header-logo header-logo

17 May 2013
Issue: 7560 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Grayling opts for guidance not regulation for wills

Chris Grayling, Lord Chancellor, has rejected the Legal Services Board’s (LSB) recommendation that will-writing activities be regulated.
 

The LSB made the recommendation in February, after conducting a two-year study which uncovered evidence of poor practice. However, Grayling said in a statement this week that,
while the report indicated “consumer detriment” in the market and that reservation of will writing could address this, it did not adequately demonstrate that reservation was the “best solution” or that alternative measures had been exhausted.

Grayling suggests instead more targeted guidance for the legal profession and strengthening existing regulation along with voluntary regulation schemes and codes of practice, as well as “greater efforts made to educate consumers” about the different types of providers.
David Edmonds, LSB chairman, says: “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. The onus is now on both regulated and unregulated providers of will-writing services to improve standards and thereby earn consumer and public confidence.”

Paul Sharpe, chairman of the Institute of Professional Willwriters, says: “While we are astonished by the outcome, once it was found that existing regulated providers were just as bad at writing wills as unregulated providers, the Lord Chancellor was going to find it difficult to approve reservation as a solution.

“I can’t see any of the suggestions offered by the Lord Chancellor changing anything in the will-writing market. That is why mandatory regulatory schemes were, and still are, essential in the will-writing sector.”
 

Issue: 7560 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll