Thank you White-Baos for your educative posting.
I think the aspect that many find abusive, however, is when a legal firm suggests that they are willing and able to fight for Bank claims, but in reality they compromised clients from the outset by lacking due diligence... such aspects as failing to ensure that LEGAL BG's were made available, failing to ensure that offplan purchasers' deposited monies were protected and placed into secure Bank Accounts, failing to advise when LFO's had not been made available according to mutually agreed contract end dates, failing to ensure that manipulative practices to extend "effective from " dates on BG's were prevented or abide by the requirement to seek agreement from the purchaser in writing to such extensions, subsequently delaying forwarding information of clients' data required to make claims against the Banks etc..... in other words they did not act in the best interests of clients by working as non independent lawyers with agents/developers etc.
But then to add salt to the wounds, the Bar Associations appear to have done little to regulate these members and make them accountable for their malpractices that have so badly affected innocent offplan purchasers, or apply deterrents to prevent further abuse, which adds further to the lack of trust in the existing system, almost giving the appearance of protectionism.
Likewise agents appear to have little effective regulation in place to protect purchasers from the outset and rely upon voluntary ethical behaviour which as all too many have learned to their cost, does not make accountable those who bring their profession into disrepute.
What is required appears to be better regulated bodies to act as reassurance, and to have effective measures in place to act as adequate deterrent.