charging
for the work on that particular occasion. It’s an opportunity to promote the business,
to meet new clients who may have other work to bring to the firm and in some
cases leads directly to more complex work beyond the basic scope of the scheme.
Even so, it’s an investment. During last year’s campaign we raised over
£1,500 in donations. Broad brush, the
income from those jobs if they had not been within the scheme would probably
have been about double that figure.
Of course, it’s right to say that
we probably wouldn’t have had at least some of those jobs but for the campaign and
the terms of the scheme. It also follows
from that there is a high risk of people only wanting the service because it’s available
at a discount and they are not necessarily looking for any continuing
relationship or further content.
To that extent it’s a speculative
investment but it’s something that we and many other firms have done because by
and large it is promoting our professional services and the wisdom of using a
solicitor.
Now, with an email to,
reportedly, at least 10,000 members of the public saying that “you don’t need a
solicitor”, Will Aid appears to have performed
a volte face. Why?
The explanation offered by Will Aid Chair, Chris Millward, is that
when the last campaign ended in November 2014 they received many further
enquiries from people wanting to make a will who said that the promotion
offered by their local solicitors had ended.
Step forward at that point the Co-op and others prepared to provide the
service in return for a donation as well as
a discounted fee.
I don’t know if there was anybody
in this neck of the woods who has made enquiries of Will Aid since the end of November 2014. We certainly haven’t been asked by the
charity to consider any further work since the end of the promotion.
Depending on volumes, we would
have considered it. We started our
campaign early, during October, simply because the enquiries were around and we
were happy to start fielding them.
Within reason, subject to availability and resources, I don’t have a
straitjacketed view of these matters.
It’s all change now, I
think. We haven’t made a final decision,
but many others have. They have said they’re
unlikely to deal with Will Aid again
and that’s perfectly understandable. The
charity recognizes that, another spokesman having said yesterday:
‘We should have been more sensitive to any
potential upset this would cause and the impact of this on our relationship
with some of the firms that have supported us in the past.
‘We would like to apologise for this, it is a
lesson learned and will form a significant part of how we evaluate future
activity outside of our November campaign. We also remain absolutely committed
to promoting the value of solicitors in the production of legally valid wills.’
Sadly, there is no indication
that the collaboration with CRS and others will end as a result – instead a
confirmation that the ‘test-marketing’ project will continue until mid-August.
We’re into the realms here of
primarily price-driven services, where the quality may not matter so much as
the question of how much it costs. When
it comes to wills, that’s a particularly dangerous approach.
You don't have to search long and hard to find a very recent headline about the distress and expense of litigation
generated by cheap wills:
It’s nothing new. Solicitors have, quite reasonably, been
banging that drum for many years. Law firms will tell you that the key to
provision of legal services at a much lower cost is the reduction in overhead
of a key component of any professional service industry – its people.
It’s a fact of life that people
who have spent their time and money acquiring knowledge and gaining experience
in earlier years expect higher rewards when they’re able to apply the resultant
product of their investment that we call expertise.
Those who haven’t made the
investment, for whatever reason, neither expect nor command as much. You can pay them far less. If you push it
down the scale you can pay them almost nothing.
See Peanuts , Cleaning
bills and other pages on this blog.
You can’t escape the fact that if
you choose the cheap service there is a high risk that ultimately it won’t be
very cheerful. Whether it’s under-settlement
of a personal injury claim, defective title to your home or a botched will and
a dispute that eats all of the funds in the estate you get what you (don’t) pay
for.
There aren’t many clear lines to
be drawn. It’s what the customer feels
comfortable with. Do they trust the service provider? Do they think they’re getting what they pay for? Is it value
for money in their eyes?
Many, probably most, consumers and
a lot of corporate buyers will say they just don’t know. They’ll point to conflicting information and
lack of benchmarks – not on price, but on quality.
There is one particular benchmark
that stands out in this analysis. Bear
in mind that you’re dealing with the law.
Which body of people is best trained in the law? Which occupation is most likely to spring to
somebody’s mind when you talk about a legal problem? Who are the people who by and large sell
their business primarily on the basis that they know about the law and
consequently are regulated and insured in the provision of legal services?
That’s a strong message and one
that Will Aid has used to promote its
campaigns for about twenty seven years.
No wonder there are some red faces now.
