A Birmingham conveyancing firm has handed its entire stamp duty process to an external vendor, raising questions about where the boundaries of in-house capability now sit and whether outsourcing a client-facing tax function strengthens or fragments the practitioner's grip on the transaction.
MA Lawyers has contracted Compass Concierge to manage SDLT liaison, calculation and HMRC submission across its residential and commercial caseload. The arrangement goes beyond software or a calculation tool. Compass will contact clients directly, gather information, assess reliefs and surcharges, prepare returns and handle post-completion queries. Each calculation carries an indemnity and audit trail. The announcement was published as paid advertorial content.
Sonia Lawrence, Senior Conveyancer at MA Lawyers, said SDLT had become "an increasingly specialist area" requiring "a considerable amount of information" before the correct position could be determined. She described the move as removing "a significant administrative and technical burden" from fee earners, allowing them to focus on legal work while SDLT was handled by "specialists with the appropriate systems, expertise and professional protection in place."
What outsourcing concedes
Conveyancers retain ultimate responsibility for the transaction and the client relationship, but cede direct control over a process that can determine whether a purchase completes on time and at the expected cost. If Compass miscalculates, MA Lawyers carries the reputational damage even if the indemnity covers the financial loss. If a client disputes a liability or challenges a relief decision, the firm must manage that conversation at one remove from the specialist who made the call.
The model also creates a data and workflow dependency. Compass must integrate with MA Lawyers' case management system or operate as a manual handoff, introducing friction and potential delay. The firm loses visibility into how long SDLT queries take to resolve, whether clients are satisfied with the interaction, and whether the service is learning from edge cases or simply processing routine returns.
There is no disclosure of what Compass charges per case, how the indemnity is underwritten, what exclusions apply, or how the economics compare to in-house processing. Without that, it is difficult to assess whether this is a margin improvement or a capability gap being papered over.
When complexity justifies the handoff
SDLT has grown more intricate since 2016. The three per cent surcharge on additional properties, the introduction of a two per cent non-resident surcharge in April 2021, tightened first-time buyer relief conditions, and the ongoing controversy over multiple dwellings relief all require interpretation beyond a straightforward percentage calculation. Mixed-use claims, replacement of main residence relief, and annex or granny flat treatment involve judgement calls that can trigger HMRC enquiries if misjudged.
For high-street firms without in-house tax advisers, that complexity creates risk. A fee earner who miscalculates a surcharge or overlooks a relief may face a negligence claim, particularly if the client later discovers they overpaid and the error falls outside the amendment window. PI insurers are increasingly sensitive to tax-related claims, and some have tightened terms or increased excesses for firms with a pattern of SDLT errors.
Outsourcing transfers that risk to a specialist provider with deeper technical resource and, presumably, appropriate insurance. The question is whether the risk was large enough to justify ceding control, or whether better training, checklists and software would have been sufficient.
The build-versus-buy calculation
MA Lawyers has fewer than ten fee earners, based on publicly available information. At that scale, hiring a dedicated tax specialist is unlikely to be viable. The firm faces a choice: train generalist conveyancers to handle SDLT across all scenarios, accept occasional errors and manage them through supervision and insurance, or outsource to a provider that spreads the fixed cost of expertise across multiple firms.
The commercial case depends on volume, complexity mix, and current error rate. If the firm completes 500 residential transactions a year and 20 per cent involve non-standard SDLT scenarios, outsourcing may reduce technical risk and free senior fee earners from low-value queries. If most transactions are straightforward and the firm has robust calculation software, the cost of outsourcing may exceed the value of the time saved.
There is also a recruitment and retention angle. Junior conveyancers often cite SDLT as a source of anxiety, particularly when dealing with clients who challenge liability calculations or expect instant answers on complex reliefs. If outsourcing removes that friction and allows trainees to focus on core legal skills, it may improve retention. Conversely, if fee earners lose exposure to tax work, they may be less commercially rounded and less able to spot planning opportunities or red flags.
What regulators and insurers will watch
The CLC and SRA have not issued specific guidance on outsourced SDLT services, but both have longstanding requirements on supervision of third-party providers. Firms remain responsible for work carried out on their behalf and must satisfy themselves that the provider is competent, appropriately insured, and operating within the firm's risk and compliance framework.
That means MA Lawyers must conduct due diligence on Compass, monitor service delivery, and have a plan for managing failures or disputes. If a client complains about Compass's conduct, the firm cannot simply redirect them to the vendor. If HMRC challenges a return and penalties are imposed, the firm must demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to ensure accuracy.
Professional indemnity insurers will also take an interest. Some may view outsourcing as risk reduction, provided the third-party indemnity is robust and the firm retains oversight. Others may see it as introducing a new dependency and require notification or additional premium if the outsourcing arrangement materially changes the firm's risk profile.