Government says ‘no’ to will-writing regulation

Grayling: alternative measures should be exhausted first

The government has today rejected the Legal Services Board’s (LSB) recommendation that will-writing become a reserved legal activity.

There had been near-unanimous support from legal and consumer groups for the move, which would have replicated the situation in Scotland, but rumours had been circulating for some months that it was coming up against the anti-regulation agenda of the current Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling.

A decision notice issued by Mr Grayling said that while the evidence indicates there is consumer detriment in the will-writing market, and that reservation could address it, the LSB “does not adequately demonstrate that reservation is the best solution, or that alternative measures have been sufficiently exhausted in seeking to address this detriment”.

He said instead there should be “further efforts” to see if these alternative measures can be made more effective before resorting to reservation.

“For example, there could be more targeted guidance for the legal profession and strengthening of existing regulation of authorised persons in this area, combined with voluntary regulation schemes and codes of practice for non-authorised providers.

“There could also be greater efforts made to educate consumers on the different types of provider and their respective protections and options for redress, as well as greater use of existing consumer protections.”

LSB chairman David Edmonds said: “Naturally we are disappointed by the government’s decision. However, it is their decision alone to make and we will study the details and respond in due course.

“In the meantime, the LSB will work with Ministry of Justice officials, consumer groups, providers and other stakeholders to ensure that the issues are tackled and that consumers confidence in the market for will-writing services is increased.

“The onus is now on both regulated and unregulated providers of will-writing services to improve standards and thereby earn consumer and public confidence.”

Elisabeth Davies, chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel, added: “This decision is extremely disappointing news for consumers and makes no sense given the sheer weight of evidence of consumer detriment and the wide consensus backing regulation. Anti-regulation dogma has triumphed over what is in the best interests of consumers.

“Major doubts have already been expressed about whether self-regulation will work and even the will-writing trade bodies have conceded this is unlikely to succeed. If this is the only option then we’ll do all we can to make this work for the benefit of consumers.”

Law Society chief executive Des Hudson said: “Consumers have been let down by this deeply disappointing decision. We provided plenty of evidence to the LSB, demonstrating that consumers are at real risk from certain unregulated will writers who can be incompetent, untrained and uninsured.

“Thanks to the government’s decision today, unregulated providers can carry on writing wholly unsuitable wills, leaving consumers without any recourse when things go wrong as a result.”

The Council for Licensed Conveyancers – which had thrown its hat into the ring as a potential regulator of will-writers – also expressed its disappointment. Chair Anna Bradley said: “Consumers expect very high standards of protection when it comes to will-writing services. Anyone writing a will wants the peace of mind that comes from knowing their wishes will be carried out faithfully and that requires a well written will.

“We will seek to work with will-writers to provide those standards of consumer protection through voluntary but rigorous arrangements. We believe this is in line with our responsibilities under the Legal Services Act.”


    Readers Comments

  • What I would particularly like to know is HOW exactly Mr Grayling envisages consumers will be educated about different providers and levels of protection and expected to make choices on that basis.

    It’s not exactly straightforward and, as repeated consumer research has shown, people just expect the protection to be there. More to the point, in this area, as no doubt was put to Mr Grayling by the LSB, the particular problem is that invariably problems don’t come to light until it’s too late.

    And I speak as a convert to regulating will-writing…

  • MoJ no Lap Dog says:

    Will David Edmonds resign tonight !

  • Bill Ryan says:

    Mr Grayling strikes again. He seems quite capable of making the wrong decision every time he touches the legal world. has there ever been such an inept person in charge of this department.

  • Perhaps the government will now look at de regulating swathes of the current legal market. Many legal processes are now done online by technology, De regulation would allow lawyers to compete with technology companies on a level playing field. Caveat Emptor!

  • Barbara Hamilton-Bruce says:

    “There could also be greater efforts made to educate consumers on the different types of provider and their respective protections and options for redress, as well as greater use of existing consumer protections.”

    Super. I look forward to reading the Government’s policy statement on public legal education and its plan for support and finance.

    If he won’t legislate then he needs to educate.

  • Finola Moss says:

    What is the point of a regulatory body, if we do not know if its regulation is effective?

    The Law Society appears to have opened up legal services to any punter, in any business structure, without considering how to regulate such eclectic provision, disastrous for the consumer, the profession, and the product.

    All legal services, not just will-drafting are highly exploitable, crucial to the public, the rule of law, and every facet of our society, and need the greatest level of care and integrity, maintained through robust, effective regulation, as such an important product as the law cannot be left to the wolves of commercialisation.

    We have had a taste of the effect of weak regulation in the huge, expensive mess of Wolstenhomes, such ‘regulation’ will eventually destroy all legal services, and the very law itself.

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Reshaping workplace culture in law firms

The legal industry is at a critical point as concerns about “toxic law firm culture” reach an all-time high. The profession often prioritises performance at the cost of their wellbeing.

Will solicitors finally be fans of transparency now?

Since the introduction of the SRA’s transparency rules in December 2018, I have been an advocate for law firms going further then the regulatory essentials.

A two-point plan to halve the size of the SRA

I have joked for many years that you could halve the size (and therefore cost) of the Solicitors Regulation Authority overnight by banning both client account and sole practitioners.

Loading animation