Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Pricing Strategy for Will Writing Services: Building Sustainable Profitability in a Transparency-Driven Market

· 22 min

Executive Summary

Will writing pricing in the regulated sector faces a structural paradox. Solicitor market share has declined from 56% in 2020 to 49% in 2025, yet the Legal Services Board's 2024 pricing research reveals that law firm prices have risen ahead of inflation over the same period. Practices are simultaneously losing volume and raising prices -- a pattern indicative of strategic pricing failure rather than market correction. The LSB data demonstrates that providers offering fixed fees for standard wills are GBP 150 cheaper on average than those quoting estimates, while the Law Society Financial Benchmarking Survey 2025 finds that median firms operate at a 93% cost-to-income ratio, leaving negligible margins for pricing error. Against mandatory transparency obligations under the SRA Transparency Rules and prospective cost-structure reform through the Law Commission's electronic wills proposals, practices must transition from cost-plus pricing to value-articulated, tiered service models grounded in rigorous cost-to-serve analysis.

1. The Pricing Evidence Base: Data Behind the Strategic Imperative

The case for treating will writing pricing as a strategic discipline rather than an administrative function rests on three independent data sources, each revealing a different dimension of the same problem: regulated firms are mispricing their services in ways that simultaneously erode market share and compress profitability.

1.1 The LSB Pricing Landscape

The Legal Services Board commissioned Pye Tait Consulting to conduct the fourth wave of its Prices of Individual Consumer Legal Services research, published in September 2024.1 Over 1,500 providers across England and Wales responded via telephone interview, covering conveyancing, divorce, and wills/trusts/probate. The headline finding for will writing is significant: the mean fixed price for a standard individual will is GBP 150 cheaper than the mean estimate price.2 This differential is not a marginal variation; it suggests that the discipline of committing to a fixed price compels providers to standardise processes, manage scope, and control cost-to-serve in ways that estimate-based pricing does not.

Prices for basic legal services have risen ahead of inflation since 2020, with price ranges widening between the second (2020) and fourth (2024) waves of the research.1 The LSB attributes this widening to inflationary pressures and regional composition changes in the survey sample. Critically, the spread of prices is slightly narrower among providers who display prices online, suggesting that transparency itself functions as a disciplining mechanism on pricing outliers.2 The historical trajectory reinforces this pattern: by 2020, 59% of wills, trusts, and probate providers displayed prices on their websites, up from 21% in 2017.3 The relationship between transparency and price discipline has strengthened with each successive wave of research.

The LSB research also found that firms holding a quality mark, such as the Law Society's Wills and Inheritance Quality Scheme (WIQS), are no more expensive than those without -- except that firms not members of WIQS were in some cases "significantly cheaper."2 This finding challenges the assumption that quality accreditation necessarily commands a price premium; rather, it suggests that accredited firms have not effectively communicated a value proposition sufficient to justify differentiation. More firms now offer services remotely, enabling consumers to access lower-priced providers outside their geographic area.1 Geographic protection is eroding as a pricing support.

1.2 The Profitability Crisis in Numbers

The Law Society's Financial Benchmarking Survey 2025 -- the 24th edition, surveying 145 firms with combined fee income exceeding GBP 1.1 billion -- provides the profitability context that transforms LSB pricing data from a market observation into a strategic imperative.4 The median hourly cost per fee earner, at a target of 1,100 chargeable hours, is GBP 123.40. The median hourly fee per fee earner is GBP 133.01. The resulting 93% cost-to-income ratio means that for every GBP 100 of fee income generated, GBP 93 covers costs.5 This figure represents a cross-practice-area median; individual departments -- including private client -- may operate at higher or lower ratios depending on practice mix, staffing models, and overhead allocation. The Financial Benchmarking Survey does not publish private-client-specific profitability breakdowns, representing a data gap that practices should address through their own management accounting. Nonetheless, at cross-sector margins this thin, a 5% pricing error -- whether through underquoting, scope creep, or unbilled time -- eliminates the entire profit contribution of the affected matter.

The chargeable hours data compounds the picture. Average recorded chargeable hours per fee earner stand at 773 hours against the 1,100-hour target used to calculate the hourly cost figure.4 This 30% utilisation gap inflates the effective hourly cost per productive hour to approximately GBP 175, fundamentally altering cost-to-serve calculations for any practice pricing on the assumption of full utilisation. Fee growth remains positive -- 71% of firms reported year-on-year fee growth in 2024, with median practice fee income increasing 6.1%6 -- but 22% of profit per equity partner came from client interest income, a revenue stream unrelated to service delivery and unsustainable as a profitability foundation.4

1.3 The Market Share Trajectory

Consumer behaviour data completes the evidence base. According to the UK Wills & Probate Consumer Research Report 2025, solicitor market share for will writing has declined from 56% in 2020 to 49% in 2025, while 85% of clients now pay a fixed price for their will, with a median cost of GBP 130.7 The concurrent trends of above-inflation solicitor price increases and declining solicitor market share describe a market where regulated providers are retreating to higher-price, lower-volume positions without the strategic pricing infrastructure to sustain profitability at reduced volume. Meanwhile, unregulated providers and hybrid online services capture an expanding share of the price-sensitive segment.

LSB research estimates up to 208,000 unregulated providers in England and Wales, with the unregulated sector accounting for up to 9% of the total individual consumer legal services market.8 Will-writing market share of unregulated providers is likely significantly higher than this cross-sector average, given that will writing is not a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007. The consumer perception gap is notable: 40% of adults believe all will writing services are regulated,8 a misapprehension that benefits unregulated providers competing on price without the overhead of regulatory compliance.

2. The Regulatory Framework for Price Transparency

The regulatory environment shapes both the constraints and opportunities available to practices developing pricing strategy. SRA Transparency Rules mandate certain disclosures, while CMA enforcement action is beginning to constrain the competitive tactics of unregulated providers.

2.1 SRA Transparency Rules: Obligations and Opportunities

The SRA Transparency Rules, made by the SRA Board on 16 December 2024 and effective 11 April 2025, require firms to publish cost information for specified services.9 Rule 1.3(b) covers estate administration -- the collection and distribution of assets following death, within the UK, uncontested. Rule 1.5 specifies the required disclosures: total cost, average cost, or cost range; basis for charges; experience and qualifications of personnel likely to carry out the work; likely disbursements; VAT treatment; services included and excluded; and key stages and timescales.9 Will writing itself is not a mandatory transparency category under the current rules, though many firms voluntarily publish will pricing.

The compliance picture reveals significant market advantage for early movers. The SRA's Year Three Evaluation of the Transparency Rules, published October 2023, found that only 42% of firms fully comply with publishing required price and services data.10 More troubling, in two-thirds of cases where firms declared compliance, the SRA found areas of non-compliance upon spot check.10 The 48% of firms offering wills services that publish price information online represent a near-majority, but full compliance with the quality and completeness requirements of Rule 1.5 remains the exception rather than the norm. The SRA has commenced rolling website compliance checks and consulted on introducing fixed penalties for non-compliance, signalling increasing regulatory expectations.11

2.2 Transparency as Competitive Advantage

The SRA's 2018 price transparency research, involving 4,200 participants across will writing, conveyancing, and family law scenarios, produced two findings with direct pricing strategy implications.12 First, firms displaying the SRA regulated logo were selected by an average of 14% more consumers than those without visible regulatory identification. Second, small businesses without pricing access assumed solicitors cost approximately 22% more than actual historical rates.12 While this research is now over seven years old, the SRA continues to cite these findings in its Year Three Evaluation, and the combined implication remains relevant: price opacity does not protect margins -- it deters potential clients by inflating perceived cost beyond actual cost.

Consumer shopping behaviour has shifted to reinforce this dynamic. By the Year Three Evaluation, 55% of individuals and 60% of SMEs compared prices before instructing solicitors, up from 46% and 48% respectively at the Year One assessment.10 Additionally, 69% of individual consumers and 79% of SMEs checked solicitor websites before instructing.10 Firms that fail to publish clear, complete pricing information are not protecting their ability to price individually; they are losing enquiries from the growing majority of consumers who use published prices as a filtering mechanism.

The SRA's December 2024 Risk Outlook report identified that consumers demand "better pricing transparency" and "cost predictability," with 70% of surveyed firms having adopted alternative fee arrangements.13 The SRA predicted that AI adoption could accelerate task completion, making hourly billing less viable for routine services.13 Pricing transparency is not merely a regulatory obligation; the regulatory data consistently demonstrates that transparency generates competitive advantage for firms that implement it effectively.

2.3 CMA Enforcement and the Competitive Landscape

The CMA's intervention on 9 October 2024 introduced a new dynamic. The CMA published consumer protection compliance guidance for unregulated will writing, online divorce, and pre-paid probate providers, issuing advisory letters to seven providers.14 The guidance specifically states that providers should not make misleading price comparisons between unregulated service costs and solicitor fees.14 This is significant for regulated firms: a common competitive tactic of unregulated providers -- positioning their fees as dramatically cheaper than "solicitor prices" without disclosing differences in scope, qualification, or client protection -- is now expressly identified as a consumer protection concern.

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Act 2024 provisions came into force on 6 April 2025, empowering the CMA to determine breaches and impose fines of up to 10% of annual turnover.14 While enforcement action takes time to reshape market behaviour, the regulatory trajectory is toward greater constraint on misleading price-based competition from unregulated providers. Regulated firms that have clear, transparent pricing are better positioned to benefit from this shift, as the CMA's guidance implicitly legitimises the higher cost of regulated services by constraining misleading comparisons.

3. Pricing Models for Will Writing Services

Translating market data and regulatory context into an operational pricing framework requires three elements: rigorous cost-to-serve analysis, a structured tiered pricing model, and an articulated value proposition that differentiates regulated services.

3.1 Cost-to-Serve Analysis

The Financial Benchmarking Survey provides the inputs for a worked cost-to-serve model, though practitioners should note that these are sector-wide medians and practices should substitute their own departmental cost data for accurate pricing decisions. The median hourly cost per fee earner at 1,100 chargeable hours is GBP 123.40.5 However, at 773 actual recorded chargeable hours, the effective hourly cost rises to approximately GBP 175.80. These figures are cross-practice-area medians; private client departments may have materially different cost profiles depending on their staffing mix, technology investment, and overhead allocation. A standard individual will typically requires between 1.5 and 3 hours of fee earner time, depending on complexity, supervision model, and technology support. Applying the sector-wide effective cost rate for illustrative purposes, the direct cost of a standard will ranges from approximately GBP 264 to GBP 528 before any profit margin.

These figures illuminate the scale of the pricing challenge. With 85% of clients paying a fixed price and a median cost of GBP 130,7 the standard will market operates significantly below the cost-to-serve for practices relying on traditional solicitor-led delivery. Practices must either reduce their cost-to-serve through process standardisation and technology, increase their effective price through value articulation and tiered offerings, or accept that standard will writing operates as a loss leader -- a strategy the Financial Benchmarking Survey data suggests most firms cannot sustain at current margins.

The cost-to-serve calculation should encompass not merely direct fee earner time but the full cost chain: initial enquiry handling, client intake, conflict checks, capacity assessment where required, drafting, internal review, client approval, execution, and storage. Allocation of overheads -- premises, technology, professional indemnity insurance, regulatory compliance costs, and supervision time -- must be included at a realistic utilisation rate rather than an aspirational target. A practice that prices on the assumption of 1,100 chargeable hours while achieving 773 will systematically understate its true cost per matter.

3.2 Tiered Pricing Framework

A structured tiered model enables practices to compete at each segment of the will writing market with an appropriate price point, delivery model, and margin expectation.

Tier 1: Standard Will (single or mirror wills). Fixed-fee pricing, technology-assisted drafting using specialist will writing software with automated clause selection, paralegal-supported process with solicitor oversight at key decision points. Target delivery: the most efficient cost-to-serve achievable within the practice, with pricing competitive against the GBP 130 market median.7 Margin expectation: contribution margin, not full profit recovery. The strategic purpose of Tier 1 is client acquisition and relationship establishment, not standalone profitability.

Tier 2: Complex Will (trusts, tax planning, blended families, cross-border elements). Fixed or capped fee, solicitor-led throughout, with scope defined at intake and documented in the client care letter. Pricing reflects the genuine additional value of professional expertise in structuring testamentary trusts, navigating inheritance tax planning, addressing complex family dynamics, and managing cross-jurisdictional considerations. Margin expectation: full cost recovery plus target profit margin. This tier represents the core profitability driver for private client departments.

Tier 3: Comprehensive Estate Planning (will, lasting powers of attorney, annual estate review). Subscription or bundled package pricing, combining multiple services with an ongoing advisory relationship. Annual review creates recurring revenue and deepens client relationships, supporting cross-referral to other private client services. This tier is the most effective response to client lifetime value considerations and the most difficult for unregulated providers to replicate, given the breadth of service and regulatory expertise required.

3.3 Value Articulation

The LSB finding that WIQS-accredited firms are no more expensive than non-accredited firms, while non-WIQS firms are in some cases significantly cheaper, reveals a value communication deficit.2 Quality accreditation has cost but is not generating price premium. Practices with WIQS accreditation or STEP membership should integrate these credentials into their pricing communication, not as abstract badges but as specific client-relevant commitments: the WIQS Client Charter's 48-hour response standard, the mandatory training and random audit requirements, and the SRA-regulated professional indemnity cover that unregulated providers do not carry.

The value proposition for regulated will writing rests on four pillars that can be articulated in pricing materials: regulatory protection (SRA oversight, complaints recourse through the Legal Ombudsman, Compensation Fund eligibility), professional indemnity insurance covering errors in drafting or advice, continuing competence obligations ensuring practitioners maintain current knowledge, and accountability through the SRA's enforcement framework. The SRA's 2018 research finding that the regulated logo increases consumer selection by 14%12 demonstrates that these attributes have measurable market value -- the challenge is converting that latent preference into pricing support.

4. Technology, Efficiency, and the Electronic Wills Horizon

Technology investment is not merely an operational improvement; it is a pricing strategy enabler that directly reduces cost-to-serve and expands the range of viable pricing models.

4.1 Current Technology and Cost Impact

Clio's 2025 Legal Trends Report, the first to include a UK-specific supplement, found that 54% of UK firms anticipate a significant shift toward fixed-fee billing.15 Among mid-sized firms, 64% offer flat fees, with 82% of those applying flat fees to entire matters rather than individual tasks. The subscription model is emerging: 27% of mid-sized firms offer subscription-based pricing.15 This data confirms that fixed-fee adoption is not a niche experiment but an accelerating market transition.

Specialist will writing software already enables practitioners to create wills with automated clause libraries, reducing drafting time for standard wills to a fraction of the traditional manual approach. The Clio UK data reports that 34% of UK firms plan to invest over GBP 100,000 in technology in the coming year.16 For private client departments, the relevant technology investments include document automation platforms, client portal systems enabling remote instruction gathering, digital signature tools for ancillary documents, and practice management software with integrated time and cost tracking. Each of these reduces a specific component of the cost chain, cumulatively enabling the lower cost-to-serve that fixed-fee pricing at competitive price points requires.

4.2 The Electronic Wills Horizon

The Law Commission published its Modernising Wills final report and draft Bill for a new Wills Act on 16 May 2025.17 The draft Bill proposes enabling electronic wills to be formally valid, created, signed, and stored digitally using a "reliable system" with "remote presence" provisions for witnessing.17 If enacted, these provisions would fundamentally alter the cost structure of will production by eliminating or reducing document printing, physical execution ceremonies, and paper storage requirements.

The Government, through Sarah Sackman KC MP, stated that the proposals "deserve detailed consideration" and acknowledged that "the current law is outdated," but no legislative timetable has been confirmed as of January 2026.18 The Wills Act 1837 remains in force. No operational changes are warranted until legislative enactment; however, practices investing in digital infrastructure for current efficiency gains would be well positioned to capture first-mover pricing advantages if electronic wills legislation proceeds. The cost-structure modelling for electronic wills is necessarily speculative at this stage, but the direction of travel -- toward lower per-unit production costs for technology-ready firms -- is consistent with the broader trajectory of legal service delivery.

The LexisNexis Bellwether 2025 report reinforces the market expectation: clients expect clear communication, predictable costs, and efficient turnaround, with value-based pricing aligning fees to client-relevant outcomes including impact, speed, and commercial awareness.19 Technology investment that enables both cost reduction and service quality improvement is the foundation upon which sustainable pricing models are built.

5. Defending Margins Against Unregulated Competition

The competitive dynamic between regulated and unregulated will writing providers is asymmetric but not uniformly disadvantageous for regulated firms.

5.1 The Competitive Asymmetry

An estimated 208,000 unregulated providers operate in England and Wales, without regulatory overhead, mandatory transparency obligations, professional indemnity requirements, or Compensation Fund contributions.8 The cost advantage is structural, not merely operational. Regulated firms cannot -- and should not attempt to -- match the lowest unregulated price points by stripping out the very regulatory protections that constitute their value proposition.

The appropriate strategic response is segmentation. For standard wills where the client's estate is straightforward, the testator has capacity, and there are no complex family dynamics, the risk differential between regulated and unregulated provision is lower. Regulated firms competing in this segment should do so through technology-enabled efficiency and transparent fixed pricing, not by compromising quality or supervision standards. For complex wills involving trusts, tax planning, cross-border assets, vulnerability considerations, or contested family situations, the value of regulated expertise is material and the risk of unregulated provision is significantly higher. Regulated firms should price this segment for full value recovery, with the value proposition explicitly communicated.

5.2 The Regulatory Correction

The CMA's October 2024 guidance and advisory letters represent the beginning of a regulatory correction in the competitive landscape.14 The prohibition on misleading price comparisons constrains the most aggressive competitive tactic used by some unregulated providers: claiming to offer "the same service as a solicitor at a fraction of the cost" without disclosing the differences in regulatory protection, qualifications, supervision, and complaint recourse. The DMCC Act 2024 enforcement provisions, in force since 6 April 2025, provide the CMA with substantive deterrence capability.14

Regulated firms should monitor CMA enforcement activity as a competitive intelligence input. As the unregulated market faces greater consumer protection scrutiny, the value differential of regulated provision becomes more visible to consumers, particularly those who have experienced or become aware of quality failures in unregulated services. The SRA's Risk Outlook observation that growing competition from unregulated providers using lawtech creates "additional risk for clients"13 further positions regulated provision as the safer choice -- a positioning that transparent, well-communicated pricing reinforces.

Conclusion

Sustainable will writing pricing requires three capabilities that operate as an integrated system. First, cost data precision: practices must understand their true cost-to-serve at each level of complexity, calculated on actual utilisation rates rather than aspirational targets, and encompassing the full cost chain from enquiry to storage. The Financial Benchmarking Survey's 93% cost-to-income ratio demonstrates that the margin for pricing error is vanishingly thin, though practitioners should calibrate this against their own departmental data.5

Second, value articulation: the LSB finding that quality-accredited firms are no more expensive than non-accredited firms reveals a failure to convert regulatory and quality credentials into pricing support.2 Practices must communicate the specific, client-relevant value of regulated provision -- SRA oversight, professional indemnity, complaints recourse, continuing competence -- not as abstract assurances but as concrete service commitments embedded in pricing materials.

Third, tiered service design: a single pricing model cannot serve the standard, complex, and comprehensive segments of the will writing market. Tiered pricing, with differentiated delivery models and margin expectations at each level, enables practices to compete where they must and capture value where they can. Technology investment reduces the cost-to-serve that makes competitive fixed pricing viable at the standard tier, while the Law Commission's electronic wills proposals, if enacted, would accelerate this trajectory for practices that invest ahead of legislation.17

The practice that masters all three capabilities -- cost precision, value communication, and tiered design -- will sustain profitability regardless of competitive pressure, transparency obligations, or market share dynamics.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 20 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Private Client, Practice Management, Legal Services Regulation, Business Development

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Analyse the LSB 2024 pricing research findings to identify the structural pricing advantages of fixed-fee models over estimate-based pricing for standard will writing services
  2. Evaluate the competitive implications of SRA Transparency Rules compliance, including the documented 14% consumer preference for SRA-regulated providers and the 22% cost perception gap created by price opacity
  3. Apply Financial Benchmarking Survey 2025 profitability data to calculate cost-to-serve for will writing at actual utilisation rates, distinguishing between target and effective hourly costs
  4. Design a tiered pricing framework for will writing services that differentiates standard, complex, and comprehensive estate planning offerings with appropriate delivery models and margin expectations

SRA Competency Mapping

  • Technical legal practice: understanding the regulatory environment affecting service pricing (SRA Competence Statement, Section A)
  • Managing yourself and your work: business development and financial management within the practice (SRA Competence Statement, Section D)
  • Working with other people: communicating pricing rationale to clients transparently (SRA Competence Statement, Section C)

Reflective Questions

  1. How does the practice's current cost-to-serve for a standard individual will compare with the GBP 130 market median, and what specific process or technology changes would be required to achieve competitive fixed-fee pricing at sustainable margins?
  2. To what extent does the practice's published pricing information meet the completeness requirements of SRA Transparency Rule 1.5, and what competitive advantage might full compliance generate given the 42% sector compliance rate?
  3. What investment in technology infrastructure would be required to position the practice for electronic will delivery if the Law Commission's draft Bill provisions are enacted, and how would that investment alter the cost-to-serve calculation for standard wills?

Professional Disclaimer

The information presented reflects the regulatory and legislative position as of 2026-01-27. 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. LSB Prices of Individual Consumer Legal Services -- Fourth Wave (September 2024). https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/prices-of-individual-consumer-legal-services-2024 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. LSB Prices Research 2024 -- Press Release and Key Findings (September 2024). https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/news/prices_research_2024 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  3. LSB Prices of Individual Consumer Legal Services -- Third Wave (2020). https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/prices2020 ↩

  4. Law Society Financial Benchmarking Survey 2025 -- Communities Article. https://communities.lawsociety.org.uk/law-management-news/financial-benchmarking-survey-2025/6003250.article ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. Law Society Financial Benchmarking Survey 2025. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/research/financial-benchmarking-survey-2025 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. Law Society Financial Benchmarking Survey 2025. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/research/financial-benchmarking-survey-2025 ↩

  7. UK Wills & Probate Consumer Research Report 2025 (Research & Markets). GlobeNewswire (7 November 2025): https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/11/07/3183474/28124/en/; BusinessWire (22 April 2025): https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250422944209/en/; Legal Futures (November 2025): https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/most-consumers-no-longer-use-solicitors-for-wills ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  8. LSB Research on Unregulated Legal Services. https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/news/lsb-research-on-unregulated-legal-services-reveals-potential-consumer-benefits-and-detriments ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  9. SRA Transparency Rules (effective 11 April 2025). https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/transparency-rules/ ↩ ↩2

  10. SRA Year Three Evaluation of Transparency Rules (October 2023). https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/year-three-evaluation-sra-transparency-rules/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  11. SRA Transparency in Price and Service -- Resources. https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/resources/fees/transparency-price-service/ ↩

  12. SRA Price Transparency Research (October 2018). https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/price-transparency/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  13. SRA Risk Outlook: Serving Clients' Needs in a Changing Legal Market (December 2024). https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/clients-changing-legal-market/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  14. CMA Cautions Will Writing and Legal Service Providers (9 October 2024). https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-cautions-will-writing-and-legal-service-providers-as-new-guidance-launched ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  15. Clio 2025 Legal Trends Report -- UK Mid-Sized Firms Supplement. https://www.clio.com/uk/blog/mid-sized-law-firms-highlights-2025-legal-trends/ ↩ ↩2

  16. Legal Futures: 4 Ways Technology Is Changing the Face of Private Client Practice. https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/associate-news/4-ways-technology-is-changing-the-face-of-private-client-practice ↩

  17. Law Commission Modernising Wills Final Report and Draft Bill (16 May 2025). https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/wills/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  18. Macfarlanes Analysis of Law Commission Modernising Wills Report. https://www.macfarlanes.com/what-we-think/102eli5/modernising-wills-the-law-commission-publishes-its-final-report-102kbjb/ ↩

  19. LexisNexis Bellwether 2025: The Future of Law Firm Pricing. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/blog/future-of-law/the-future-of-law-firm-pricing-value-not-volume ↩