Solicitors put DH name first.

[Tullyjune]

We are buying a house. I’ve done all the conveyancing quotes in my name, I’m the only one that’s communicated with them from my personal email. I paid the deposit with my bank card.

Yet the paperwork has all come through with DHs name first. It’s not even alphabetical.

I know it’s not the end of the world and most people wouldn’t give it a second thought. But it’s pissed me off.

Just getting it off my chest.

You’re assuming the data was captured that way, you don’t know how data is captured by that firm. It could have been over the phone using a system that automatically puts Mr first, so it wouldn’t have been a case of changing it but not amending it.

I think that’s he point EastWest is making - you’re assuming that someone is intentionally overriding someone’s wishes, they likely aren’t and it’s down to an archaic system.

@Hanidjed7

It's not everyday sexism! Someone on the party has to be 1st, why the should it be the woman? Why the man? Some will want letter addressed to man and some to the woman - my husband isn't bothered about some paperwork we get but some stuff he does, I'm not bothered about some paperwork he gets. But please stop with the line It's sexist! And please only complain to your Solicitor if you've specifically asked for it one way and it comes wrong. I can't change Case Management as it's for whole firm and most clients are OK with Mr first- especially elderly probate clients.

It is completely sexist when the actual first applicant/lead passenger/person engaging the work is not put as so just because they don't have a penis.

@Mhc19

If you are getting a mortgage and if your husband does earn more then that could be why. Your solicitor doesn't need to have your mortgage offer to know this, there's online systems some lenders use. If there's a mortgage lender then the higher earner is named first and it's good practise to do the same with the contract, TR1 etc. Its therefore sometimes easier to keep all correspondence the same.

I'm by far the higher earner, filled in all the forms (for mortgage and solicitors) with me as person/applicant 1, my name is first alphabetically and yet it still was all addressed to him as the primary. He got all the calls about decisions too as if I was his little secretary and all my contact had been on his behalf - he was as pissed off about it as I was

The idea that whoever has input the information made the decision to put him first despite our wishes makes me feel even more enraged

I know this is a bit different but I once had a company come round to quote for double glazing . They point blank refused to quote me without my OH there . Thing is it’s not actually his house ! It’s mine and he has no claim to it and wouldn’t be paying for anything anyway!! Showed them the door pretty sharpish .

Sexist bastards

I am a solicitor and when I joined my current firm I had to ask them why letters defaulted to Mr and Mrs X Surname. So out dated.
Even now I have to correct our system sometimes if a file has been opened that way.
I use Mr X Surname and Mrs Y Surname and it very much depends on the circumstances who I put first - I often choose Mrs out of pure solidarity.

Funny how school has me down as the lead person to call though, isn't it? 🤔

It is completely sexist when the actual first applicant/lead passenger/person engaging the work is not put as so just because they don't have a penis.

That decision won’t necessarily rest with the individual who you’re dealing with though, so your anger at them personally is likely misdirected.

I’d find it more offensive if the highest earner is listed first I’m happy to share my marital status but would take offence to anyone writing to me requesting an overview of our financial circumstances.

I get the opposite. I’ve just dealt with a house sale in my DH’s company name, I’m not associated with the company in anyway. He is sole director. Neither the estate agent nor the conveyancer acting (it wasn’t dealt with in my firm as I’m in house now) ever spoke to my husband, obviously he signed anything that needed signing but they had no way to verify that was his signature. Actually totally negligent. I engaged everyone’s services and was the point of contact. I did comment to DH that I could have very easily sold that house from under him.

That’s generally my experience in life. I make the contact and become the point of contact. I guess I’m DH’s admin bitch.

It seems there needs to be a software review with many companies. It needs to be programmed not to be sexist. Going completely alphabetical would make the most sense and would be easy to do. As long as equal access to the account/booking is granted.

@Tullyjune

It seems there needs to be a software review with many companies. It needs to be programmed not to be sexist. Going completely alphabetical would make the most sense and would be easy to do. As long as equal access to the account/booking is granted.

Don’t need any of that malarkey. Just ask the clients “Can I have client 1’s name....... And now client 2’s”. Sorted.

@Tullyjune

It seems there needs to be a software review with many companies. It needs to be programmed not to be sexist. Going completely alphabetical would make the most sense and would be easy to do. As long as equal access to the account/booking is granted.

I was reading about how Google translate treats languages that have no gender - basically if the person being talked about is a Dr the translation will say he/him but nurse etc will be she/her. The argument made is that it isn't Google translates fault because it is just learning by scanning texts and picking up the most likely translation.

The point being that, as with case management systems, technology is a product of the society that makes and programmes it (until the rise if the machines at least!). We have to actively teach it to not be sexist (a problem when you consider software development is still a male dominated industry and whilst programmes may not be deliberately sexist they may still introduce everyday biases into their products).

The point being that, as with case management systems, technology is a product of the society that makes and programmes it (until the rise if the machines at least!). We have to actively teach it to not be sexist (a problem when you consider software development is still a male dominated industry and whilst programmes may not be deliberately sexist they may still introduce everyday biases into their products).

Yes!

Rather than blame each individual you encounter it’s important to recognise the source!

This happened to me very recently and ticked me off too. I got subtle revenge by listing me as buyer 1 on the subsequent form they sent and making a point of it as the form only asked for any change in surname for buyer 2, as clearly this is always the woman(!)

We have to actively teach it to not be sexist

So people are saying there is a software that automatically puts the male person as Person 1. How? How would a machine even know which person is male, if an actual person wouldn't enter that information? And that such a solution is set in stone and can't be changed to 'order alphabetically'?

@HeavyHeidi

We have to actively teach it to not be sexist

So people are saying there is a software that automatically puts the male person as Person 1. How? How would a machine even know which person is male, if an actual person wouldn't enter that information? And that such a solution is set in stone and can't be changed to 'order alphabetically'?

Because of their salutation being “Mr”

the system can still be changed to 'order alphabetically' and not 'Mr goes first'. I am just evaluating several matter management and contract management systems and they all are happy to customize whatever you want, even if there was a pre-set 'Mr first' default option.

I just don't understand why so many people don't seem to give a shit. If I knew that option A (man always first) will piss off a number of my clients and option B (main client/alphabetical) would not, I would want to at least check if option A is possible.

Rather than blame each individual you encounter it’s important to recognise the source!

Yes, definitely need to direct it at the right place..

Since the solicitor is the customer of the software product, it’s them who should be doing the complaining to the software dev department. If any other part of the service was causing a dissatisfaction to their customers it would be looked into, because you outsource this particular part of the system or ‘the system’ itself to manage your workload that doesn’t remove responsibility.
If you outsource that’s on you.

It’s evident that it is sexist and it is found to be irritating amongst many here, all of which have been solicitors customers at one point.

The end user, me, has no idea who you enlist to write your software programs to help manage your caseload.

Because of their salutation being “Mr”

But the op has said countless times that they haven’t given their titles. And what if they were both Dr/Prof/Rev?

Same here @Tullyjune and it’s infuriating. I’ve done everything. I will be paying for everything, the mortgage is in both names but mine first (as it was originally mine) but everything comes to Mr and Mrs. Oh, I’m also not a Mrs but whatever.

I've had this OP - DH has absolutely no contact with any of the solicitors when we buy/sell property, but they've insisted in addressing emails and letters to 'Mr WarmAndFluff' despite only ever having spoken to me. In some cases not even 'Mr and Mrs'.

And when I've written to complain, I'm made to feel like some kind of wild over-PC harridan for daring to suggest that something they've always done is out of order.

This is not just his money - we both have good, full time, professional salaries, money for house buying comes from our joint account (not that they even know that at that point). I'm just better at organising it all, so it falls to me to deal with them.

Unbelievably unprofessional, sexist, and frustrating, and speaking as someone who can both move our money elsewhere, and provide online feedback on my experience, very inadvisable.

I know others have said this, but conveyancing is very much driven by the case management software - it has to be as it’s such high volume / low value work. Those software systems nearly always default to mr first. I used to try and change it around but once got shouted at by an irate client for doing so, so you really can’t win. I hated conveyancing, so glad I left that practice area!

When we moved abroad I made all the shipping arrangements with the movers, my name was on all the docs.
At this end, the shipping agent totally ignored me and it was Mr Anthony this, that and the other. So annoying.

I’d tell them. I do all our financial set up, I’d not be happy if someone thought they’d check first with my husband who had about as much input as a potato.

Since the solicitor is the customer of the software product

Their firm is the customer. The partners might have a say, or if might be the board. In the same way as when you call a utility company the individual who picks up the phone won’t be responsible for software it’s unlikely the solicitor or especially conveyancer (who are often unqualified, low paid, case handlers) will have any kind of say over the software package.

I have no say over my workplaces software package.

@EastWestWhosBest

Because of their salutation being “Mr”

But the op has said countless times that they haven’t given their titles. And what if they were both Dr/Prof/Rev?

In this instance but generally speaking and through other examples in the thread.

@JackieTheFart

Same here *@Tullyjune and it’s infuriating. I’ve done everything*. I will be paying for everything, the mortgage is in both names but mine first (as it was originally mine) but everything comes to Mr and Mrs. Oh, I’m also not a Mrs but whatever.

I find this attitude strange re who is paying for what.

We all know the man is often the highest earner and the woman the homemaker. If we suggest that someone has more authority based on their earnings then generally, that person will be the man and that is not helpful to the heart of this issue at all. That isn’t a progressive attitude.

My DH earns more than me right now as we have young children, but I don’t think that I am less deserving of respect or acknowledgment for matters DH and I instruct jointly.