The Problem with Typical Practice in Conveyancing

"Typical practice" is one of the most dangerous concepts in conveyancing. It provides comfort — if everyone does it this way, it must be acceptable. But typical practice and best practice are not the same thing, and the gap between them is where negligence claims, regulatory action, and professional embarrassment live.

What "Typical Practice" Actually Means

In most conveyancing firms, typical practice for property search review (now supported by TerraGuard™) looks something like this:

1. Searches arrive by email 2. The conveyancer opens the documents when they have time 3. They read through the search results, focusing on the executive summary 4. They note anything that seems unusual or concerning 5. They report to the client, usually in a standard letter template 6. They move on to the next file

This process is not unreasonable. It is how the majority of firms operate, and in most cases, it produces acceptable results. The problem is "most cases."

Where Typical Practice Fails

The Law Society's risk guidance identifies common failure patterns in conveyancing practice — patterns that arise not from incompetence, but from the inherent limitations of typical manual processes:

Inconsistency: The same conveyancer reviews searches differently on Monday morning than on Friday afternoon. Different conveyancers within the same firm apply different standards. There is no systematic framework ensuring that every finding in every search receives appropriate attention.

Selective attention: Under time pressure, reviewers focus on what they expect to find and what catches their eye. Data buried in appendices, presented in tables, or requiring crossreferencing with other documents is less likely to receive thorough review.

Documentation gaps: Even when a thorough review is conducted, the documentation of that review — what was checked, what was found, and why the conveyancer was satisfied — is often incomplete. If a claim arises three years later, reconstructing the reasoning is difficult.

Staleness: Search results have shelf lives, but files do not always progress at the expected pace. A search reviewed two months ago may no longer be current, but the file notes still reflect the original review.

Practical example: A PI insurer analysed claims against conveyancing firms and found that in 68 per cent of cases where searchrelated issues were at the heart of the claim, the relevant finding was present in the search report but had not been identified or documented in the conveyancer's review. The problem was not that searches were inadequate — it was that the review process was inconsistent.

The Regulatory Expectation

Regulators do not assess firms against typical practice — they assess against the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill. In an era where AI tools exist that can systematically analyse property searches, crossreference findings, and generate evidencecited reports, the question becomes: is a firm exercising reasonable care if it knows such tools exist and chooses not to use them?

This is not a theoretical concern. The SRA's approach to supervision increasingly focuses on systems and processes rather than individual performance.

Raising the Standard With Structured AI Review

A structured file review powered by AI addresses each of the weaknesses of typical practice:

• Consistency — the same framework is applied to every file, every time
• Comprehensive coverage — every finding in every document is analysed
• Documentation — a complete audit trail is generated automatically
• Currency checking — search validity dates are tracked and flagged
• Crossreferencing — findings across multiple documents are connected

The standard is not "what everyone does" — it is what a systematic, documented process delivers.

How LexSentinel Helps

LexSentinel's AI agents provide structured file review that raises the standard of practice from typical to systematic. Every review generates consistent, comprehensive, documented analysis — supporting both better outcomes and stronger professional defence.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it negligent not to use AI tools?

The test for negligence is whether the practitioner exercised reasonable care and skill. The availability of AI tools is one factor in assessing what is reasonable, but it is not determinative. However, firms that rely on manual processes that are demonstrably less consistent and comprehensive than available AI alternatives may face increasingly difficult questions about whether their approach meets the required standard.

Can I use "typical practice" as a defence against a claim?

Demonstrating that your approach was consistent with typical practice may be relevant, but it is not a complete defence. If the standard of typical practice is below what a reasonable practitioner should deliver — particularly when better tools are available — courts and regulators may conclude that typical practice is itself inadequate.

How do I transition from typical to structured practice?

Start with a single workflow — TerraGuard™ for property search review is the most accessible entry point. Run AIassisted review alongside your existing process for a short period, compare the outputs, and then embed the AI review as the standard process. The transition is straightforward; the benefits are immediate.

Move beyond typical practice. Start your free trial today.