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.

I love these posters constantly saying “ But Mr has to come first “ and stamping their little feet. Then when posters say “ But why? “ they just say “ Because because because “.

Or when asked “ But why does Rev John Smith have to come before Rev Jane Jones ? “ they reply “ Because Mr HAS TO COME FIRST “.

And “ But why are things addressed to Mr John Smith when Ms Jane Jones has been the client / main correspondent? “ they stamp more and say “ Well obviously because he’s mister “.

This thread is all about attitudes just like these. Some people’s world view is so narrow and limited that they can’t conceive of how things could possibly be different. It’s quite sad in a way.

We don’t have to always put women / black / older / disabled people second behind white men. Really we don’t.

We could just treat all customers / clients with respect regardless of their sex / ethnicity / age / disability.

It’s not about computers. It’s about human attitudes and prejudices.

People are just providing some context and recognising how we got to the stage we have. Also recognising that it’s not each individual who has made these conscious choices but a product of society

Surely saying “just stop” is just as petulant if you don’t recognise the factors at play and those that need addressing in order to achieve it. It’s not just a big red button labelled “sexist” that people are turning on in their office. There are certain factors that need to change to enable change. Stamping little feeties without recognising that isn’t productive either.

I once had a window company tell me my husband needed to be there for us to sign/purchase. I said that’s odd as the house is in my name solely so I’m the only person that has power to decide. I did not buy their windows.

If you ask them nicely and explain why, then maybe next time they’ll think.... then maybe one day we won’t be default 2nd.

I didn’t see the post about the big red button.

The main factor that need to change is prejudice. It’s perfectly possible for computers to have client 1 and client 2. Many many people have suggested it.

Everyone recognises the factors that have lead to discrimination against women / black / disabled / older people. Not one person posting here doesn't know that.

But repeating over and over again “ well discrimination HAS to happen because of sex / race / etc “ isn’t ok.

And repeating “ you are just being a silly billy, it’s trivial and doesn’t matter “ isn’t ok.

If I had a client ask me to change I would, but this far I haven’t so haven’t seen a need. I accept the views on this post and recognise there might be a need.

So for the large part people are expecting change from people who have no idea there’s an issue in the first place.

As someone said if their clients complained they’d address it - so would I. But there haven’t been any complaints and so nothing to address.

Mr HAS TO COME FIRST

Nobody said that, they have said about convention and how that’s come about. Which as we all know is the patriarchal views of society which by far pre date any of the posters here. Providing some context, reflecting on how and why we have gotten to where we are isnt an excuse it’s an explanation.

So by saying the computer software has been programmed in a certain way is an explanation. You might not like it and that’s fine, it’s fine to advocate change and not want those views to be carried forward. But you can hardly deny how and why we have reached this point.

Imagine someone posted this

“ I went into the bank to discuss a mortgage and the employee constantly ignored me and addressed my carer who was pushing my wheelchair “.

Would you reply

“ Well OF COURSE they did, it’s because you are in a wheelchair, able bodied People alway have to come first because. Besides you were at the wrong height and the it’s easier to work the computer when you are standing up. I don’t see what difference it makes, it’s petty disabled people like you that give others a bad name.

“ Dont you have better things to worry about ? They don’t have a big red button on their office marked prejudice you know har har har. It’s about society and computers and it can’t be changed. If you knew more about disability you would know that “.

I think if the will was there this could be very easily solved by using the schools' software that already exists. You have two contacts (e.g. for divorced parents) and can then choose which is priority - one or both - plus put a note on that says (e.g.) contact dad first as mum is unwell, or whatever.

I wonder if there is more mileage in pointing out the possible financial losses (when sales aren't made or cheques go astray) and/or the data protection issues, than the sexism. Society as a whole already doesn't care much about sexism but maybe if you pointed out it affects sales targets...

In the same way nobody said re the big head button, nobody (or very few posters) have said any of the things you have put in quotation marks. Least of all me, who you are now engaging with, but what hasn’t said any of those things

Not least your example is apples and pears. If the firms refused point blank to speak to a woman and demanded to speak to her husband that would be comparable. Actually putting Mr first in what is a joint matter (and so both clients do need addressing, is entirely different.

The carer is unrelated to the disabled persons financial matters anyway.

@emilyfrost

You’re being silly. It doesn’t matter.

Complaining about something like this puts women in a bad light; you’re doing us a disservice by embarrassing us over small non-issues.

Never sure how someone who can’t be bothered to change a small issue will drag up the energy to change a big issue.

The complaint of one woman also doesn’t say anything at all about all women; just as the complaint of one man doesn’t say anything about all men. Why would it? In what way would it be a ‘disservice?’ You don’t really think that people who are genuinely committed to equality would suddenly change their minds and become roaring sexists over one woman complaining about this, so you? Surely not.

But in any event, such a tiny issue will be very very easy to change as nobody will be upset or annoyed. Right?

Hahah.

And again - are you denying history and why we have reached this point? What do you want me to say - No I0NA my case management system does not put men first when that would be a lie?

I can say “yes I0NA it puts men first and that needs to change”

But the fact remains who is put first predates this post.

IceCreamAndCandyfloss Fri 07-May-21 18:29:50
Someone’s name has to come first, this wouldn’t even register with most people.

GeorgiaGirl52 Fri 07-May-21 18:48:06
Because it is Mr. and Mrs. NOT Mrs. and Mr.

Add message | Report | Message poster | Quote | See all 81Byerley Fri 07-May-21 19:47:48
Because Mr and Mrs is traditional and easier to say than Mrs and Mr, most people would write Mr first. But I understand why in your circumstances it would be annoying,

emilyfrost Fri 07-May-21 18:58:13
You’re being silly. It doesn’t matter.

Complaining about something like this puts women in a bad light; you’re doing us a disservice by embarrassing us over small non-issues.

The first and third examples do not say that Mr has to come first though do they?

The first says someone name has to.

The third points out it’s convention but acknowledges why it’s annoying.

That’s not the same.

@DinoHat

And again - are you denying history and why we have reached this point? What do you want me to say - No I0NA my case management system does not put men first when that would be a lie?

I can say “yes I0NA it puts men first and that needs to change”

But the fact remains who is put first predates this post.

No @DinoHat. It’s not about history.

It’s about the fact that you are willing to use history as as excuse NOT to change your case management system to, for example, client one and client two.

And to stop addressing a single client who is female as mister or sir ( unless that’s the title she uses).

And to stop sending correspondence to MF clients who have jointly instructed you to the man only.

Tell me, how does your system deal with same sex couples who instruct you jointly? Please oh please don’t tell me that you ask them which one is the man / woman?

“ I’m sorry our computer needs to know which one of you to treat as lesser. But don’t worry, you will be jointly liable for our account “.

I deal with solicitors on a weekly basis and I can assure you that not everyone perpetuates prejudice and bigotry the way you seem to think is ok or even inevitable.

Infuriating, especially considering that women are now often the main contacts and decision makers regarding house buying and improvements etc. They don’t even get acknowledged for that.

Again, I haven’t said that and have said I would consider the change to alphabetical and that it sounded sensible. I have not said, or inferred that I’m not willing or open to consider change.

Try again.

And to stop sending correspondence to MF clients who have jointly instructed you to the man only.

That’s negligent anyway - you can take instructions from a sole client on a joint matter. You can’t commit someone to the financial burden of a mortgage and to buying a house without speaking to both clients. Ensuring you take instructions from all your clients is enshrined in practice and our code of conduct.

*cant

@DinoHat perhaps I could refer you to the SRA standards which are underpinned by the seven Principles.

“The Principles apply to individuals and firms. Solicitors must act:

in a way that upholds the constitutional principle of the rule of law, and the proper administration of justice
in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons
with independence
with honesty
with integrity
in a way that encourages equality, diversity and inclusion
in the best interests of each client

[my bold]

“ My computer system is prejudiced and there’s nothing I can do about it” isn’t really good enough.

[quote I0NA]@DinoHat perhaps I could refer you to the SRA standards which are underpinned by the seven Principles.

“The Principles apply to individuals and firms. Solicitors must act:

in a way that upholds the constitutional principle of the rule of law, and the proper administration of justice
in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons
with independence
with honesty
with integrity
in a way that encourages equality, diversity and inclusion
in the best interests of each client

[my bold]

“ My computer system is prejudiced and there’s nothing I can do about it” isn’t really good enough.[/quote]
I literally haven’t said that

I know you have not said these exact works. But that is the constant theme of your comments on this thread.

It’s not my fault.
It’s not intentional ( pretty poor excuse from a solicitor ).

My CMS was written in 1950 and I can’t change it.
It’s about how we got here and not about how we can improve going forward.

You are nit picking about the words and ignoring the very strong feelings from the majority posters on this thread, who say they don’t like it and have had enough.

You are ignoring the legal secretaries who have posted saying they were told to change it to put the man first.

Your attitude isn’t inspiring confidence in the profession. I’d urge you to reconsider your position.

exact words

Can you tell me how you manage joint instructions from same sex couples ?

I have said I will consider change.

I will consider change I0NA

Going back to the OP - OP gave a scenario and I, aswell as others, have provided some context as to how that scenario might have come about.

I’m trying to engage in a discussion. The dynamics and mechanisms are interesting to me. I’m not somebody who doesn’t want equality and who can’t consider an alternative view point.

I don’t agree with every point made in support because I don’t necessarily agree with the logic applied, that doesn’t mean I don’t agree with the principle.

What I haven’t done, is essentially made things up to suit my own narrative.