Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Professional Indemnity Insurance: Will Writing Risk Mitigation Strategies for the Emerging Claims Landscape

· 21 min

Executive Summary

Will writing and probate work has become the third-highest source of professional indemnity negligence claims against law firms, yet private client practice areas account for 68% of total damages claimed despite representing only 16% of claim volume. This disproportionate severity profile demands risk management strategies that extend beyond minimum regulatory compliance. Legal Ombudsman complaints for wills and probate rose 28% in 2024/25, with evidence of poor service confirmed in 81% of assessed cases by the first quarter of 2025/26. The SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules, effective 11 April 2025, impose an ongoing obligation to maintain "adequate and appropriate" cover -- an assessment that requires active engagement with practice-specific risk data. The Law Commission's May 2025 Modernising Wills report introduces prospective risk vectors that practices should incorporate into forward-looking risk registers, regardless of the legislative timetable.

1. The Claims Landscape: Quantifying Will Writing Professional Indemnity Exposure

The professional indemnity claims profile for will writing practice reveals a paradox that should concern every practice manager and compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) overseeing private client departments. Wills, trusts and probate work ranks third among law firm practice areas for claim frequency, positioned after residential and commercial conveyancing.1 That ranking alone might suggest a moderate risk profile. The severity data tells a markedly different story.

Kennedys' 2024 Year in Review analysis, covering the preceding eighteen months, found that private client practice areas accounted for 16% of all professional indemnity claims but a disproportionate 68% of total damages claimed across all practice areas.2 This four-to-one ratio between damages share and claims share represents one of the most pronounced severity imbalances in the solicitors' professional indemnity market. By comparison, property practice -- which dominates at 46% of all claims -- generates a damages share more closely proportional to its claim volume.3

The CMS/Solomonic analysis of 792 professional indemnity claims issued in England and Wales between January 2020 and June 2024 provides additional context. Among solicitor defendants, negligent advice was the most common cause of action at 32% of claims, followed by failure to provide advice at 16% and dishonesty at 7%.4 The average solicitor claim value stood at GBP 4.8 million, with an 88% settlement rate -- indicating that the overwhelming majority of claims that proceed to litigation resolve in the claimant's favour.5 Due diligence failings accounted for a further 5% of all claims, and claim volumes were described as "fairly stable" but "slightly fallen since the second half of 2022," suggesting that while frequency may plateau, severity continues to escalate.

Lockton's 2025 claims trends analysis confirms that the frequency of contentious wills, trusts, and probate claims continues to increase, driven by several converging factors: high asset values, expanded grounds for challenge including capacity, coercion, and calumny, and a wills and probate market that passed GBP 2 billion in 2021 with projections reaching GBP 2.4 billion by 2025.6 The number of firms offering contentious wills work has doubled since 2018, creating a larger claimant-side infrastructure capable of pursuing historic negligence.7 Lockton further identifies Larke v Nugus requests -- demands for information about will preparation circumstances -- as an emerging cost driver that can expose firms to legal costs or non-compliance charges regardless of whether a substantive claim follows.

Legal Ombudsman complaints data reinforces this trajectory. Wills and probate was the second-most complained about area in 2024/25, with 1,128 accepted complaints representing a 28% year-on-year increase of 245 complaints.8 The evidence of poor service was confirmed in 76% of assessed complaints, with poor complaint-handling identified in 49% of cases.9 By the first quarter of 2025/26, the picture had deteriorated further: wills and probate recorded the highest evidence-of-poor-service rate at 81%, while poor complaint-handling rose to 58% -- up from 47% in Q3 2024/25 and 52% in Q4 2024/25.10 The second quarter of 2025/26 saw 318 wills and probate complaints resolved, with poor communication as the largest upheld complaint type at 25% and delay or failure to progress rising for a fifth consecutive quarter at 19%.11

The implications for professional indemnity exposure are twofold. First, rising complaint volumes are a leading indicator of future claims activity, as Legal Ombudsman findings can surface issues that subsequently crystallise into negligence proceedings. Second, a sustained pattern of complaints against a firm or practice area directly affects PII renewal terms, excess levels, and insurer appetite. The total remedies awarded by the Legal Ombudsman across all practice areas reached GBP 3,708,674 in 2024/25, and while this figure reflects direct complaint remedies rather than negligence damages, it signals the financial cost of service failures that precede more substantial claims.

The liability framework governing will drafting creates a uniquely demanding risk profile that distinguishes this practice area from most other forms of legal work. Three structural features combine to extend exposure beyond the boundaries that typically constrain professional negligence claims.

The first is the third-party duty of care established in White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207. The House of Lords held that a solicitor who negligently failed to prepare a new will before the testator's death owed a duty of care to the intended beneficiaries, despite the absence of any contractual relationship between them.12 The assumption of responsibility by the solicitor was held to extend to any intended beneficiary who foreseeably suffered loss through negligent delay, drafting, or advice. This principle means that will drafters face potential claims not from their instructing client -- who may by definition be deceased when the negligence becomes apparent -- but from any beneficiary deprived of their intended legacy. The universe of potential claimants is therefore broader, and often unknown to the drafter at the time of instruction.

The second structural feature is the latent damage exposure created by the Limitation Act 1980. The standard six-year limitation period for breach of contract (section 5) and negligence in tort (section 2) is extended by section 14A, which provides an additional three years from the date of knowledge where damage was latent.13 Section 14B imposes a fifteen-year longstop from the date of the negligent act or omission. Will drafting errors may remain entirely undetectable until probate is granted, potentially decades after execution. Data from the Solicitors Indemnity Fund indicates that approximately 11% of professional indemnity claims against solicitors are made after the mandatory six-year run-off period expires, with most arising between six and fifteen years after firm closure.14 Will writing negligence is disproportionately represented in this long-tail category. The pandemic period of 2020-2022 is expected to generate a further wave of late-emerging disputes, as wills drafted under emergency conditions -- including remote instructions and limited capacity assessment opportunities -- are tested through probate.

The third feature is the capacity assessment obligation. Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 establishes the four-limb common law test for testamentary capacity that remains the governing standard. Leonard v Leonard [2025] confirmed Banks v Goodfellow as "the definitive test," with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 serving only as a "cross-check."15 The practical corollary is the "Golden Rule" articulated in Kenward v Adams [1975]: where a testator is elderly or seriously ill, the drafter should arrange for a medical practitioner to satisfy themselves as to capacity and to make a contemporaneous record. Failure to follow this practice, while not an absolute legal requirement, substantially increases vulnerability to challenge and consequent negligence claims.

The SRA's guidance on drafting and preparation of wills identifies four categories of quality failure: inadequacy, legality, inconsistency, and insufficient detail.16 Each maps directly to negligence claim grounds and, taken together with the White v Jones duty, the limitation framework, and the capacity assessment obligations, establishes a liability architecture that demands practice-specific risk management.

3. The PII Regulatory Framework and Adequacy Assessment

The SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules, effective 11 April 2025, require all authorised bodies to take out and maintain professional indemnity insurance providing "adequate and appropriate" cover in respect of current or past practice.17 This standard, made under sections 31 and 37 of the Solicitors Act 1974, section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, and section 83 of the Legal Services Act 2007, replaces the previous prescriptive approach with a principles-based assessment that places greater responsibility on individual firms.

The minimum terms and conditions (MTCs) for participating insurers set the floor: GBP 3 million for relevant recognised bodies and relevant licensed bodies (in respect of SRA-regulated activities), and GBP 2 million for all other authorised bodies, exclusive of defence costs.18 The MTCs impose what Lockton describes as "extremely onerous obligations on insurers," with mandatory cover that is very broad, minimal exclusions, and potentially long tails due to six-year run-off provisions.19 Insurers cannot avoid or repudiate cover under the MTCs. The aggregation clause, however, permits insurers to treat a series of related claims as a single claim subject to a single limit -- a provision of particular relevance where multiple beneficiaries bring claims arising from the same negligent will. Cover operates on a "claims made" basis, meaning that the policy in force at the time the claim is notified responds, regardless of when the negligent act occurred. This structure reinforces the importance of continuous, uninterrupted coverage and timely notification of circumstances that might give rise to claims.

The SRA's guidance on adequate and appropriate cover makes clear that what constitutes sufficient cover differs between firms and depends on individual business circumstances.20 The regulator states that if a firm can demonstrate it conducted an assessment considering relevant factors and reached a reasonable decision, the SRA would not second-guess that decision. However, the adequacy assessment is an ongoing obligation, not a one-time exercise at renewal. For practices with significant will writing exposure, the private client claims paradox -- 16% of claims generating 68% of damages -- should inform this assessment directly.21

The current market conditions provide a favourable environment for addressing adequacy. The number of participating insurers rose to 51 in 2024/25, up from 45 the prior year, and premiums have fallen to their lowest levels since 2017 for small to mid-market firms.22 This softening creates an opportunity to secure enhanced cover or reduced excesses without proportionate premium increases. Practices should consider whether the minimum cover levels are sufficient given the average solicitor claim value of GBP 4.8 million identified in the CMS/Solomonic analysis.23

The Solicitors Indemnity Fund transition adds a further dimension. The SRA assumed control of the SIF on 1 October 2023, ensuring continued consumer protection for post-six-year claims.24 The 11% long-tail claims figure underscores the importance of successor practice arrangements and run-off cover adequacy for firms undertaking any form of succession planning.

4. Operational Risk Mitigation: The Nine Risk Zones

Insurer claims data identifies nine critical risk zones in will writing practice, each amenable to documented operational controls that simultaneously reduce claim frequency and strengthen PII renewal positioning.25 Mapping these zones to specific protocols transforms abstract risk categories into implementable practice management measures.

Retainer management addresses the gap between client expectations and the scope of work actually undertaken. Documented terms of engagement specifying what the retainer covers -- and explicitly what it excludes -- provide the first line of defence against claims founded on alleged failure to advise. The retainer should address whether tax advice is included, whether existing trust structures will be reviewed, and whether the instruction extends to lasting powers of attorney.

Drafting errors encompass incorrect precedent selection, failure to record amendments, and inconsistencies between the will and the testator's expressed intentions. Peer review of all drafted wills before execution, combined with structured precedent management systems that version-control templates, addresses the two most common drafting failure modes.

File documentation is the evidential foundation of any defence to a negligence claim. Capacity assessment records aligned with the Banks v Goodfellow criteria, contemporaneous attendance notes recording the testator's instructions, and -- where the Golden Rule applies -- medical practitioner assessments must be present on the file.16 The SRA's four quality-failure categories (inadequacy, legality, inconsistency, and insufficient detail) provide a practical audit framework for file review.16

Estate and trust management obligations arising from existing structures must be identified at the outset. Checklist-based post-execution follow-up ensures that ancillary obligations -- trustee notifications, pension nomination updates, property ownership transfers -- are not overlooked.

Deadline management covers both statutory time limits (particularly inheritance tax filing deadlines and the two-year period for deeds of variation) and internal milestones. Diarised escalation protocols that trigger supervisory review when matters exceed defined time thresholds address the delay complaints that have risen for five consecutive quarters in Legal Ombudsman data.26

Distribution errors, including overpayments and distributions under invalid wills, require verification procedures with dual sign-off before any distribution is authorised. The cost of implementing verification controls is negligible compared to the exposure created by incorrect distributions.

Tax miscalculations represent a risk zone where the complexity of inheritance tax, capital gains tax on death, and income tax obligations during estate administration frequently exceeds the competence of generalist practitioners. Formal specialist referral protocols, defining the threshold at which external tax advice must be obtained, protect both the client and the practice.

Supervision gaps emerge when experienced practitioners delegate will drafting to junior fee-earners without structured file review at defined stages. Graded delegation frameworks -- specifying which categories of instruction require which level of supervisor involvement -- translate risk awareness into operational practice.

Dishonesty, including power of attorney misuse and misappropriation, represents the highest-severity risk zone. DBS checks for relevant staff, documented conflicts protocols, and rigorous anti-money-laundering compliance provide the primary controls, though this category also requires cultural and governance measures that extend beyond procedural checklists.

Each operational control serves a dual purpose. The primary function is claims avoidance through reduced error rates and improved documentation. The secondary function is insurer positioning: a practice that can present documented risk management protocols at renewal demonstrates the proactive risk culture that underwriters reward with more favourable terms, lower excesses, and broader coverage.

5. The Emerging Risk Horizon: Law Commission Modernising Wills Proposals

The Law Commission published its Modernising Wills final report on 16 May 2025, accompanied by a draft Bill for a new Wills Act.27 The Government's initial response, published the same day, welcomed the recommendations as "an important and timely review" but stated that the proposals required "detailed consideration."28 Under the Lord Chancellor-Law Commission Protocol, an interim response was due within six months (November 2025) and a full response within twelve months (May 2026). As of January 2026, no interim response has been published -- a delay the Law Society has publicly criticised -- and no legislative timetable has been confirmed.28 The missed Protocol deadline suggests that the legislative timetable may extend beyond the originally anticipated May 2026 full response. While the proposals remain unenacted, prudent risk management requires practices to assess their implications for the professional indemnity landscape.

The first significant proposal is the introduction of electronic wills, subject to a "reliable system" requirement and with provision for remote witnessing via video.27 If enacted, this would create novel risk exposures at the intersection of technology reliability, fraud prevention, and digital document integrity. Authentication failures, system outages during execution, and long-term storage integrity present risk vectors that existing PII policies may not explicitly address. Practices should consider whether their current cover extends to technology-related failures in document execution and whether the cyber-coverage exclusions in their PII policies would apply to electronic will challenges.

The second proposal would replace the Banks v Goodfellow common law capacity test with a statutory test based on the Mental Capacity Act 2005.29 During any transitional period, practitioners applying the wrong test could face novel negligence claims. The MCA 2005 presumption of capacity operates differently from the Banks v Goodfellow burden-of-proof framework, and capacity assessment documentation protocols would require systematic revision. Practices should begin dual-awareness training now, ensuring that practitioners understand both tests and can adapt their documentation practices when -- and if -- the statutory test is enacted.

The third proposal would empower courts to infer undue influence where reasonable grounds exist, shifting the evidential burden to the person upholding the will.30 This expansion of challenge grounds increases the likelihood of successful will contests and, consequently, the frequency of negligence claims against drafters alleged to have failed to identify and document indicators of undue influence. Enhanced intake documentation protocols -- including structured risk-indicator assessments for vulnerable testators -- would become essential practice.

The fourth proposal would broaden rectification powers, enabling courts to rectify wills where the drafter's lack of understanding caused the language not to reflect the testator's intentions.31 This provision directly implicates drafter competence and creates a new liability pathway where rectification applications succeed, potentially triggering consequential negligence claims.

Incorporating these prospective risk vectors into current risk registers serves two purposes. It ensures that practices are prepared operationally if the draft Wills Bill proceeds to legislation. It also demonstrates to insurers a forward-looking risk culture that may be reflected in more favourable renewal terms, even before any legislative change occurs.

6. Competitive Positioning: The Regulatory Gap Advantage

Will writing is not a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007 (Schedule 2).32 Unregulated will writers face no mandatory obligation to hold professional indemnity insurance. While the Society of Will Writers requires its members to maintain PII with a minimum limit of indemnity of GBP 2 million, membership is voluntary and not a regulatory prerequisite for practice.33 The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 strengthens Competition and Markets Authority enforcement powers over unregulated providers but does not mandate PII cover.34

This regulatory gap creates a significant protection differential. SRA-regulated firms must maintain minimum cover of GBP 2-3 million (depending on regulatory status) under the MTCs, with six-year run-off cover and the SIF providing a further safety net for post-run-off claims.35 Consumers instructing unregulated will writers may have no recourse beyond the cost of the will itself if negligence causes loss.

For regulated practices, the protection differential represents a competitive positioning opportunity. Documented risk management protocols, adequate PII cover, and regulatory accountability constitute tangible differentiators that can be communicated to referral sources -- IFAs, accountants, and other professional intermediaries who bear their own duty-of-care obligations when recommending will writing services. A practice that can articulate its risk management framework and PII programme to referrers provides those intermediaries with the assurance they need to recommend with confidence.

The insurer relationship itself becomes a positioning tool. A practice presenting a structured risk register, documented operational controls across the nine risk zones, and a forward-looking assessment incorporating Law Commission proposals demonstrates the governance maturity that distinguishes serious private client operations from commodity will-drafting services.

Conclusion

Professional indemnity insurance for will writing practice operates in a landscape of escalating claims severity, rising complaint volumes, and prospective legislative reform. The private client claims paradox -- 16% of claim volume generating 68% of damages -- demands risk management strategies that are specific to will writing rather than derived from generic firm-wide protocols. The nine insurer-identified risk zones provide a structured framework for operational controls that serve the dual purpose of claims avoidance and PII programme optimisation.

The SRA's "adequate and appropriate" standard is not a static threshold but an ongoing assessment obligation that should incorporate practice-specific claims data, the White v Jones third-party liability exposure, latent damage considerations, and -- increasingly -- the emerging risk vectors from the Law Commission's draft Wills Bill. Practices that can demonstrate documented, evidence-based risk management are best positioned regardless of the legislative outcome: if the draft Bill proceeds, they will be prepared for new compliance obligations; if it does not, they will have strengthened their claims avoidance and insurer relationships.

The current softening in the PII market presents a strategic opportunity. Rather than treating reduced premiums as a cost saving, forward-looking practices should use this favourable cycle to review adequacy, enhance cover where the claims data warrants it, and invest in the operational infrastructure that embeds risk management across every stage of the will writing process.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 20 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Private client, wills and probate, practice management, risk and compliance

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Identify the nine critical risk zones in will writing professional indemnity exposure as classified by insurer claims data, and describe the operational controls applicable to each zone
  2. Evaluate the adequacy of current PII cover against the SRA's "adequate and appropriate" standard, incorporating the private client claims-to-damages ratio and the average solicitor claim value
  3. Analyse the implications of White v Jones third-party liability and the Limitation Act 1980 latent damage provisions for will drafting risk management protocols
  4. Apply the Law Commission's proposed Modernising Wills reforms to a forward-looking risk register, distinguishing enacted law from unenacted recommendations

SRA Competency Mapping

  • A2: Maintain the level of competence and legal knowledge needed to practise effectively
  • B6: Identify and manage risk in relation to the practice, including financial and business-related risks
  • C2: Take account of the legal, regulatory and ethical context in which a client matter arises

Reflective Questions

  1. How would the practice's current PII adequacy assessment change if the private client claims-to-damages ratio identified by Kennedys (16% volume, 68% damages) were applied to the practice's own will writing exposure and claims history?
  2. What additional documentation protocols would need to be implemented to address the expanded undue influence provisions and the statutory capacity test transition if the draft Wills Bill were enacted?
  3. Which of the nine risk zones presents the greatest current exposure within the practice, and what specific operational control would most effectively reduce that exposure within the next renewal cycle?

Professional Disclaimer

The information presented reflects the regulatory and legislative position as of 27 January 2026. 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. Travelers via LawFirmAmbition, "Avoiding Negligence Claims: Wills, Trusts and Probate Law" (updated January 2024). https://lawfirmambition.co.uk/topics/avoiding-claims-insurance/avoiding-negligence-claims-wills-trusts-and-probate-law ↩

  2. Kennedys, "Professional Liability: A Year in Review" (2024). https://www.kennedyslaw.com/en/thought-leadership/article/2024/professional-liability-a-year-in-review/ ↩

  3. Kennedys, "Professional Liability: A Year in Review" (2024). https://www.kennedyslaw.com/en/thought-leadership/article/2024/professional-liability-a-year-in-review/ ↩

  4. CMS/Solomonic, "Claims and Consequences: Professional Indemnity in the UK" (2024). https://cms.law/en/gbr/publication/claims-and-consequences-professional-indemnity-in-the-uk ↩

  5. Legal Futures, "Majority of Professional Indemnity Claims Are Against Solicitors" (2024). https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/majority-of-professional-indemnity-claims-are-against-solicitors ↩

  6. Lockton, "Law Firms: Key Claims Trends to Watch in 2025" (2025). https://global.lockton.com/gb/en/news-insights/law-firms-key-claims-trends-to-watch-in-2025 ↩

  7. Lockton, "Anticipating an Increase in Wills and Probate Disputes" (2024). https://global.lockton.com/gb/en/news-insights/anticipating-an-increase-in-wills-and-probate-disputes ↩

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

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

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

  11. Legal Ombudsman, "2025/26 Quarter 2 Complaints Data" (2025). https://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/information-centre/data-centre/complaints-data/202526-quarter-2-complaints-data/ ↩

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

  13. Limitation Act 1980, sections 2, 5, 14A, 14B. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58 ↩

  14. SRA, "Solicitors Indemnity Fund" (2023). https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitors-indemnity-fund/ ↩

  15. Fifty Six Law, "Leonard v Leonard: High Court Confirms Banks v Goodfellow Test" (2025). https://www.fiftysixlaw.co.uk/leonard-v-leonard-high-court-confirms-banks-v-goodfellow-test-for-testamentary-capacity-remains-supreme/ ↩

  16. SRA, "Drafting and Preparation of Wills" (updated December 2024). https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/drafting-preparation-wills/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  17. SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules (effective 11 April 2025). https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/indemnity-insurance-rules/ ↩

  18. SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules -- Minimum Terms and Conditions (2025). https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/indemnity-insurance-rules/ ↩

  19. Lockton, "The Advantages of Solicitors' Minimum Terms and Conditions" (2024). https://global.lockton.com/gb/en/resources/the-advantages-of-solicitors-minimum-terms-and-conditions ↩

  20. SRA, "Adequate and Appropriate Indemnity Insurance" (2025). https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/adequate-and-appropriate-indemnity-insurance/ ↩

  21. Kennedys, "Professional Liability: A Year in Review" (2024). https://www.kennedyslaw.com/en/thought-leadership/article/2024/professional-liability-a-year-in-review/ ↩

  22. Insurance Times, "Solicitors Secure Premium Benefits as Professional Indemnity Market Stabilises" (2024). https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/analysis/solicitors-secure-premium-benefits-as-professional-indemnity-market-stabilises/1454698.article ↩

  23. CMS/Solomonic, "Claims and Consequences: Professional Indemnity in the UK" (2024). https://cms.law/en/gbr/publication/claims-and-consequences-professional-indemnity-in-the-uk ↩

  24. SRA, "Solicitors Indemnity Fund" (2023). https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitors-indemnity-fund/ ↩

  25. Travelers via LawFirmAmbition, "Avoiding Negligence Claims: Wills, Trusts and Probate Law" (updated January 2024). https://lawfirmambition.co.uk/topics/avoiding-claims-insurance/avoiding-negligence-claims-wills-trusts-and-probate-law ↩

  26. Legal Ombudsman, "2025/26 Quarter 2 Complaints Data" (2025). https://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/information-centre/data-centre/complaints-data/202526-quarter-2-complaints-data/ ↩

  27. Law Commission, "Modernising Wills" (May 2025). https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/wills/ ↩ ↩2

  28. Gov.uk, "Government Response to the Law Commission Report Making a Will" (May 2025). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-to-the-law-commission-report-making-a-will ↩ ↩2

  29. Society of Will Writers, "Goodbye Banks v Goodfellow?" (2025). https://www.willwriters.com/blog/goodbye-banks-v-goodfellow/ ↩

  30. Macfarlanes, "Modernising Wills: The Law Commission Publishes Its Final Report" (2025). https://www.macfarlanes.com/what-we-think/102eli5/modernising-wills-the-law-commission-publishes-its-final-report-102kbjb/ ↩

  31. Hugh James, "Wills Law: Law Commission's May 2025 Report" (2025). https://www.hughjames.com/blog/wills-law-law-commissions-may-2025-report/ ↩

  32. Legal Services Act 2007, Schedule 2. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/29/schedule/2 ↩

  33. Society of Will Writers, "PII for SWW Members" (2024). https://www.willwriters.com/blog/pii-sww-members/ ↩

  34. Gov.uk, "Unregulated Legal Services: Consumer Protection Law Guidance" (2024). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unregulated-legal-services-consumer-protection-law-guidance ↩

  35. SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules (effective 11 April 2025). https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/indemnity-insurance-rules/ ↩