A Practitioner’s Guide to High-Risk Conveyancing Encounters
An Anonymous Perspective from the Legal Trenches
Disclaimer: This post reflects the anonymous author’s professional observations and experience. It is intended for educational discussion only. No specific allegations are made against any individual or entity.
There comes a moment in many practitioners’ careers when a contract lands on your desk, and a name jumps out—one that brings a familiar sinking feeling. It might be a conveyancer you’ve clashed with in the past, or whose name carries a reputation whispered among colleagues. You read the file, see their name again, and think: Here we go.
This post shares insights into how practitioners can navigate property transactions involving counterparties who pose a heightened risk—because of their conduct, use of non-standard contracts, or a pattern of non-cooperation.
Recognising the Risk
You’re instructed on a standard purchase, and the vendor’s representative is someone you’ve dealt with before—or whose reputation is well known. You’re immediately on alert. This early recognition is not paranoia; it’s professional instinct built on experience. When exercised properly, it can save your client from financial loss and protect your own practice from liability.
Professional Courtesy Has Limits
The legal profession values courtesy. But professional courtesy does not require silence in the face of non-compliance or unfair practice. Where a counterparty insists on deviating from standard LIV/REIV conditions, obscures material facts, or delays key documents like a Transfer or Notice of Acquisition, you’re entitled—indeed obliged—to act protectively.
This doesn’t mean launching allegations. It means recognising that some transactions are higher risk, and taking proportionate steps to safeguard your client and yourself.
Contractual Red Flags
A common tactic among high-risk conveyancers is the use of non-standard or heavily amended contracts. In one recent matter, a vendor-side conveyancer unilaterally inserted a $385 “adjustment allowance” payable by the purchaser—effectively an undisclosed vendor-side professional fee being passed through the settlement statement.
Another matter involved a practitioner issuing a contract with 26 custom special conditions, drafted with little transparency or compliance with industry norms. Such terms, often buried deep within the fine print, may limit the purchaser’s rights to terminate or assign, restrict nomination processes, or manipulate risk allocation post-contract.
Our standard recommendation in such situations is to insert a contractual condition along the following lines:
Special Condition – Deletion of Special Conditions
The Purchaser and Vendor hereby agree that all Special Conditions contained in the Contract of Sale are hereby deleted and shall have no effect. The only terms and conditions that shall apply to this Contract are those set out in the General Conditions of the Law Institute of Victoria and Real Estate Institute of Victoria Contract of Sale of Land Copyright January 2024.
This condition serves two purposes: it levels the playing field, and it makes any resistance to standard conditions plainly unreasonable.
Enhanced Due Diligence
Once you’ve identified a risk, implement enhanced due diligence. This includes:
- Requesting all documents and settlement calculations in writing and in advance;
- Independently verifying all figures, contract terms, and compliance certificates;
- Escalating correspondence quickly when delays or evasions occur;
- Keeping your client copied and fully informed.
In one recent matter, despite a fully signed contract and a fixed settlement date, the vendor-side practitioner unsigned the Transfer and NOA in PEXA days before settlement—collapsing the Purchaser’s stamp duty verification and threatening settlement failure. Only after the estate agent intervened did the matter proceed.
These behaviours must not be normalised.
Communicating With Clients
Tell your client what they need to know. Avoid inflammatory commentary, but explain that some practitioners use unconventional documents or procedures. Flag the risk of delay, unexpected fees, or pressure tactics. Most clients will appreciate your vigilance and proactive approach.
If the conduct escalates to the point where it endangers settlement, consider involving the estate agent (especially if the vendor has linked transactions), and where necessary, notify the PEXA panel or Consumer Affairs Victoria.
Conclusion: Professional Instinct Is Not Paranoia
Not all practitioners operate to the same standards. When you find yourself dealing with someone whose track record raises concern, your role is not just a legal technician but a protector of the transaction. Recognise the warning signs early, implement defensive protocols, and, above all, trust your professional instincts.
Some matters require finesse. Others require firm boundaries and a paper trail. Knowing the difference is what distinguishes experienced solicitors from the rest.
This post is published anonymously in the interests of professional discussion and risk management education.