I was seven years post-qualified (PQE) when I set up RG Law – formerly RG Solicitors – in 2007, just as the financial crisis struck, which looking back now was quite a bold move. Prior to that, I had been given the opportunity to build a conveyancing and private client team from scratch in a large PI firm, and I think the success of that gave me the confidence to strike out on my own.

I had experienced all the different practice areas during the course of my training contract, but it was conveyancing that appealed to me the most. I think it was because it was very process-driven, which I liked, and there was also a lot of interaction, not only with clients but with others in the chain such as estate agents and financial advisers.

That’s something I still enjoy and encourage at RG Law – we have the capabilities to do a lot online, but the feedback we get from most clients is that they want to be able to pick up the phone and speak to someone. The majority of people don’t value the conveyancing process – they just want to be in their new home – so being able to explain what you are doing, why you are doing it and what the consequences are is important.

In terms of what’s changed in the time I’ve been working in conveyancing, the biggest development is the advancements in technology, but I think that what firms have to do in terms of risk and compliance has also mushroomed in that time. That’s why having a regulator that can advise and guide you is essential. We made the decision to switch from the SRA to CLC regulation partly because its specialisms matched our own but also because we didn’t feel we were necessarily getting the support we needed.

The process itself was very straightforward. We had to notify stakeholders, including our insurer which services both regulators so fortunately we were able to stay with the same provider. It was very collaborative – we met with the CLC and went through everything beforehand. There were application forms to fill in and things we had to demonstrate were in place. They then reviewed it all and told us what needed to be altered or improved.

The CLC was and continues to be extremely proactive. Instead of dealing with things after the event, it’s very much a case of working together to try and avoid mistakes happening in the first place, which wasn’t something we had experienced with a regulator before. When we moved over, the first thing the CLC did was to go through all our processes and policy documents and give us feedback on what we could do better. Like most practitioners, I want to get it right but sometimes I need a bit of help. Having someone there to ask for advice is invaluable and, in our experience, has led to fewer complaints further down the line.

We were in regular contact with the CLC at first but that has lessened as time has gone on and we’ve got more used to how everything works. They are there whenever we need them though and I have a regulatory supervisor that I can contact from time to time for guidance.

I have nothing bad to say about switching, only that I wish we’d done it sooner! If you specialise in the areas that our firm does, it makes absolute sense that you would want to be regulated by a specialist in those areas too and one that is so proactive, preventative and focused on securing the best outcomes for both your clients and your firm.