Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Handling Will Storage: Liability, Security, and Best Practices for Solicitors

· 22 min

Executive Summary

Will storage represents one of the most underappreciated liability exposures in legal practice. The Legal Ombudsman recorded 1,128 wills and probate complaints in 2024/25, a 28% year-on-year increase, with an 81% poor service finding rate in Q1 2025/26.1 The regulatory landscape continues to evolve: the government's January 2025 consultation response confirmed indefinite retention of original paper wills following overwhelming public opposition to destruction proposals, whilst the Law Commission's May 2025 Modernising Wills report introduces provisions for electronic wills that will reshape custody obligations when enacted.2 High-profile failures underscore the stakes: Lloyds Bank's discovery of approximately 9,000 misfiled wills affected hundreds of estates.3 The SRA's December 2024 thematic review revealed systemic documentation failures, with only 9 of 30 probate files demonstrating supervision evidence and three firms referred for investigation.4 This article provides practitioners with a framework for managing storage liability, implementing integrated security protocols, and preparing for prospective electronic will provisions.

1. The Liability Landscape

The Perpetual Nature of Storage Obligations

Will storage creates a distinctive liability profile that extends indefinitely beyond the client relationship. Unlike transactional matters where duties are discharged upon completion, the obligation to safeguard a will persists until the testator's death and probate administration. For practitioners holding thousands of wills accumulated over decades of practice, this creates an aggregating exposure that demands systematic management rather than ad hoc administration.

The scale of potential exposure became starkly apparent in 2019 when Lloyds Bank discovered approximately 9,000 wills in its Safe Custody service that had been misfiled and not matched to customers.3 The bank held roughly 190,000 papers in storage; investigation revealed that wills had been separated from their associated documentation, rendering them effectively lost. Whilst 90% of affected cases involved wills that had been superseded or for which copies existed elsewhere, the remaining 10% triggered contentious probate proceedings and professional negligence claims. STEP's analysis noted that estates may have been distributed to the wrong beneficiaries, with clawback from innocent recipients practically impossible.5

The Lloyds incident, though involving a bank rather than a law firm, illustrates risks applicable across all custody arrangements. The failure arose not from physical document loss but from metadata separation: wills existed but could not be matched to their owners. This represents a systems failure rather than a security failure, emphasising that document management governance carries equal weight to physical protection. Practitioners should recognise that will storage failures can emerge from administrative deficiencies as readily as from catastrophic events such as fire or theft.

White v Jones and the Duty to Disappointed Beneficiaries

The liability framework for will storage failures derives from the seminal House of Lords decision in White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207, which established that solicitors owe a duty of care in tort to intended beneficiaries who suffer loss due to the solicitor's negligence.6 The "assumption of responsibility" by the solicitor extends to beneficiaries who, as the solicitor could reasonably foresee, might be deprived of their intended legacy through professional default.

This principle has significant implications for storage failures. When a solicitor loses or fails to produce a will, the resulting intestacy or reliance on an earlier (less favourable) will creates precisely the disappointed beneficiary scenario that White v Jones addresses. The position was clarified in Carr-Glynn v Frearsons [1998], which confirmed that the duty to beneficiaries arises where there has been a breach of duty to the testator: "The duty owed by the solicitors to the specific legatee is not a duty to take care to ensure that the specific legatee receives his legacy. It is a duty to take care to ensure that effect is given to the testator's intentions."7 A failure to safeguard the will constitutes such a breach where it prevents effect being given to the testator's wishes.

Recent jurisprudence has extended these principles further. Lonsdale v Wedlake Bell [2024] applied the White v Jones duty to inter vivos trusts involving irrevocable settlements, signalling judicial willingness to expand the scope of solicitor liability to disappointed beneficiaries in non-will contexts.8 Leonard v Leonard [2024] strengthened disappointed beneficiary claims, with the court criticising will drafters showing "no awareness of capacity issues."9 These developments confirm that the courts continue to hold practitioners to high standards in safeguarding testamentary intentions.

The legal presumption concerning lost wills also merits attention. Where a will was last known to be in the testator's possession but cannot be found at death, there is a rebuttable presumption that the testator destroyed it with the intention of revoking it. However, where the will was held by a solicitor for safekeeping, this presumption typically does not apply because the will was in the care of a professional who should have safeguarded it. Courts may accept a copy in evidence, but the evidential burden shifts and satellite litigation becomes more likely. The solicitor may face liability for negligence where beneficiaries suffer financial losses as a consequence.

Quantifying the Risk: Complaints Data

The Legal Ombudsman's data provides concrete evidence of the scale of service failures in wills and probate practice. In 2024/25, the Ombudsman accepted 1,128 complaints in this practice area, making it the second-most complained about area of law after residential conveyancing.1 The 28% year-on-year increase reflects growing client and beneficiary expectations and, potentially, systemic failures as legacy arrangements strain under volume.

Q1 2025/26 data reveals even more concerning patterns. Wills and probate recorded an 81% poor service finding rate, the highest of any practice area, alongside a 58% poor complaint handling rate, again the highest proportion.10 Whilst these figures encompass the full spectrum of service failures rather than storage-specific issues, the underlying driver of many complaints, poor communication, frequently manifests when wills cannot be located or when beneficiaries are not informed of their existence and location. Approximately 11,000 attempts to block probate were recorded in the latest year, representing a 56% increase since 2019, further indicating that disputes concerning will validity and location are intensifying.10

2. The Regulatory Framework

SRA Code of Conduct Requirements

The SRA Code of Conduct for Firms, in effect from 11 April 2025, establishes the regulatory foundation for safe custody obligations. Rule 5.2 requires that firms "safeguard money and assets entrusted to you by clients and others."11 A will deposited for safe custody unambiguously constitutes an asset entrusted by the client, bringing it within this mandatory obligation. The rule encompasses not merely physical retention but the broader duty to maintain the asset's accessibility and utility.

Critically, Rule 2.1 mandates that firms maintain "effective governance structures, arrangements, systems and controls" to ensure compliance with regulatory obligations. Rule 2.2 further requires firms to "keep and maintain records to demonstrate compliance."11 Read together, these provisions establish that safe custody of wills requires documented governance systems, not merely physical security. A solicitor who maintains wills in a fireproof safe but lacks documented procedures for tracking, retrieval, and client communication has not satisfied the regulatory standard. The SRA expects systems that are auditable and evidenced, not merely claimed.

This governance requirement extends to personnel. The Code requires that individuals undertaking work have the competence and supervision appropriate to that work. Will storage administration, though often delegated to support staff, involves regulatory obligations that require documented procedures and oversight. The firm's compliance officer (COLP) bears ultimate responsibility for ensuring that safe custody arrangements meet regulatory requirements and that any deficiencies are addressed and reported where necessary.

SRA Thematic Review Findings

The SRA's December 2024 thematic review of probate and estate administration provides direct evidence of regulatory expectations in practice. Of 25 firms reviewed, three were referred for investigation. The review examined 30 individual files and found that only 9 showed documented evidence of supervision.4

Additional findings with storage and governance implications included:

  • Over half of solicitor fee earners (6 of 10) were unaware of their competence obligations under the SRA Standards and Regulations
  • Only 15 of 25 firms had written continuing competence policies
  • 12 heads of department received no oversight or peer review
  • Knowledge and awareness of professional obligations appeared limited amongst some fee earners4

The review's records management findings were more positive, with client and office ledgers and asset schedules generally maintained accurately. However, the broader governance deficiencies, particularly around documented supervision and competence assurance, signal that the SRA expects demonstrable systems throughout probate practice. Firms cannot assume that long-standing informal arrangements satisfy current regulatory expectations.

The SRA found that 17 of the reviewed firms conducted routine beneficiary identity checks and all but one used secure methods for obtaining bank details, indicating awareness of cyber fraud risks in the probate context.4 This finding suggests that cybersecurity consciousness has penetrated probate practice but must now be extended systematically to document custody arrangements.

GDPR and the Storage Limitation Principle

Will storage creates tension with UK GDPR requirements. The storage limitation principle provides that personal data must not be retained longer than necessary for the purposes for which it was collected.12 The ICO guidance confirms that UK GDPR does not mandate specific retention periods; organisations must determine and justify appropriate durations based on their purposes. Periodic review is required, with data erased or anonymised when no longer needed.

For wills, resolution of this tension is relatively straightforward. Storage serves the legitimate purpose of safeguarding client assets and fulfilling the solicitor's professional obligations. The appropriate retention period is until the testator's death (when the will is needed for probate) or until superseded by a later will (when the client requests return of the earlier document). This justification should be documented in the firm's data protection policy and referenced in client care letters.

The more complex GDPR consideration concerns the supporting file. Attendance notes, client correspondence, capacity assessments, and drafting instructions contain personal data that may not require indefinite retention. The Law Society guidance suggests retaining wills and probate files for 6-15 years depending on limitation period considerations, though wills themselves should be retained until death or supersession.13 Firms should distinguish between the will itself (permanent custody obligation until death or supersession) and the underlying file (subject to standard retention limits). A clear policy enables consistent application and defensible destruction decisions.

3. Physical and Digital Security

Traditional Safe Custody Requirements

Physical security for wills remains foundational despite increasing digitisation. The Law Society's guidance recommends storage in fireproof and waterproof safes or cabinets, with consideration of off-floor storage to protect against flooding.13 Historic incidents, including the 2015 Brooklyn warehouse fire that destroyed stored law firm client files and Hurricane Sandy flooding New York law firm offices in 2013, demonstrate that physical risks remain present.14

A will storage register should record:

  • Client name and matter reference
  • Date of deposit
  • Location within storage system (specific safe, shelf, or archive reference)
  • Any restrictions or special instructions
  • Dates and details of any access, production, or return
  • Identity of personnel accessing or handling the document

Verification procedures should include periodic audits to confirm that physical documents match register entries. The Lloyds Bank incident arose partly from separation of wills from their associated metadata; robust cross-referencing prevents such failures. Dual-control procedures for accessing original wills provide an additional safeguard, requiring two authorised individuals to confirm proper handling and return.

Environmental controls merit attention for larger archives. Temperature and humidity extremes can degrade paper documents over decades. Whilst standard office conditions are generally adequate, basement or attic storage may require monitoring. Pest control measures protect against rodent or insect damage to paper records. These considerations become material where firms hold wills spanning multiple generations of testators.

Cybersecurity as a Primary Risk

The emergence of cybersecurity as a primary storage risk represents a fundamental shift in the threat landscape. In 2023, law firms experienced a record 45 ransomware attacks, with approximately 1.5 million records compromised.15 The average cost of a law firm data breach reached USD 5.08 million in 2024, representing a 10% increase on prior years. Research indicates that 80% of law firms maintained at least one technology insurance policy in 2023, though only 34% had established incident response plans, revealing a significant gap between insurance coverage and operational preparedness.15

Notable incidents affecting estate planning practices include:

  • Wacks Law Group (March 2024): ransomware exposed Social Security numbers and confidential documents from an estate planning firm, compromising both testamentary and financial information
  • Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe: USD 8 million settlement following breach affecting over 600,000 individuals
  • Gunster Yoakley & Stewart: USD 8.5 million settlement (November 2024) arising from breach notification failures15

Whilst these incidents predominantly involve US firms, UK practices face equivalent threats. Ransomware does not respect jurisdictional boundaries. The SRA has emphasised cybersecurity as a regulatory priority, and firms holding confidential testamentary information must implement protections commensurate with the sensitivity of that data.

For will storage specifically, cyber risks manifest in several ways. Digital copies or scanned images of wills may be exfiltrated, compromising client confidentiality and potentially enabling fraud. Will management databases may be encrypted or corrupted, replicating the metadata separation problem that affected Lloyds Bank but through malicious rather than administrative failure. Practitioner email accounts may be compromised, enabling fraudulent communications to executors or beneficiaries following a testator's death.

Integrated Security Protocols

Contemporary will storage requires integration of physical and cyber security into a unified framework. Neither dimension suffices alone; a fireproof safe provides no protection against ransomware, whilst encrypted databases offer no resilience against office flood. Key elements include:

Physical Layer:

  • Fire-rated safes or secure storage rooms with environmental controls
  • Access logging and dual-control procedures for high-value documents
  • Off-site backup location for disaster recovery (separate building or specialist storage)
  • Clear chain of custody documentation for all movements of original documents

Digital Layer:

  • Encrypted storage for any digital copies, scanned images, or will-related documentation
  • Access controls limiting retrieval to authorised personnel with role-based permissions
  • Audit trails recording all access to client records, including date, time, and user identity
  • Incident response procedures for suspected breaches, including notification obligations
  • Regular backup to separate, air-gapped, or immutable storage

Procedural Layer:

  • Documented policies covering both physical and digital assets, reviewed annually
  • Regular training on security protocols for all personnel with access
  • Periodic testing of backup and recovery procedures (at least annually)
  • Tabletop exercises for breach and disaster scenarios
  • Annual review of security arrangements against evolving threats

4. Electronic Wills and the Evolving Regulatory Landscape

Government Consultation Response: Paper Preservation Confirmed

The government's January 2025 response to its consultation on will storage clarified the future of paper will custody. HMCTS currently holds original wills dating back to 1858, with storage costs of approximately GBP 4.5 million annually. Since 2021, digital copies have been created for all new wills deposited with the Probate Service.2

The December 2023 consultation had proposed that older wills and documents would be scanned into digital form and subsequently destroyed after 10-12 years, with only wills of "famous persons" preserved indefinitely. However, following 1,600 consultation responses expressing overwhelming opposition to destruction of originals, the government explicitly abandoned this proposal.2

The January 2025 response confirmed:

  • Original paper wills will continue to be preserved indefinitely
  • No reform involving destruction of original will documents will be pursued
  • Digitisation continues for new probate applications and inspection requests
  • Any systematic programme for digitising older wills remains subject to resource constraints
  • The government will consider adjusting fees for copies of wills and grants of probate to offset ongoing storage costs2

This outcome has significant implications for practitioners. The anticipated regulatory shift toward digital-only preservation did not materialise for court-held wills, meaning that paper custody remains the established standard. Firms should continue to maintain robust physical storage arrangements whilst remaining prepared for prospective changes that may emerge from electronic wills legislation.

Law Commission Electronic Wills Provisions

The Law Commission's Modernising Wills report, published May 2025, introduces provisions that will transform will custody when enacted. The draft Bill for a new Wills Act provides for electronic wills to be formally valid, subject to specific requirements designed to ensure reliability and prevent fraud.16

Key provisions include:

  • Electronic wills must be created using a "reliable system" meeting prescribed standards
  • Remote witnessing permitted under specified conditions, including audio-visual technology requirements
  • Digital signature requirements with authentication standards yet to be prescribed in secondary legislation
  • Court power to dispense with formality requirements where a document reflects the deceased's "settled testamentary intentions," providing a safety valve against excessive formalism
  • Transition provisions to be developed for existing paper wills16

The government welcomed the Law Commission's recommendations in its May 2025 response but has not committed to a legislative timetable. Primary legislation has not been introduced as of January 2026. The draft Bill provisions remain prospective rather than current law. Practitioners should monitor progress whilst avoiding premature implementation of unenacted provisions.

Custody Implications of Electronic Wills

When electronic wills become valid, custody practices will require substantive adaptation. The shift from physical to digital custody alters the risk profile and technical requirements materially:

Authentication and Integrity: Electronic wills must be stored in systems that preserve their evidential value. This extends beyond simple document storage to cryptographic verification that the will has not been altered since execution. Hash values, digital signatures, and timestamping may become integral to demonstrating authenticity at probate.

Access and Retrieval: Electronic storage offers advantages for retrieval speed and remote access, but systems must address authentication of persons seeking access. Multi-factor authentication and access logging become essential rather than optional. The question of who can access an electronic will following the testator's death, and what credentials they must present, requires resolution.

Redundancy and Continuity: Digital storage eliminates fire and flood risk but introduces dependency on technology infrastructure. Redundant storage across geographically separate data centres becomes the electronic equivalent of fireproof safes. Format migration planning ensures that files remain readable as technology evolves over decades.

Transitional Arrangements: Firms will likely operate dual custody systems during any transition period, maintaining paper storage for existing wills whilst implementing electronic custody for new instruments created under new provisions. This increases complexity and cost during transition but is unavoidable given the non-retrospective nature of formality changes.

5. Business Continuity and Succession Planning

SRA Intervention Scenarios

SRA intervention poses particular challenges for will custody. When the SRA intervenes in a firm, it seizes all client files, papers, and money. Computers are removed or mirror images taken. Clients are contacted by the SRA, not the firm; practitioners lose the ability to communicate directly with their clients.17

Post-intervention, closed files, wills, and deeds are transferred to the SRA Intervention Archives in Coventry. The SRA currently holds over 6 million files, many including wills accumulated from decades of interventions. No files are destroyed in the first 12 months following intervention. Original documents including wills are retained separately for 80 years, providing long-term preservation albeit outside the original firm's control.18

Whilst this arrangement provides preservation, the intervention process creates immediate accessibility challenges. The Axiom Ince intervention demonstrated that file volume can cause significant delays in returning documents to clients or their new representatives. Clients seeking to update their testamentary arrangements face uncertainty about accessing their current will while intervention proceeds.

National Will Register

The National Will Register provides a crucial backup to physical storage arrangements. As the Law Society's preferred provider of will registration services, it holds records of over 10.5 million wills. Significantly, 1 in 5 searches discovers a will presumed missing or identifies a later will superseding an earlier instrument, demonstrating the practical value of registration.19

Registration records the existence and location of a will but does not store the document itself. Registration costs GBP 30 for public registrations, with searches costing GBP 38 plus VAT (approximately GBP 45.60).19 Registration is voluntary and does not affect validity, but it provides essential redundancy for locating wills when firms close, lose records, or undergo intervention.

For risk management purposes, systematic registration of all wills held in safe custody should be considered standard practice. The modest registration cost is outweighed by the protection against location failures. Firms closing down or transferring practices should verify that registration details are updated to reflect new custody arrangements.

Firm Closure Planning

Firms holding significant will portfolios require documented succession arrangements. The SRA's guidance on closing down emphasises that client files, including wills, represent ongoing obligations that cannot simply be abandoned. The storage obligation does not terminate with the solicitor's practice.

Prudent planning includes:

  • Identification of successor arrangements (whether another firm, storage provider, the National Will Register, or transfer to clients individually)
  • Maintenance of contact details for testators to facilitate notification upon closure
  • Consideration of National Will Register registration for all held wills as a location backup
  • Client care letters that address storage arrangements and firm closure scenarios explicitly
  • Professional indemnity run-off cover that addresses safe custody liabilities continuing after practice cessation
  • Partnership or shareholder agreements that allocate responsibility for ongoing custody obligations

Client Communication Protocols

Effective storage arrangements require clear client communication at multiple stages throughout the relationship and beyond:

Initial Deposit: Client care letters should confirm storage arrangements, any charges (if applicable), the firm's retention policy, and what happens if the firm closes or the client instructs a different solicitor. This communication should be documented on the file and acknowledged by the client.

Periodic Review: Best practice includes periodic contact (every 3-5 years) to confirm client contact details remain current and to prompt review of whether the will remains appropriate to circumstances. Such contact may generate instructions for updated wills, providing client service whilst maintaining accurate records.

Production Requests: Clear procedures for producing wills during the testator's lifetime (for review, capacity assessment, or facilitation of new instructions) and following death (for executors and probate purposes) ensure consistent and secure handling.

Firm Changes: Where a firm merges, is acquired, or closes, proactive communication with all clients holding wills enables orderly transition. Clients should be informed of the new custodian and given the opportunity to request alternative arrangements if preferred.

Conclusion

Will storage obligations extend far beyond physical custody to encompass documented governance, integrated security, and awareness of evolving regulatory provisions. The liability exposure created by White v Jones duties to disappointed beneficiaries makes storage failures potentially catastrophic, as the Lloyds Bank incident demonstrated across hundreds of affected estates. The SRA's thematic review findings confirm that regulatory expectation centres on documented systems and demonstrable supervision, not merely informal competence.

Practitioners should conduct immediate audits of existing storage arrangements, verifying that physical security, documentation, metadata integrity, and cybersecurity protocols meet current standards. Whilst the government's January 2025 consultation response confirmed indefinite paper retention for court-held wills, the Law Commission's electronic wills provisions will require adaptation when eventually enacted, potentially necessitating dual-system operation during transition.

The firms that manage will storage effectively treat it as a strategic compliance function requiring governance rigour equivalent to client money handling. Those that treat it as a mere administrative task accumulate liability that may crystallise decades hence when storage failures prevent beneficiaries receiving their intended inheritances and regulatory failings compound the reputational damage.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 18 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Private Client, Professional Regulation, Risk Management, Legal Practice Management

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Identify the key regulatory provisions under the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms that govern will storage obligations, including rules 2.1, 2.2, and 5.2
  2. Evaluate the liability exposure created by White v Jones duties to disappointed beneficiaries in the context of will storage failures
  3. Apply the Law Commission electronic wills provisions to assess necessary adaptations to current custody practices when enacted
  4. Design an integrated security protocol that addresses both physical and cybersecurity risks for will storage

SRA Competency Mapping

  • Competency A2: Technical legal practice (Private Client)
  • Competency B4: Drawing together diverse factors (risk assessment)
  • Competency C1: Communicating clearly with clients

Reflective Questions

  1. How would the electronic wills provisions in the Law Commission's draft Bill affect the storage arrangements currently operated within your practice, and what transitional measures would be required?
  2. Reviewing the SRA thematic review findings on documentation and supervision, what evidence could your firm produce to demonstrate compliance with rule 2.1 governance requirements for will storage?
  3. In the event of an SRA intervention or firm closure, what arrangements exist to ensure clients whose wills are held in safe custody can locate and retrieve their documents?

Professional Disclaimer

The information presented reflects the regulatory and legislative position as of 2026-01-28. Regulations, tax rules, and professional guidance are subject to change. Readers should independently verify all information before acting and seek advice from appropriately qualified solicitors, financial advisors, or other professionals for their specific circumstances.

Neither WUHLD nor the author accepts liability for any actions taken or decisions made based on the content of this article. Professional readers are reminded of their own regulatory obligations and duty of care to their clients.

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. Legal Ombudsman 2024/25 Annual Complaints Data and Insight (June 2025). https://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/information-centre/data-centre/complaints-data/legal-ombudsman-202425-annual-complaints-data-and-insight/ ↩ ↩2

  2. Ministry of Justice, Storage and Retention of Original Will Documents: Government Response (January 2025). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6780fd71d5422b88ec018416/will-storage-consultation-response.pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  3. STEP, Banks Belated Discovery of Stored Wills Could Trigger Estate Disputes (November 2019). https://www.step.org/industry-news/banks-belated-discovery-stored-wills-could-trigger-estate-disputes ↩ ↩2

  4. SRA Thematic Review of Probate and Estate Administration (December 2024). https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/probate-administration-thematic-review/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  5. Simply Law, Wills Storage Error Has Catastrophic Consequences (2019). https://simply.law/england-wales/blog/wills-storage-error-has-catastrophic-consequences/ ↩

  6. White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207 (House of Lords). https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1995/5.html ↩

  7. Carr-Glynn v Frearsons [1998] EWCA Civ 1226. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1226.html ↩

  8. Law Gazette, White v Jones Duty Extended to Inter Vivos Trusts (2024). https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/lack-of-good-will-the-solicitors-duty-of-care-in-will-preparation-appears-to-be-extended-by-a-recent-case-white-v-jones-/19869.article ↩

  9. Carruthers Law, Solicitor Negligence: Wills and Estate Administration (2024). https://www.carruthers-law.co.uk/articles/solicitor-negligence-wills-estate-administration/ ↩

  10. Legal Ombudsman Q1 2025/26 Complaints Data (October 2025). https://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/information-centre/data-centre/complaints-data/202526-quarter-1-complaints-data/ ↩ ↩2

  11. SRA Code of Conduct for Firms (In effect 11 April 2025). https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/code-conduct-firms/ ↩ ↩2

  12. ICO, A Guide to the Data Protection Principles: Storage Limitation (2024). https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/data-protection-principles/a-guide-to-the-data-protection-principles/storage-limitation ↩

  13. Law Society, File Retention: Wills and Probate (2024). https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/en/topics/private-client/file-retention-wills-and-probate ↩ ↩2

  14. Clio, Law Firm Disaster Recovery Plan (2024). https://www.clio.com/blog/law-firm-disaster-recovery-plan/ ↩

  15. Embroker, Law Firm Cyberattack Statistics 2025. https://www.embroker.com/blog/law-firm-cyberattacks/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  16. Law Commission, Modernising Wills Final Report and Draft Bill (May 2025). https://lawcom.gov.uk/publication/modernising-wills-final-report/ ↩ ↩2

  17. SRA, What Happens When We Intervene (2024). https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/solicitor-closed-down/intervention/ ↩

  18. SRA, Intervention Archives File Retention Policy (2024). https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/claim-papers/intervention-archives-file-retention-policy/ ↩

  19. National Will Register (2025). https://www.nationalwillregister.co.uk/ ↩ ↩2