Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Regulatory Landscape for Unregulated Will Writers: What Solicitors Need to Know

· 23 min

Executive Summary

The regulatory framework governing will-writing services in England and Wales has entered a period of material transition. While will writing remains excluded from reserved legal activities under the Legal Services Act 2007, the competitive environment has fundamentally altered since October 2024. The CMA's consumer protection guidance, combined with DMCC Act 2024 enforcement powers effective from April 2025, introduces direct regulatory consequences for unregulated providers including fines up to 10% of global turnover. Legal Ombudsman data reveals wills and probate complaints reached 81% poor service findings in Q1 2025/26, yet the Ombudsman lacks jurisdiction over unregulated providers. Scotland's Regulation of Legal Services Act 2025 protects the term "lawyer" and introduces voluntary registration with complaints access. For solicitors competing where law firms providing will-writing services have fallen below 6,000, understanding this landscape is essential for strategic positioning.

1. Introduction: The Regulatory Asymmetry

The will-writing market in England and Wales operates within a regulatory framework that has remained substantially unchanged since the Legal Services Act 2007 established the current architecture of reserved legal activities.1 Will writing was explicitly excluded from reservation—Schedule 2 defines "instrument" to include contracts for land disposition but specifies that this "does not include a will or other testamentary instrument."2 This deliberate exclusion permits any individual or organisation to draft wills without regulatory oversight, professional qualifications, or mandatory insurance requirements.

The legislative history reveals the deliberate nature of this exclusion. When the Legal Services Act was debated, Parliament considered whether will writing should be added to reserved activities. The decision to exclude it reflected concerns about restricting access to services and the belief that existing consumer protection law provided adequate safeguards. Section 24 of the Act does permit the Lord Chancellor to add activities to the reserved list by order, providing a mechanism for future regulatory expansion that has not been utilised in the seventeen years since enactment.

The scale of this unreserved market is substantial. SRA research estimates approximately 208,000 unregulated legal service providers operate in England and Wales, with a significant proportion concentrated in the will-writing sector.3 These providers represent an estimated 6-8% of the total legal services market, though their market share in specific sectors such as will writing substantially exceeds this figure. The diversity of this sector is considerable—from individual practitioners operating from home to substantial corporate enterprises with national marketing operations.

Market dynamics compound the regulatory asymmetry. The UK wills, probate and trusts market reached GBP 2.81 billion in 2024, representing 7% annual growth, with projections indicating the market will reach GBP 3 billion in 2025 and GBP 3.6 billion by 2028.4 Yet within this expanding market, the number of law firms offering will-writing services has fallen below 6,000 for the first time, indicating a structural shift in competitive dynamics. The economics of will writing—characterised by price-sensitive consumers and relatively standardised documentation—have made it increasingly difficult for regulated firms to compete on price alone.

Consumer behaviour data confirms this shift. Research indicates that 49% of consumers used solicitors for wills in 2024/25, down from 56% in 2020—a decline of seven percentage points over five years.5 The proportion using will writers also declined, from 21% to 19%, suggesting a broader market fragmentation including increased use of DIY options and online services. Notably, 42% of providers now offer remote will services, up from 15% in 2020, reflecting the sector's digital transformation accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic and sustained thereafter.

The quality implications of this regulatory asymmetry warrant careful analysis. Legal Services Board research found that expert panels criticised approximately one in four wills produced by both solicitors and unregulated will writers, suggesting quality concerns are not exclusive to the unregulated sector.6 However, the critical distinction lies not in production quality but in redress mechanisms and consumer protections when problems arise—a distinction that has become more consequential following the 2024-2025 enforcement developments.

2. The 2024-2025 Enforcement Shift

CMA Consumer Protection Guidance

On 9 October 2024, the Competition and Markets Authority published final compliance guidance specifically addressing unregulated will-writing, online divorce, and pre-paid probate services.7 This guidance represents the most comprehensive articulation of consumer protection law obligations for unregulated legal services providers since the Legal Services Act 2007. The guidance emerged from an investigation launched in July 2023, prompted by concerns about aggressive sales practices, inadequate pricing transparency, and exploitation of vulnerable consumers.

The guidance establishes detailed requirements across four principal areas. For pricing transparency, providers must display total prices including VAT and all third-party fees, with service descriptions enabling meaningful comparison. Drip pricing—the practice of revealing additional charges progressively during the purchase process—is explicitly prohibited. Providers cannot omit court fees or ancillary costs from quoted prices, nor present misleading starting prices that fail to reflect typical consumer experience. The guidance specifically addresses the practice of advertising low headline prices that exclude disbursements, storage fees, or ongoing maintenance charges that consumers may not anticipate.

Advertising standards receive particular attention given the consumer confusion prevalent in this sector. Providers cannot suggest SRA regulatory approval unless this accurately reflects their status, nor claim that solicitor involvement provides client protections that do not in fact apply. Misrepresenting membership in professional bodies or misleadingly portraying executor appointments as easily reversible constitutes non-compliance. The guidance addresses specific claims that have appeared in sector marketing, including suggestions that unregulated providers offer equivalent protections to regulated firms.

Sales practices requirements address aggressive tactics directly. The guidance prohibits remaining in consumers' homes after being asked to leave, pressure through exaggerated inheritance tax claims, and exploitation of vulnerable circumstances including bereavement. Pre-ticked consent boxes for subscription services are prohibited, and explicit affirmative consent is required for additional services. The CMA specifically identified concerns about doorstep selling techniques and high-pressure tactics targeting elderly consumers, noting that bereavement often creates circumstances where consumers are particularly susceptible to such practices.

Contract terms must be "transparent, clear, and unambiguous." The guidance identifies unlimited price variation rights as potentially unfair, and notes that blanket liability caps may be unenforceable—citing precedent where courts awarded damages exceeding GBP 170,000 in a single case. Off-premises purchases trigger 14-day cancellation rights that many will-writing providers may not have adequately communicated. The guidance also addresses perpetual storage arrangements and the obligations arising when providers cease trading.

Following publication, the CMA wrote to seven providers cautioning against aggressive upselling, refusal of refunds, and failure to respond to complaints.8 Recipients were directed to review and revise contract terms and practices or face formal investigation. The selection of these seven providers suggests targeted enforcement based on complaint patterns rather than sector-wide action.

DMCC Act Enforcement Powers

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 fundamentally transformed the enforcement landscape. The consumer protection enforcement provisions came into force on 6 April 2025, granting the CMA direct enforcement powers without requiring court proceedings.9 Prior to this date, the CMA could identify unfair practices but enforcement required either trader cooperation or court action through public enforcement orders—a process that was resource-intensive and time-consuming.

These powers are materially significant. The CMA may now issue direct infringement notices to traders and impose fines of up to 10% of annual global turnover. Personal fines up to GBP 300,000 are available against individuals who are "accessory" to infringements—a provision that may affect directors, managers, and others with decision-making authority. Enhanced consumer protection measures include powers to order redress directly, potentially requiring providers to compensate affected consumers without the need for individual litigation.

The CMA has indicated that during the first twelve months of the new regime—approximately into early 2026—enforcement focus will prioritise "more egregious breaches."10 Priority areas include aggressive sales practices targeting vulnerable consumers and objectively false information. This enforcement approach suggests a graduated introduction of the new powers, with more systematic enforcement anticipated from mid-2026. In November 2025, the CMA launched eight consumer law enforcement investigations and sent advisory letters to 100 businesses across various sectors, demonstrating active use of the new powers.11

For the will-writing sector specifically, this enforcement shift transforms consumer protection compliance from advisory to materially consequential. Providers previously operated in an environment where the principal enforcement mechanism was Trading Standards action or civil litigation—neither representing systematic oversight. Trading Standards resources vary significantly between local authorities, and civil litigation requires affected consumers to identify harm and pursue claims individually. The new regime introduces direct regulatory consequences comparable in scale to those facing regulated entities, albeit through consumer protection rather than professional regulation.

Implications for Competitive Dynamics

The enforcement shift creates asymmetric competitive effects. Unregulated providers face new compliance costs and enforcement risks that were previously absent or minimal. Providers operating at the lower end of the quality spectrum—those engaging in aggressive sales tactics or maintaining inadequate contract terms—face the most significant exposure. The potential for personal liability under the accessory provisions may prompt governance changes within larger will-writing organisations.

For solicitors, this development partially levels the competitive environment. The price advantage of unregulated providers derived in part from lower compliance costs; those costs have now increased. However, the benefit is indirect rather than direct—solicitors' competitive position improves not through any change to their own regulatory burden but through increased burden on competitors. The timing and intensity of CMA enforcement will determine whether this rebalancing is material or marginal.

3. Scotland as Regulatory Laboratory

Scotland has provided a concrete legislative model for addressing the regulatory asymmetry. The Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill passed the Scottish Parliament on 20 May 2025 and received Royal Assent on 27 June 2025.12 The Act modernises the regulation of legal services in Scotland and introduces provisions directly relevant to the unregulated provider question. This legislation represents the culmination of over a decade of review and consultation, beginning with the Roberton Report of 2018.

The Act protects "lawyer" as a legal title in Scotland—a significant departure from the position in England and Wales where the term carries no statutory protection. Only individuals holding an appropriate licence may now use the title in Scotland. This addresses a longstanding concern that consumers could be misled into believing unqualified providers were legally trained professionals. Research consistently demonstrated that many consumers did not distinguish between "solicitor," "lawyer," and "will writer," assuming all carried equivalent regulatory protections.

The Act introduces a voluntary registration framework for unregulated providers. Providers may register with the Legal Profession Commission, paying an annual contribution. While registration does not confer regulatory authorisation, it demonstrates commitment to consumer standards and provides access to a complaints mechanism. The registration framework is designed to create market differentiation between unregulated providers who submit to voluntary oversight and those who do not.

The complaints access provision is particularly significant. If a services complaint against an unregulated provider is successful, the provider pays a complaints contribution. This contribution may be reduced if the provider has paid annual registration fees—creating an incentive structure encouraging voluntary registration. Critically, this provides consumers of registered unregulated providers with a redress route that was previously unavailable. The scheme operates on a "pay when you lose" basis for non-registered providers, potentially creating substantial financial exposure for those receiving repeat complaints.

The implementation timeline extends through 2026, with the Legal Profession Commission assuming operational functions progressively. The voluntary registration system is expected to become operational in Q3 2026, providing data on uptake and effectiveness that will inform policy development elsewhere.

Implications for England and Wales

The Scottish model offers a proportionate approach that does not require adding will writing to reserved activities—a step that would face significant political and practical obstacles. Instead, it creates incentive structures encouraging voluntary quality commitment while extending consumer protections incrementally. The approach recognises that full reservation may be neither achievable nor desirable, while acknowledging that the status quo leaves consumer protection gaps.

Whether England and Wales will follow this model remains uncertain. The Law Commission's May 2025 Modernising Wills report did not address regulation of will writers directly, focusing instead on will formalities and validity.13 No Government indication suggests imminent action to protect the "lawyer" title in England and Wales, nor to establish a voluntary registration framework. The Ministry of Justice response to the Law Commission report, expected by May 2026, will provide insight into broader policy direction.

However, the Scottish approach provides a concrete reference point for future policy development. If consumer protection concerns intensify—particularly if the new CMA enforcement powers prove insufficient to address quality issues—the Scottish model offers a tested alternative to full reservation. The operational data from Scotland's implementation will be closely monitored by regulators and policymakers in England and Wales.

4. Solicitors in Unregulated Entities

Permissible Activities

The increasingly common practice of employing solicitors within unregulated will-writing firms creates complex regulatory obligations that practitioners must carefully navigate.14 Will writing is not a reserved activity, and solicitors may therefore undertake this work through unregulated entities. However, probate activities remain reserved under the Legal Services Act 2007 and cannot be provided through unregulated organisations.

This distinction has practical implications for business models. A will-writing firm employing solicitors may market the involvement of qualified legal professionals in will drafting while remaining unable to offer probate services directly. Any probate work would require referral to a regulated entity, potentially fragmenting the client relationship. The marketing value of solicitor involvement must be balanced against the operational complexity of maintaining clear boundaries around reserved activities.

Continuing SRA Obligations

Solicitors remain personally regulated by the SRA regardless of their employer. This continuing regulation applies whether the solicitor is employed by a regulated law firm, an unregulated will-writing company, or any other organisation.15 The SRA's jurisdiction derives from the individual's status as a solicitor, not from the regulatory status of their employer.

Key obligations include maintaining an annual practising certificate if held out as a solicitor. Solicitors cannot hold client money in personal accounts, meaning unregulated employers must establish appropriate mechanisms for handling any client funds. Solicitors must cooperate fully with SRA investigations, even where these concern activities undertaken through the unregulated employer. The duty of confidentiality applies, as does the prohibition on acting where there is a conflict of interest.

The SRA Code of Conduct applies to solicitors working in unregulated settings. Obligations regarding competence, maintaining trust, and acting in the best interests of clients continue to apply. Solicitors must maintain sufficient competence for the work undertaken and must not accept instructions for matters beyond their competence. The continuing professional development requirements apply regardless of employment setting.

Client Communication Requirements

The SRA guidance establishes specific client communication requirements for solicitors working in unregulated entities.16 Solicitors must clearly communicate the regulatory status of the organisation to clients. Clients must understand they are not receiving services from a regulated law firm and must be informed of the consequences of this status.

Specifically, solicitors must explain the absence of SRA Compensation Fund access—clients of unregulated providers have no recourse to this fund if the provider fails. The Legal Ombudsman's lack of jurisdiction must also be communicated; while the Ombudsman can hear complaints about solicitors personally, it cannot address complaints about the unregulated organisation's service more broadly. This creates a fragmented redress position that clients may find confusing.

The SRA guidance also requires solicitors to consider whether instructing them serves the client's best interests compared to instructing a regulated firm. This imposes an ongoing duty to assess whether the unregulated entity's service model appropriately serves individual client needs. Where a client's circumstances suggest they would benefit from the protections available through a regulated firm, solicitors must consider whether to recommend alternative arrangements.

Professional Indemnity Considerations

The SRA does not mandate professional indemnity insurance for solicitors employed in unregulated entities—a significant gap compared to practice through regulated firms.17 Employers should ensure solicitor work is covered under the organisation's insurance, though the adequacy and terms of such coverage may vary considerably. The absence of SRA minimum terms and conditions means that policy exclusions, aggregate limits, and claims procedures may differ materially from those applicable to regulated firms.

Solicitors are advised to assess whether coverage is adequate to avoid personal liability exposure. Factors to consider include aggregate limits relative to client volumes, exclusions that may apply to specific types of claim, and run-off provisions in the event the provider ceases trading. Personal liability for professional negligence remains regardless of employment status; the question is whether adequate insurance protection exists to meet any claims.

5. Strategic Positioning for Solicitors

Differentiation Through Regulatory Protections

In an increasingly price-led market, solicitors' competitive advantage does not lie in price competition with unregulated providers—a strategy unlikely to succeed given structural cost differences. Instead, differentiation must emphasise the regulatory protections, professional indemnity coverage, and access to compensation mechanisms that only regulated providers can offer. These are substantive benefits that justify premium pricing for consumers who understand them.

These differentiators require active communication. Research indicates many consumers believe all will writers are solicitors, suggesting the distinction between regulated and unregulated providers is not well understood.18 Client communications must clearly articulate what regulatory status means in practice: access to the Legal Ombudsman if service problems arise, recourse to the SRA Compensation Fund if the provider fails, mandatory professional indemnity insurance meeting minimum terms, and continuing professional development requirements ensuring current knowledge. Website content, engagement letters, and marketing materials should consistently reinforce these distinctions.

The CMA guidance itself provides a framework for differentiation. Solicitors can legitimately contrast their regulatory obligations with the practices the CMA identified as problematic in the unregulated sector. This is not disparagement of competitors but factual information about regulatory differences that consumers may legitimately consider.

WIQS Accreditation

The Law Society's Wills and Inheritance Quality Scheme offers a specific quality signal available exclusively to SRA-regulated firms.19 WIQS accreditation requires a senior responsible officer with at least three years' experience, mandatory training programmes, and annual reaccreditation. The Client Charter associated with WIQS commits accredited firms to work in accordance with the Wills and Inheritance Protocol, use clear language, maintain transparent costs, and conduct DBS checks on personnel.

WIQS accreditation provides concrete differentiation from unregulated providers and demonstrates standardised processes and risk management frameworks. Accredited firms are searchable through the Law Society's Find a Solicitor website, providing a direct client acquisition channel. The accreditation signals investment in quality systems that consumers may value even if they cannot evaluate technical competence directly.

For firms considering WIQS accreditation, the investment should be assessed against the marketing value and potential for client acquisition. The scheme imposes genuine compliance obligations but provides externally validated quality assurance that supports premium positioning.

Quality-Based Positioning

Legal Ombudsman data provides compelling evidence for quality-based positioning. Wills and probate complaints showed 81% poor service findings in Q1 2025/26—the highest rate across all practice areas.20 Poor complaint handling reached 58%, also the highest of any sector. The trend is upward: from 47% in Q3 2024/25 to 52% in Q4 2024/25 to 58% in Q1 2025/26.

These figures carry significant limitations—the Legal Ombudsman's jurisdiction extends only to regulated providers, meaning complaints against unregulated will writers are not captured. The Ombudsman has explicitly concluded that "all consumers of wills and probate service providers should have access to redress."21 This jurisdictional gap means the quality comparison with unregulated providers cannot be directly established, but the high complaint rates for regulated providers create both reputational risk and improvement opportunity.

Solicitors seeking competitive differentiation should invest in complaint handling procedures and service quality monitoring. The Legal Ombudsman data suggests that complaint handling failures are as significant as underlying service failures in generating adverse findings. Firms that resolve complaints effectively at first tier may avoid escalation to the Ombudsman entirely.

Self-Regulatory Bodies in the Unregulated Sector

Understanding the self-regulatory landscape assists competitive positioning. The Institute of Professional Willwriters holds the only Chartered Trading Standards Institute-approved Code of Practice for the will-writing sector.22 IPW members must maintain GBP 2 million professional indemnity insurance, GBP 2 million public liability insurance, and submit to mandatory alternative dispute resolution. The Society of Will Writers, founded in 1994 with over 1,700 members, maintains its own Code of Practice requiring 24 hours CPD annually and minimum insurance coverage, though it does not hold CTSI approval.

These self-regulatory bodies represent the quality-committed portion of the unregulated sector. When discussing regulatory differences with clients, solicitors should acknowledge that accredited unregulated providers do offer certain protections—but clarify that these remain voluntary arrangements without statutory backing or access to the comprehensive protections available through SRA regulation.

6. Regulatory Direction and Forward-Looking Analysis

Trajectory of Reform

The regulatory landscape for will writing is evolving along two parallel tracks that practitioners should monitor. The first track concerns consumer protection enforcement. The DMCC Act powers represent a significant strengthening of this track, and the CMA's November 2025 enforcement actions indicate active use of these powers. This track does not require legislative change to reserved activities and can proceed through regulatory enforcement alone.

The second track concerns sector-specific regulation. Scotland's 2025 Act demonstrates that intermediate options exist between the current unregulated position and full reservation. Voluntary registration with complaints access offers a proportionate approach that could be adopted in England and Wales without requiring Parliamentary time for reserved activities expansion.

The Law Commission's May 2025 Modernising Wills report, while not addressing provider regulation directly, may influence the broader policy environment. The report's recommendations on electronic wills and testamentary capacity, if implemented, will change will-writing practice regardless of provider regulation.23 Government appetite for will-related legislation, demonstrated through response to the Law Commission, may create opportunities for addressing provider regulation within the same legislative vehicle.

Monitoring Requirements

The Government's response to the Law Commission's Modernising Wills report, expected by May 2026, may signal broader policy direction on will-writing services. While the report does not address regulation of will writers directly, the Government's approach to its recommendations could indicate appetite for legislative reform in this sector.

CMA enforcement outcomes will establish precedent for the will-writing sector specifically. If early enforcement actions target will-writing providers and result in significant penalties, this will confirm that the new enforcement regime materially affects competitive dynamics. Practitioners should monitor enforcement notices and CMA announcements for sector-specific developments.

The implementation of Scotland's Act through 2026 will provide operational data on voluntary registration uptake and complaints mechanism effectiveness. If the Scottish model proves successful, pressure for England and Wales to follow may intensify. Cross-border practitioners should be particularly attentive to divergent regulatory requirements.

Conclusion

The regulatory landscape for unregulated will writers has entered a period of material change. The 2024-2025 enforcement developments—CMA guidance combined with DMCC Act powers—introduce regulatory consequences for unregulated providers that were previously absent. Scotland's legislative model offers a proportionate framework for enhanced consumer protection that England and Wales may adopt. For solicitors, these developments partially rebalance competitive dynamics while creating both obligations and opportunities.

Strategic response requires active differentiation based on regulatory protections rather than price competition. Quality-based positioning, supported by Legal Ombudsman data demonstrating sector-wide service challenges, offers a sustainable competitive approach. Solicitors employing colleagues in unregulated entities must ensure full compliance with SRA guidance on client communications and professional indemnity coverage.

The trajectory points toward strengthened consumer protection without imminent sector-specific regulation. Practitioners should monitor CMA enforcement outcomes, Scottish Act implementation, and Government response to Law Commission recommendations as indicators of future regulatory direction.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 20 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Private Client, Wills and Probate, Regulatory Compliance, Practice Management

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Identify the reserved legal activities under the Legal Services Act 2007 and explain the statutory basis for will writing's exclusion
  2. Explain the key compliance requirements under CMA October 2024 guidance for unregulated will-writing providers and the enforcement powers available under the DMCC Act 2024
  3. Distinguish between the regulatory protections available to clients of SRA-regulated firms versus unregulated providers, including compensation fund access and ombudsman jurisdiction
  4. Apply SRA guidance to assess obligations when solicitors are employed in unregulated will-writing entities, including client communication requirements
  5. Evaluate the strategic implications of Scotland's Regulation of Legal Services Act 2025 for potential reform in England and Wales

SRA Competency Mapping

  • A2: Maintain the level of competence and legal knowledge needed to practise effectively
  • B1: Obtain relevant facts, evaluate options, and apply sound judgement
  • B6: Understand and apply the legal, regulatory, and ethical frameworks that apply to practice

Reflective Questions

  1. How would you communicate the regulatory protections available through your firm compared to an unregulated will-writing service in client-facing materials?
  2. What due diligence steps would you implement before referring a client to or accepting a referral from an unregulated will-writing provider?
  3. How might Scotland's voluntary registration model with complaints access change competitive dynamics in England and Wales if adopted, and how should your practice prepare?

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 Services Act 2007, Section 12 and Schedule 2. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/29/section/12 ↩

  2. Legal Services Act 2007, Schedule 2, Paragraph 1. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/29/schedule/2 ↩

  3. SRA, Understanding the Unreserved Market (June 2023). https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/understanding-unreserved-market/ ↩

  4. GlobeNewswire, UK Wills, Probate & Trusts Market Report 2024 (December 2024). https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/12/12/2995934/28124/en/UK-Wills-Probate-Trusts-Market-Report-2024-Market-Value-Surges-to-2-81bn-in-2024-Amidst-Increasing-Demand-for-Estate-Planning-Services.html ↩

  5. Legal Futures, Most consumers no longer use solicitors for wills (April 2025). https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/most-consumers-no-longer-use-solicitors-for-wills ↩

  6. LSB Will Writing Research. https://www.sra.org.uk/globalassets/documents/consumer-reports/lsb-will-writing-reports.pdf ↩

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

  8. Law Society Gazette, Competition watchdog growls at unregulated legal services (October 2024). https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/competition-watchdog-growls-at-unregulated-legal-services/5121129.article ↩

  9. Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/13 ↩

  10. Pinsent Masons, DMCC Act Overhauls UK Consumer Law Enforcement (2025). https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/analysis/dmcc-act-overhauls-uk-consumer-law-enforcement ↩

  11. Taylor Wessing, CMA Announces First Eight Investigations (December 2025). https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2025/12/aq-cma-announces-first-eight-investigations-into-consumer-law-breaches-using-new-enforcement-powers ↩

  12. Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2025. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2025/8/contents/enacted ↩

  13. Law Commission, Modernising Wills Summary (May 2025). https://lawcom.gov.uk/publication/modernising-wills-summary-of-the-report/ ↩

  14. SRA Guidance, Unregulated Organisations—Employers of SRA-Regulated Lawyers. https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/unregulated-organisations-employers-sra-regulated-lawyers/ ↩

  15. SRA Standards and Regulations. https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/ ↩

  16. SRA Guidance, Unregulated Organisations—Giving Information to Clients. https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/unregulated-organisations-giving-information-clients/ ↩

  17. SRA, Professional Indemnity Insurance. https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/professional-indemnity-insurance/ ↩

  18. LSB State of Legal Services Report (2025). https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/07.-Paper-25-32-State-of-Legal-Services-Report.pdf ↩

  19. Law Society, Wills and Inheritance Quality Scheme. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/firm-accreditations/wills-and-inheritance-quality-scheme/ ↩

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

  21. Legal Ombudsman 2024/25 Annual Complaints Data. https://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/information-centre/data-centre/complaints-data/legal-ombudsman-202425-annual-complaints-data-and-insight/ ↩

  22. IPW Approved Code (CTSI). https://approvedcode.tradingstandards.uk/our-codes-of-practice/institute-of-professional-willwriters/ ↩

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