Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Training and Supervision Requirements for Will Writing Staff: A Regulatory and Best Practice Framework

· 19 min

Executive Summary

The SRA's December 2024 thematic review of probate and estate administration revealed a profession-wide supervision crisis: only 9 of 30 files reviewed demonstrated documented supervision, while 6 of 10 fee earners were unaware of their continuing competence obligations. With wills and probate complaints to the Legal Ombudsman rising 28% in 2024/25 to 1,128 accepted complaints, and the sector recording the highest poor complaints handling rate at 58% in Q1 2025/26, the imperative for robust training and supervision frameworks has never been more acute. This analysis examines the regulatory requirements under the SRA Codes of Conduct (April 2025), the three-year supervision rule under the Authorisation of Firms Rules, and the Statement of Solicitor Competence framework. It provides a practical implementation guide for addressing the four quality failure categories identified in SRA shadow-shopping exercises while preparing for potential capacity test reforms recommended by the Law Commission's May 2025 report.

1. The Regulatory Imperative

1.1 The Supervision Documentation Gap

The SRA's probate and estate administration thematic review, published in December 2024, exposed a fundamental disconnect between perceived supervision adequacy and documented practice.1 All fee earners interviewed during the review reported receiving adequate supervision. Yet examination of 30 files revealed that only 9 contained documented evidence of supervision activity. This 70% documentation gap represents significant regulatory and professional liability exposure.

The findings become more concerning when examining senior practitioner oversight. Of 20 files conducted by heads of department or sole practitioners, only one showed supervision records.1 Furthermore, 12 of 25 heads of department received no oversight, peer review, or supervision whatsoever. The assumption that seniority obviates supervision requirements creates blind spots in quality assurance systems.

The thematic review also examined competence policy awareness across participating firms. Of the 25 firms surveyed, 10 had no written continuing competence policy.1 Where policies existed, the majority of staff were unaware of their content. This gap between policy documentation and practitioner awareness undermines the effectiveness of governance frameworks that may appear adequate on paper.

1.2 Complaints Trajectory and Sector Performance

Legal Ombudsman data confirms that supervision and training deficiencies manifest in client outcomes. Wills and probate complaints increased 28% in 2024/25, reaching 1,128 accepted complaints and representing 16% of all complaints received.2 The trajectory has continued into 2025/26, with Q1 data showing 255 complaints in the category.

More troubling than volume is the sector's handling performance. Wills and probate recorded the highest poor complaints handling rate among all practice areas at 58% in Q1 2025/26, an upward trend from 47% in Q3 2024/25 and 52% in Q4 2024/25.3 The sector also recorded 81% evidence of poor service in resolved complaints, the highest across all practice areas. These metrics suggest systemic capability gaps rather than isolated incidents.

The complaints data reveals patterns that inform training priorities. Poor communication remains the primary driver of complaints, with beneficiaries increasingly challenging estate administration decisions. Over 11,000 attempts to block probate occurred in the past year, representing a 56% increase since 2019.3 This escalation reflects growing awareness among beneficiaries of their rights and remedies, creating heightened expectations for practitioner competence.

1.3 Quality Failures in Will Drafting

The SRA's will writing guidance, informed by shadow-shopping research conducted with the Legal Services Board, identified that 25% of wills drafted by solicitors failed to achieve the desired quality.4 Analysis categorised failures into four primary deficiency types: inadequacy (wills failing to fully account for the estate), legality (provisions potentially illegal), inconsistency (contradictory language and logic), and detail (items, people, or requests missed or insufficiently described). Each category requires distinct training interventions and supervision protocols.

The inadequacy category merits particular attention. Standard client questionnaires frequently fail to capture digital assets, overseas property holdings, pension death benefit nominations, and life insurance arrangements outside the estate. Practitioners relying solely on pro forma documentation without probing follow-up questioning produce wills that fail to address the complete estate picture. Training programmes must develop information-gathering competencies that extend beyond checklist completion.

1.4 The Commercial Case for Investment

Beyond regulatory compliance, effective training and supervision frameworks deliver measurable commercial benefits. Professional indemnity insurers increasingly scrutinise supervision arrangements during renewal assessments. Insurers may impose higher excesses, restrict coverage, or decline renewal for practices that cannot demonstrate adequate supervision frameworks. The Law Society's Wills and Inheritance Quality Scheme (WIQS) accreditation provides competitive differentiation in a market where unregulated providers proliferate.5 Practices that can demonstrate robust quality assurance systems command premium positioning and client confidence.

2. Regulatory Framework Analysis

2.1 SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors

The SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, in its April 2025 iteration, establishes individual competence and supervision obligations.6 Paragraph 3.3 requires solicitors to maintain their competence and keep professional knowledge and skills up to date. Paragraph 3.5 extends this obligation to managers, requiring them to ensure that individuals under their supervision are competent to carry out their roles and maintain current knowledge and skills.

Paragraph 3.6 mandates that solicitors effectively supervise work being done for clients. This requirement applies regardless of whether the supervisee is a fellow solicitor, paralegal, or administrative staff member involved in client work. The Code does not prescribe supervision methodologies, instead requiring outcomes-focused compliance. The absence of prescriptive requirements places the burden on practitioners to determine appropriate supervision intensity and documentation practices for their specific circumstances.

2.2 SRA Code of Conduct for Firms

The Code of Conduct for Firms, updated April 2025, imposes entity-level obligations.7 Paragraph 4.3 requires firms to have an effective system for supervising clients' matters. Paragraph 4.4 mandates that firms ensure managers and employees are competent to perform their roles. Paragraph 2.1 establishes the foundational requirement for effective governance structures, arrangements, systems, and controls.

These provisions create dual accountability: individual solicitors bear personal responsibility for competence and supervision, while firms must implement systems that enable and verify compliance. Regulatory action can proceed against both individuals and entities for supervision failures. The SRA has demonstrated willingness to pursue entity-level enforcement where systemic failures are identified, distinct from individual conduct matters.

2.3 The Three-Year Supervision Rule Clarified

Widespread confusion persists regarding the Authorisation of Firms Rules requirement commonly termed the "three-year rule."8 Rule 9.4 requires authorised bodies to have regulated work supervised by at least one person who has practised as a lawyer for at least three years. This person may be a manager, employee, or external resource retained by the firm.

The rule does not require all solicitors to be supervised for three years post-admission, nor does it mandate that every supervisor possess three years' experience. Rather, it ensures that each authorised body has access to appropriate supervisory capacity at the firm level. Other supervisors within the organisation need not meet the three-year threshold, though appropriate experience commensurate with the work supervised remains expected.

Historical misunderstanding of this rule has led some practices to assume that newly qualified solicitors require intensive supervision for three years before they can operate with greater autonomy. The actual requirement is structural: at least one three-year-qualified lawyer must be available to supervise regulated work across the firm. This clarification matters for practice resource planning and supervision assignment decisions.

2.4 Reserved Activities and Supervision Implications

The Legal Services Act 2007 Schedule 2 defines six reserved legal activities: rights of audience, conduct of litigation, reserved instrument activities, probate activities, notarial activities, and administration of oaths.9 Will writing is notably absent from this list and is not a reserved activity. Probate activities, however, are reserved.

This distinction carries supervision implications. Unregulated providers can lawfully draft wills but cannot conduct probate. Solicitors' practices accepting referrals from or supervising unregulated will writers must ensure appropriate boundaries and quality controls. Unauthorised persons conducting probate activities require supervision from an authorised person within the same organisation.

The interface between regulated and unregulated sectors creates specific risk management challenges. Practices receiving referrals from unregulated will writers cannot assume competent drafting. File review protocols must account for the possibility that referred wills require remediation before probate proceedings can safely commence.

2.5 The Statement of Solicitor Competence

The Statement of Solicitor Competence provides the definitive framework for assessing professional capabilities, yet the SRA's December 2024 review found that only 3 of 25 heads of department could explain its contents.10 This represents a fundamental gap between regulatory expectation and practitioner awareness.

The Statement comprises three parts: the Statement of Solicitor Competence itself, the Threshold Standard (Level 3, representing qualifying standard), and the Statement of Legal Knowledge. Key competence areas for will writing practice include technical legal practice, working with other people (including vulnerable clients), managing oneself, and ethics, professionalism, and judgment.

The SRA's 2025 Annual Assessment of continuing competence highlighted concerns about excessive focus on technical legal knowledge at the expense of ethical obligations and professional judgment.11 Training programmes that address only substantive law while neglecting professional conduct dimensions create compliance gaps that supervision alone cannot remedy.

3. Training Programme Design

3.1 Addressing the Four Quality Failure Categories

Effective training programmes must systematically address each of the four will drafting quality failure categories identified in SRA research.4

Inadequacy training requires practitioners to develop comprehensive asset identification protocols, including digital assets, overseas property, pension death benefits, and life insurance policies. Case studies should examine scenarios where standard questionnaires failed to capture complete estate pictures, with emphasis on follow-up questioning techniques. Practitioners must learn to probe beyond initial client responses, recognising that testators frequently overlook assets that fall outside conventional estate categories.

Legality training covers potentially unlawful provisions including discriminatory conditions, provisions offending public policy, and perpetuity rule violations in trust contexts. Recent case law provides instructive examples of provisions that courts have struck down, offering concrete guidance on drafting boundaries. Training should address the distinction between conditions that are merely unwise and those that cross into illegality.

Inconsistency training addresses contradictory clauses, conflicting beneficiary designations, and logical impossibilities that can arise from template modification without holistic review. Peer review exercises where practitioners identify inconsistencies in sample wills develop critical evaluation skills. The shift toward document automation increases inconsistency risk when practitioners modify generated documents without comprehensive review.

Detail training focuses on precision in identifying beneficiaries (avoiding confusion between persons with similar names), specifying assets with sufficient particularity, and capturing the full scope of client instructions including contingent wishes and alternative provisions.

3.2 Balancing Technical and Professional Competence

The SRA's 2025 Annual Assessment found that most continuing professional development activity focused on technical legal knowledge, with limited attention to ethics, professional obligations, and vulnerable client awareness.11 Of 140 training records examined in the probate thematic review, 136 solicitors had completed learning and development, but the majority addressed substantive law rather than professional conduct.1

Notably, 66 solicitors simply listed training activity with no evidence of reflection on learning outcomes or application to practice.1 Only 8 of 30 training records evaluated training effectiveness. This pattern suggests that CPD is frequently treated as a compliance exercise rather than genuine capability development.

Effective training programmes allocate time explicitly to non-technical competencies: recognising signs of undue influence, assessing capacity indicators, managing conflicts of interest, and navigating situations where client wishes may conflict with practitioner ethical obligations. These skills cannot be assumed from technical legal training and require dedicated curriculum components.

3.3 Testamentary Capacity Assessment Training

The Law Commission's May 2025 report on Modernising Wills recommended replacing the Banks v Goodfellow (1870) test with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 framework for testamentary capacity.12 While this recommendation has been welcomed by the Government, no legislative timetable has been confirmed, and Banks v Goodfellow remains current law as confirmed in Leonard v Leonard [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch).13

Prudent practice develops dual competency in capacity assessment. Training should cover the four limbs of Banks v Goodfellow (understanding the nature of making a will, knowledge of the estate, awareness of claims to which regard should be given, and freedom from delusions affecting disposition). Simultaneously, practitioners benefit from understanding the MCA 2005 functional approach, its diagnostic and functional components, and how it might apply to will-making when enacted.

The Baker v Hewston (2023) judgment suggested that the MCA 2005 framework might serve as a useful cross-check against Banks v Goodfellow assessments.12 This approach offers a practical bridge between current law and anticipated reform, enabling practitioners to document assessments that will withstand scrutiny under either framework.

3.4 Vulnerable Client Awareness

Training programmes must address vulnerable client identification and management beyond capacity assessment. Vulnerability encompasses physical frailty affecting communication, cognitive decline short of incapacity, emotional vulnerability following bereavement or relationship breakdown, and susceptibility to pressure from family members or carers.

The Legal Ombudsman's probate spotlight guidance emphasises that beneficiary complaints have become increasingly complex, with over 11,000 attempts to block probate in the past year representing a 56% increase since 2019.3 Many of these disputes arise from circumstances where vulnerability indicators were present but not adequately addressed during will preparation. Training in recognising and responding to vulnerability protects both clients and practitioners from subsequent challenge.

4. Supervision Implementation Framework

4.1 Documentation Requirements and Audit Trails

The SRA's Effective Supervision Guidance does not prescribe specific documentation formats but emphasises that supervision arrangements and risk-based reasoning should be recorded.14 Evidence of supervision may include emails, file notes, time records, case management system entries, and formal supervision meeting records. The key requirement is contemporaneous documentation demonstrating that supervision occurred, not retrospective assertions.

For will writing matters, documentation should capture: initial file allocation decisions and rationale for supervisor assignment; key stage reviews (instructions, draft review, execution arrangements); substantive guidance provided on complex issues; and sign-off on completed matters. Where supervision identifies issues requiring remediation, follow-up documentation should evidence resolution.

4.2 Risk-Based Supervision Intensity

The SRA explicitly rejects prescribed supervisor-to-staff ratios, instead requiring risk-based calibration of supervision intensity.14 Factors determining appropriate intensity include: risk of client detriment if errors occur; work complexity and level of judgment required; supervisee experience and demonstrated competence; and supervisor capacity relative to caseload responsibilities.

The SRA provides an example of inadequate practice: one solicitor supervising 10 paralegals with only quarterly file reviews. This ratio fails the risk-based test regardless of the specific numbers involved. Supervisors must see enough of the work to satisfy themselves that quality standards are maintained. For will drafting, this typically requires review of completed drafts before client dispatch and oversight of execution arrangements.

Practices should document their supervision intensity rationale, explaining how the chosen approach addresses identified risks. This documentation supports regulatory defensibility and ensures supervision arrangements receive periodic reassessment as circumstances change.

4.3 Remote and Hybrid Supervision Adaptations

The shift toward flexible working arrangements necessitates supervision approaches that maintain effectiveness without physical proximity.14 The SRA guidance identifies several mechanisms suitable for remote supervision: daily task list reviews establishing work allocation and priorities; clear delegation documentation specifying expectations and boundaries; virtual open-door policies enabling real-time consultation; screen-sharing document reviews replicating in-person draft discussions; and buddy systems pairing less experienced practitioners with more senior colleagues.

Remote supervision requires more explicit communication than co-located arrangements where informal oversight occurs naturally. Documentation assumes greater importance when physical file access is limited. Practices should establish clear protocols for remote supervisees to escalate concerns, request guidance, and submit work for review.

4.4 Senior Practitioner Oversight

The SRA thematic review finding that 12 of 25 heads of department received no oversight, peer review, or supervision highlights a structural gap in many practices.1 The assumption that seniority eliminates supervision needs ignores the reality that all practitioners benefit from external perspective, and that heads of department and sole practitioners face heightened isolation risks.

Peer review arrangements between senior practitioners, participation in practice area groups that discuss complex matters, external file audits, and mentoring relationships with practitioners at comparable levels all provide mechanisms for senior practitioner oversight. The precise mechanism matters less than ensuring that no practitioner, regardless of seniority, operates without any form of external quality check.

5. Quality Assurance Mechanisms

5.1 File Sampling Protocols

Systematic file sampling provides evidence of supervision activity while identifying training needs and systemic issues.4 The SRA will writing guidance emphasises that firms must implement sampling and checking systems appropriate to their risk profiles.

Effective sampling protocols specify: sampling frequency (percentage of files reviewed and timing); selection methodology (random, risk-based, or combination); review criteria (checklist of quality indicators); escalation procedures for identified deficiencies; and aggregated analysis to identify patterns requiring training intervention.

Sampling should not be limited to identifying errors in individual files but should inform continuous improvement by identifying recurring issues that suggest training gaps or process weaknesses.

5.2 Learning from Complaints Data

The Legal Ombudsman's published complaints data provides valuable intelligence for training programme design.23 Analysis of complaint categories, resolution outcomes, and service failure patterns enables practices to prioritise training investments where they will have greatest impact.

Practices should maintain internal complaints registers that capture not only formal complaints but near-misses and client concerns resolved before escalation. Analysis of internal data, benchmarked against sector-wide Legal Ombudsman statistics, identifies whether firm-specific patterns diverge from industry norms and require targeted intervention.

5.3 Accreditation and External Standards

The Law Society's Wills and Inheritance Quality Scheme (WIQS) provides a structured framework for training and quality assurance.5 WIQS requirements include mandatory training completion within six months of accreditation, use of standardised processes for risk recognition and reduction, and compliance with the Wills and Inheritance Protocol.

Accreditation delivers multiple benefits: a best practice quality mark demonstrating specialist expertise; minimised claims risk through standardised processes; competitive differentiation from unregulated providers; and structured continuous improvement through external benchmarking.

Beyond WIQS, the Institute of Professional Willwriters operates a CTSI-approved Code of Practice requiring entrance examination, mandatory professional indemnity insurance of at least 2 million GBP, DBS checks, and ongoing CPD.15 The Society of Will Writers mandates 16-24 hours annual CPD. Understanding these external standards enables practices to benchmark their training investments against sector expectations.

5.4 Continuous Improvement Cycles

Quality assurance should not be conceived as a static compliance exercise but as a continuous improvement process. Regular review cycles should assess: training programme effectiveness based on supervision findings and complaints analysis; supervision arrangement adequacy in light of staff changes and work complexity evolution; documentation practices against regulatory expectations and defensibility requirements; and competence policy currency reflecting regulatory developments and emerging good practice.

The SRA's 2025 Annual Assessment indicated that the regulator will consult on strengthening continuing competence requirements, with particular focus on meaningful reflection and ethical awareness.11 Practices that establish robust continuous improvement cycles will be better positioned to adapt to enhanced requirements when formalised.

Conclusion

The SRA's December 2024 thematic review exposed a profession-wide gap between perceived supervision adequacy and documented practice, with significant implications for regulatory compliance, professional liability, and client outcomes. With wills and probate complaints continuing their upward trajectory and the sector recording the highest poor complaints handling rate among all practice areas, the case for investment in training and supervision frameworks has never been stronger.

Effective frameworks address both individual competence and entity-level systems. Training programmes must balance technical legal knowledge with professional conduct competencies, preparing practitioners for current capacity assessment requirements while building capability for potential MCA 2005 framework adoption. Supervision implementation requires risk-based intensity calibration, robust documentation practices, and mechanisms ensuring senior practitioner oversight.

The regulatory environment continues to evolve. The SRA's announced consultation on strengthening continuing competence requirements, combined with the Law Commission's recommendations on testamentary capacity assessment pending legislative action, creates an environment where proactive capability development represents both compliance prudence and competitive advantage. Practices that establish robust training and supervision frameworks now will be positioned not merely to meet current regulatory expectations but to adapt efficiently as requirements evolve.

CPD Declaration

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

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Distinguish between the three-year supervision requirement under Authorisation of Firms Rules Rule 9.4 and general supervision competencies applicable to all supervisors
  2. Apply the SRA's four-category quality failure framework (inadequacy, legality, inconsistency, detail) to will drafting supervision protocols and training programme design
  3. Evaluate current training programmes against the Statement of Solicitor Competence requirements, identifying gaps between technical legal knowledge and professional conduct competencies
  4. Assess supervision documentation practices against the SRA thematic review findings, implementing risk-based intensity calibration appropriate to practitioner experience and matter complexity

SRA Competency Mapping

  • A2: Technical legal practice - drafting wills and estate planning documents
  • B1: Maintaining competence and legal knowledge
  • B3: Working as part of a team and supervising others
  • D1: Acting in accordance with professional conduct and ethics

Reflective Questions

  1. How would supervision documentation practices need to adapt in response to the SRA thematic review finding that only 9 of 30 files evidenced supervision activity?
  2. What additional training components would address the gap between technical legal knowledge and ethical or professional obligations identified in SRA assessments, particularly regarding vulnerable client awareness?
  3. How might practices prepare capacity assessment training to accommodate both the current Banks v Goodfellow test and the Law Commission's recommended MCA 2005 framework, ensuring practitioners develop dual competency pending legislative reform?

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. SRA Probate and Estate Administration Thematic Review (December 2024). https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/probate-administration-thematic-review/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

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

  3. Legal Ombudsman Q1 2025/26 Complaints Data (October 2025). https://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/information-centre/data-centre/complaints-data/202526-quarter-1-complaints-data/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  4. SRA Drafting and Preparation of Wills Guidance. https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/drafting-preparation-wills/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. Law Society Wills and Inheritance Quality Scheme. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/firm-accreditations/wills-and-inheritance-quality-scheme/ ↩ ↩2

  6. SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors (April 2025). https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/code-conduct-solicitors/ ↩

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

  8. SRA Authorisation of Firms Rules, Rule 9.4 (as amended April 2025). https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/authorisation-firms-rules/ ↩

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

  10. SRA Statement of Solicitor Competence. https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/resources/continuing-competence/competence-statement/ ↩

  11. SRA Annual Assessment of Continuing Competence 2025 (August 2025). https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/annual-assessment-continuing-competence-2025/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

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

  13. Leonard v Leonard [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch). https://www.bailii.org/ ↩

  14. SRA Effective Supervision Guidance. https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/effective-supervision-guidance/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  15. UK Government Guidance on Will Writing Services. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/what-to-consider-when-buying-will-writing-services/ ↩