Solicitors Negligence Wills and Estates

July 14, 2025

Solicitor Negligence in Will Writing and Estate Administration

Introduction

Solicitors handling will writing and estate administration have a professional duty to exercise reasonable care and skill. When a solicitor makes an error or omission in drafting a will, or mishandles estate administration tasks such as probate or inheritance tax advice, they may be liable for professional negligence if their mistake causes financial loss. In the UK, solicitors’ negligence claims in this area can arise from drafting errors, delays, or incorrect legal advice, affecting not only the solicitor’s direct client but also intended beneficiaries. As these errors can significantly impact inheritance and financial outcomes, understanding your right to pursue a compensation claim is essential for both legal professionals and clients affected by solicitor errors.

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Duty of Care to Clients and Beneficiaries
• Negligence in Will Drafting: Common Examples
  • Failing to draft the will correctly or reflect the client’s intentions
  • Negligent delay in preparing or updating the will
  • Failure to properly advise on and ensure due execution
  • Failure to advise on specific issues, such as property ownership or changes in circumstances
  • Ignoring testamentary capacity or undue influence concerns
• Negligence in Estate Administration
  • Misinterpreting the will or the law of inheritance
  • Failing to identify and collect all assets, or to settle all liabilities
  • Delay in the probate process or distribution
  • Negligent tax advice and inheritance tax (IHT) planning
  • Improper distribution or failure to account (breach of fiduciary duty)
• Time Limits and Recent Developments
• Conclusion

Duty of Care to Clients and Beneficiaries

A solicitor’s primary duty is to their client: for example, the person making the will, known as the testator, or the executor of an estate. However, English law recognises that in will making, a solicitor’s negligence can hurt people who were meant to benefit. Normally, if a will is drafted negligently, the client (testator) would have a claim in contract or tort, but if the testator has died, they can no longer sue. This created a risk of a “lacuna”, a gap in the law, where no one could claim for the mistake. To prevent this, the courts extended the solicitor’s duty of care to the intended beneficiaries of a will.

The case White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207 (HL) established that solicitors owe a duty in tort to intended beneficiaries who lose out due to the solicitor’s negligence in will drafting. In that case, a father had instructed solicitors to prepare a will codicil to include his daughters, but the solicitors delayed unreasonably; the codicil was not executed before the father died, leaving the daughters with nothing. The House of Lords allowed the daughters, as disappointed beneficiaries, to recover the value of the inheritance they should have received. This principle built on an earlier case, Ross v Caunters [1980] Ch 297, where a beneficiary was allowed to sue a solicitor who negligently invalidated a will, by having an interested party witness it. Today, it is well established that a solicitor can be liable to an intended will beneficiary for losses caused by negligent will drafting or execution errors, even though the beneficiary was not the solicitor’s client.

However, the duty is not boundless. It extends only to those whom the testator intended to benefit under the will that was being prepared. It does not extend to people who lose out because a new will was made. For example, someone who would have inherited under an earlier will or intestacy cannot claim that a solicitor was negligent in allowing a later will to be made. The solicitor’s duty is to the testator and the beneficiaries of the will actually drafted, not to beneficiaries of a prior will the testator chose to revoke. In one case, Worby v Rosser [2000] PNLR 140, beneficiaries under an old will sued a solicitor for failing to ensure the testator had capacity when making a new will, which cut them out. The court rejected their claim, essentially because the proper claimant for any loss to the estate was the estate itself, via the personal representatives, and the disappointed former beneficiaries had no personal loss once the estate covered their legal costs. Generally, if a solicitor’s negligence causes loss to the estate, for instance, increased tax or legal costs paid from the estate, the executor or personal representatives can bring a claim on behalf of the estate. If the negligence causes a beneficiary to lose an expected inheritance, but the estate itself is not directly poorer, that beneficiary may claim in their own right, per White v Jones. The law thus ensures someone can seek redress in most scenarios, while avoiding double recovery.

It should also be noted that solicitors’ duties in this field are not limited to formally qualified solicitors. Professionals or companies offering will-drafting services owe a comparable duty of care. For example, a will-writing company was found to owe a duty equivalent to a solicitor’s in preparing and executing a will. All such professionals must meet the standard of care expected in will preparation and estate work.

Negligence in Will Drafting: Common Examples

When preparing a will, a solicitor must diligently carry out the client’s instructions and ensure the will is legally effective. Common types of negligence in will drafting include:

Failing to draft the will correctly or reflect the client’s intentions

A will that does not carry out the testator’s true wishes due to the solicitor’s error can give rise to a claim. For instance, if a solicitor misunderstands the law or the client’s instructions and as a result the drafted will is ineffective or says the wrong thing, that is negligence. The will must reflect the client’s instructions. A classic illustration is a solicitor omitting a crucial clause or naming the wrong asset or beneficiary. In such cases, the disappointed beneficiaries, or the estate, may claim for the loss. If the mistake comes to light while the testator is alive, it might be corrected by a will amendment or a rectification application; but if discovered only after death, litigation may be the only remedy. English law does allow wills to be rectified for certain clerical errors or misunderstandings, and beneficiaries can sometimes agree to vary the distribution to fix a mistake. Those routes should be explored to mitigate loss, but where they are not possible, a negligence claim may proceed.

Negligent delay in preparing or updating the will

Unreasonable delay is one of the most frequent allegations in will-drafting negligence. A solicitor is expected to draft and present a will for signing within a reasonable time, especially if the matter is urgent. If a solicitor takes too long and the testator dies or loses capacity before the will is executed, the opportunity to carry out the testator’s wishes is lost. In White v Jones, a 59-day delay in acting on the client’s instructions, for a 78-year-old client, was held to be negligent and gave rise to liability when the client died before the will could be signed. The intended beneficiaries recovered the amount they would have inherited. What counts as an unreasonable delay depends on the circumstances: courts have noted there is no fixed yardstick, but age and health of the client are crucial factors. For a young healthy client, a few weeks might be acceptable, whereas for an elderly or gravely ill client, even a delay of several days could be too long. Solicitors are expected to prioritise urgent will instructions; for example, preparing a will immediately, even in rough form, if there’s a real risk of imminent death. Failing to do so, such as putting off a hospital visit to take instructions or to have the will executed, can be judged negligent if the client dies in the interim. In one case, a solicitor who cancelled an appointment to execute a will for an 83-year-old hospitalised client, without arranging a prompt alternative, was found negligent when the client died about 12 days later. On the other hand, if the delay is due to the client’s own lack of urgency or if the client consents to the timeline, the solicitor may be excused, but the solicitor should document this and warn the client of any risks. In practice, clear communication and prompt action are key; any substantial delay in will-making is dangerous and can expose the practitioner to liability if misfortune strikes.

Failure to properly advise on and ensure due execution

A will is not valid unless it complies with legal formalities, such as being signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses. While a solicitor is not required to physically attend every will signing, they must give the client clear instructions on how to execute the will correctly if they are not supervising the signing. Sending a will to a client with no guidance, or incorrect guidance, on the witnessing procedure is a common pitfall that can render the will invalid and constitute negligence. Similarly, if a will is returned to the solicitor after signing, the solicitor should check it has been signed and witnessed properly. English case law has grappled with how far a solicitor must go in ensuring a valid execution. In Esterhuizen v Allied Dunbar Assurance [1998] 2 FLR 668, the court held that a will-drafting professional had a duty to personally supervise execution in the circumstances; in that case, the will was invalid because it was not signed in the presence of two witnesses, despite the client having been given written instructions. The failure to ensure compliance with the Wills Act formalities led to liability for the lost gifts to the intended beneficiaries. The judge noted this might seem harsh given the client had written instructions, but the outcome showed the client likely hadn’t fully understood them. Other cases suggest that providing clear written instructions in a standard format may suffice if a solicitor cannot attend in person. In any event, a solicitor who oversees the signing but does it wrong will certainly be negligent, for example, if they allow one of the two witnesses to sign later or leave a crucial part incomplete. An early case, Ross v Caunters, is illustrative: the solicitors failed to warn the testator that one of the chosen witnesses was actually a beneficiary under the will. Because a beneficiary witness makes the gift to them void by law, that mistake disinherited the witness, and the court held the solicitors liable for negligence. In short, ensuring a will’s formal validity is a fundamental duty. A solicitor should provide explicit instructions, preferably in writing, if not present at the signing, and if they are present, they must see that all formalities are observed to avoid an invalid will and a potential negligence claim.

Failure to advise on specific issues, such as property ownership or changes in circumstances

A diligent wills solicitor should go beyond just writing down what the client says; they should advise on factors that might defeat the client’s wishes. One example is how jointly owned property passes on death. If a client’s will attempts to give away a jointly owned asset, the solicitor must check how the property is held, joint tenants or tenants in common, and advise accordingly. In Carr-Glynn v Frearsons [1999] Ch 326, the testatrix told her solicitor she wanted her half share of the matrimonial home to go to her niece. The solicitor explained the difference between joint tenancy and tenancy in common, but did not ensure that a severance of joint tenancy was carried out immediately. When the client died, the property was still held as a joint tenancy with her husband, so her share passed automatically to the husband, not to the niece. The niece was allowed to sue the solicitor for negligence, even though technically the estate itself had not lost anything, the loss was the niece’s missed inheritance. This case extended the White v Jones principle: the solicitor’s duty of care covered advising on steps, like serving a notice of severance, needed to make the will effective. Failing to give proper advice about such matters, whether it be property co-ownership, the effect of marriage, which revokes a will, or any other legal detail that could thwart the will, can render the solicitor liable for the disappointed beneficiaries’ loss. Similarly, a solicitor should inquire about and advise on things like inheritance tax implications, especially for larger estates, or the possibility of claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 by family members. While the will client might ultimately choose to ignore the advice, not giving them the opportunity to consider these issues is a mistake. In summary, the solicitor must use their expertise to foresee potential pitfalls and ensure the will as drafted will be effective and not easily overturned.

Ignoring testamentary capacity or undue influence concerns

Solicitors have a responsibility to assess, as far as reasonable, the mental capacity of a client making a will and to be alert to any signs of undue influence or pressure. Preparing a will for someone who lacks testamentary capacity, or who does not truly approve its contents, can lead to the will being declared invalid in a probate challenge, and the solicitor may then face a negligence claim from those harmed by that invalidity, often the beneficiaries of what was thought to be the real will. To guard against this, good practice, often termed the Golden Rule by Templeman J, is that for an elderly or seriously ill testator, the will-making should be witnessed or approved by a doctor who can certify the testator’s capacity. If a solicitor fails to take such precautions in a doubtful case, they risk being found negligent. An example is Key v Key [2010] EWHC 408 (Ch). In that case, an 89-year-old farmer made a new will just days after his wife’s death, drastically changing his previous dispositions in favour of two of his children. The solicitor did not obtain a medical opinion or take sufficient steps to assess capacity, despite the client being in a grief stricken and vulnerable state.

The court later found the widower lacked capacity, as he was suffering from profound grief and early dementia, and that he hadn’t truly understood or approved the will’s contents. The will was set aside. The judge heavily criticised the solicitor for failing to observe the golden rule and for the way the will was prepared. Although Key v Key itself was a probate case, not a concluded negligence claim, it underlines the standard of care expected: a solicitor should refuse to act or proceed with extreme caution if a client’s capacity is in doubt, and should insist on medical assessment where appropriate. Likewise, taking instructions from a third party instead of directly from the testator is a serious breach of duty. In Sifri v Willis [2007] WTLR 1453, a solicitor drafted wills for an elderly man based largely on input from the man’s wife, without independently verifying the testator’s own wishes. The wills were later challenged by the man’s daughter and overturned for want of knowledge and approval, meaning that the father had not truly understood or approved the content dictated by the wife. The daughter incurred substantial legal costs in that probate fight and subsequently sued the solicitor. The claim was successful, and the daughter recovered her unrecovered litigation costs as damages, the solicitor having admitted negligence in failing to take proper instructions from the testator. The lesson is clear: solicitors must take instructions directly from the client, ensure the client understands the will, and document the process carefully. If they suspect undue influence by someone close to the client, they should seek to interview the client alone and make sure the will truly reflects the client’s independent wishes. Breaching these duties can make the solicitor liable for the fallout, typically the legal expenses of sorting out the mess, which can be huge.

In all of the above scenarios, to succeed in a negligence claim the claimant, whether a beneficiary or an executor on behalf of the estate, must prove the usual elements: duty, breach and causation of loss. As discussed, the duty in will cases extends to intended beneficiaries. Breach means showing the solicitor’s conduct fell below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner, which often requires expert evidence on what a careful solicitor should have done. Causation and loss mean proving that the mistake actually caused financial loss, for example, but for the delay or error, the beneficiary would have received £X under the will. In these cases, the loss is often measured by the value of the lost inheritance or gift. The court’s aim is to put the claimant in the position they would have been if the solicitor had done their job properly. That usually means the solicitor, or rather their indemnity insurer, paying out the amount the person lost. In some situations, the loss might be the legal costs incurred because of the negligence, such as the costs of a probate dispute or the costs of fixing a problem. The cases above, like White v Jones, Ross v Caunters, Carr-Glynn, Sifri, etc. demonstrate the range of remedies, from the entire value of an intended legacy to the legal costs wasted in litigation.

Negligence in Estate Administration

Negligence claims also frequently arise after a death, when a solicitor is engaged to administer the deceased’s estate, either as the executor or as an advisor to the executors. The administration of an estate involves collecting the assets, paying debts and taxes, and distributing to the rightful beneficiaries. A mistake by a solicitor in this process can harm the estate or the beneficiaries financially. Here are some examples of negligence in estate administration:

Misinterpreting the will or the law of inheritance

If a solicitor reads the will incorrectly or gives wrong advice about who is entitled, the estate might be distributed wrongly. For instance, a clause might be misread so that the wrong people receive assets, or someone who should inherit is overlooked. Distributing an estate to the wrong person is a serious error. The executor and their advising solicitor could be liable to the correct beneficiary for the loss. Even simpler, a solicitor might advise that a will means X when legally it means Y, leading to an incorrect distribution or an avoidable dispute. Such mistakes breach the duty of care. The standard of care requires solicitors to know, or find out, the relevant law of wills, trusts and intestacy; failing that, they may face a negligence claim for any resulting loss. In practice, if an error is discovered in time, the executor can often rectify it by recovering assets or by court application, but if not, the liability falls on the professional who caused the mix-up. Common scenarios include misconstruing a residuary gift, or failing to identify that certain assets don’t actually pass under the will, like jointly owned property or nomination assets, which pass outside the estate.

Failing to identify and collect all assets, or to settle all liabilities

An executor’s duty, and by extension a solicitor’s duty when advising. is to gather in every asset and pay every debt of the estate. Negligence might occur if a solicitor overlooks an asset, for example by failing to realise the deceased had an insurance policy or a bank account, resulting in the beneficiaries missing out on that money. Conversely, if a solicitor fails to find out about a debt or liability and distributes the estate too early, the estate might later be hit with that unpaid bill, such as an outstanding tax or creditor claim, and there may be insufficient funds left to pay it. The beneficiaries or the estate can suffer loss in such cases. A practitioner should make reasonable inquiries into the deceased’s assets and liabilities. Not doing so could be seen as falling below the standard. For example, missing a large credit card debt or not noticing a mortgage that needed settling could require the solicitor to compensate the estate or creditors if their oversight causes loss.

Delay in the probate process or distribution

Just as delay in will drafting can be negligent, so can undue delay in administering the estate. Beneficiaries should receive their inheritance within a reasonable timeframe. If a solicitor executor drags their feet without good reason, for instance, taking years to finalise a straightforward estate, beneficiaries might claim for losses such as lost interest or other foreseeable damages. There might not be as established a line of case law on simple delay in distribution, but the general principle of reasonableness applies. In extreme cases, beneficiaries have remedies against a dilatory executor, including applying to the court to replace them, but if the delay amounts to a breach of professional duty, an affected beneficiary could also seek compensation. An example could be where unnecessary delays cause property values to drop or tax allowances to be lost, directly harming the estate’s value. Solicitors must also be mindful of deadlines; for example, failing to apply for probate or to complete tax forms within required periods might incur penalties or interest, which would be a loss to the estate caused by negligence.

Negligent tax advice and inheritance tax (IHT) planning

Estate administration is tightly interwoven with tax considerations, especially inheritance tax. Failure to give proper tax advice can result in the estate paying more IHT or other taxes than necessary, which is a clear financial loss. One leading case is Daniels v Thompson [2004] EWCA Civ 307. In that case, a solicitor advised an elderly client, Mrs Daniels, to give her house to her son as a way of reducing future inheritance tax, telling her that the gift would be exempt if she survived 7 years. She did transfer the house, but crucially, she continued living in it rent-free. The solicitor failed to warn that by continuing to enjoy the house without paying rent, she was making a gift with reservation of benefit, meaning that for tax purposes the house would still count as part of her estate if she died, nullifying the intended tax saving. Indeed, when she passed away, IHT was charged on the house’s value, saddling the estate, and ultimately the beneficiaries, with a large tax bill that proper advice could have avoided. After her death, her son and the estate brought a negligence claim over this bad advice.  Daniels v Thompson was complex, the court had to consider who should sue, the son or the executors, since the loss manifested after the client’s death. The Court of Appeal ultimately struck out the executors’ claim in contract on the basis that the deceased herself hadn’t suffered a loss in her lifetime, since IHT is only payable on death. However, the case highlights the principle that bad tax planning can be actionable. Depending on the circumstances, either the estate, through the personal representatives, or the residuary beneficiaries may have a claim to recover the amount of avoidable tax caused by negligent advice. In later cases like Rind v Theodore Goddard [2008] PNLR 459 and Vinton v Fladgate Fielder [2010] EWHC 904 (Ch), courts have left the door open for residuary beneficiaries to sue when no one else can, in order to fill the same kind of “lacuna” identified in White v Jones. In practical terms, solicitors should carefully advise on gifts, trust arrangements, and reliefs, such as the seven-year rule, gift with reservation rules, business property relief, etc.. If they fail to do so and the estate incurs a larger tax liability or penalty, a negligence claim can follow. Another tax-related pitfall is failing to claim available tax reliefs or allowances. For example, neglecting to transfer a deceased spouse’s nil-rate band or residence nil-rate band to reduce IHT, or missing a deadline to claim an IHT relief, could be costly mistakes. The bottom line is that estate solicitors must either possess or obtain proper tax expertise; otherwise, they should refer the client to a specialist. In a negligence claim, the measure of loss is often the difference in tax paid versus what would have been paid with competent advice, plus any interest or penalties incurred due to the mistake.

Improper distribution or failure to account (breach of fiduciary duty)

Often solicitors act as executors or trustees of estates. In such roles they have fiduciary obligations as well as a duty of care. If a solicitor-executor distributes estate funds incorrectly, say by paying out to someone not entitled, or by paying out too early and being unable to reclaim funds for a later-arising claim, the solicitor can be personally liable to put things right. Professional negligence overlaps with breach of trust in these cases. For example, if a solicitor executor, relying on a forged will, gives the estate to a fraudster, the true beneficiaries can claim against the solicitor for the loss. Even if there was no dishonesty by the solicitor, relying on a fraudulent document without proper verification falls below the expected standard. The solicitor would likely have to compensate the rightful heirs. Another scenario is failing to pay debts or taxes and distributing the estate. If the estate then can’t pay what’s owed, the executor and their advisors might have to pay from their own pocket. Solicitors managing estates should ensure they clear all obligations before final distribution, or retain sufficient funds. A notable point here is that if a solicitor is both the advisor and the executor, any negligence in administration is effectively their own error, so the beneficiaries can sue them directly for breach of duty.

If the solicitor is only advising an executor, who might be a layperson, the beneficiaries usually cannot sue the solicitor directly because the solicitor’s duty is to the executor-client. In that case, the executor could sue the solicitor for professional negligence to recover losses to the estate, and then the executor would in turn restore the estate. Regardless of the mechanics, a mistake in estate administration can end up in court. Typical breaches include things like over-valuing or under-valuing assets, leading to wrong tax or distribution, failing to insure estate assets, for example, letting a vacant property be damaged with no insurance payout, or simply paying out the wrong amounts to beneficiaries. Each of these can financially harm the estate or individuals and lead to a claim.

In all these examples of estate administration negligence, the key is showing that the solicitor’s conduct fell below the standard of a reasonably competent probate practitioner, and that this caused a quantifiable loss. The measure of loss might be the cost to put things right or the diminished value of the estate or the beneficiary’s share. One should also bear in mind that beneficiaries have alternative remedies in some situations, for instance, if an executor mismanages the estate, beneficiaries can apply to the court to have the executor removed or to compel an accounting. But those do not preclude a negligence claim for compensation. Often, these disputes are settled through the solicitor’s professional indemnity insurers once clear negligence is established. The precedent cases serve as cautionary tales: they encourage best practices by highlighting what can go wrong, whether it’s a will drafter forgetting a crucial step or a probate solicitor giving sloppy advice.

Time Limits and Recent Developments

Professional negligence claims are subject to limitation periods, meaning they must be brought within a certain time. In contract or tort this is typically six years from the date of the negligence or damage. Will-drafting cases have a special timing consideration: since the negligence often isn’t apparent until the testator dies, which might be years after the drafting mistake, the clock usually runs not from the day the will was drafted, but from the date of death, when the disappointed beneficiary’s loss effectively crystallises. Before death, an intended beneficiary has no rights, the testator could always change their mind and revoke the will, so any loss is purely hypothetical. Therefore, the cause of action in negligence is generally seen as accruing at death, and time runs from that point. This was recognised in cases following White v Jones. It means an intended beneficiary normally has six years from the testator’s death to bring a claim against the solicitor. There is also the possibility of a late knowledge extension under the Limitation Act 1980, an extra three years from date of discovery of the negligence, if later, but in will cases the discovery is usually at death or when the will is administered. For estate administration claims, time usually runs from the date of the negligent act or when damage occurs. For example, if a solicitor negligently advises on a transaction during the administration, time might start when the estate suffered loss, which could be when a tax was overpaid or a distribution made. Limitation can be complex in cases like negligent tax advice given years before death, as seen in Daniels v Thompson, where the advice was in 1989 but loss happened in 1998 on death. Courts have wrestled with whether beneficiaries can still sue if more than six years have passed since the advice. In Daniels, the direct contract claim by the executors was time-barred, as it accrued when the advice was given, which is why the beneficiaries tried to sue in tort. Ultimately, when faced with limitation issues, claimants often plead alternative grounds, such as executors claiming in contract and in tort, and beneficiaries claiming in tort, to cover all bases. Recent case law suggests courts are aware of potential unfairness and may allow novel avenues, such as allowing beneficiaries to claim, if otherwise nobody could bring a claim and a clear wrong has been done. Nevertheless, the prudent approach for any potential claimant is to act promptly once a problem is discovered.

On the development of the law, one noteworthy recent angle is whether the duty in White v Jones, to intended will beneficiaries, should be extended to other third parties. So far, English courts have been cautious. The principle has been applied mostly in the will-making context. For example, attempts to extend it to negligent lifetime tax or estate planning advice, where the loss materialises after death, have met mixed outcomes. Daniels, as mentioned, left open whether residuary beneficiaries might sue; later cases like Rind and Vinton indicated it’s arguable they can, at least to avoid a gap in accountability. But this area is still evolving and may eventually reach the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling. Another development is clarifying who exactly is owed a duty. Courts have firmly rejected any duty to beneficiaries of prior wills, those effectively disinherited by a solicitor’s actions facilitating a new will.

Anyone bringing a professional negligence claim should follow the Pre-Action Protocol for Professional Negligence. This protocol encourages the parties to exchange information and attempt to resolve the dispute before issuing court proceedings. Often, these cases do settle, sometimes through mediation, given that solicitors are insured and may prefer to avoid protracted litigation. If a case does go to trial, the court will examine whether the protocol was complied with when considering costs.

Conclusion

The case law from Ross v Caunters (1980) to White v Jones (1995) and beyond has shaped a framework where solicitors can be held to account not just by their direct clients, but by those ultimately meant to benefit from their services. For legal professionals, these cases underlines the need for meticulous care: taking accurate instructions, drafting clearly and correctly, double-checking formalities, acting without undue delay, and anticipating issues, from tax consequences to capacity questions. For clients and potential beneficiaries, the law provides reassurance that if a solicitor’s mistake derails an inheritance or causes financial loss to an estate, there is a route to seek redress. In the UK, solicitors must carry professional indemnity insurance, so successful claims typically result in compensation being paid from insurers; this provides a measure of financial security to those harmed by negligence.

Ultimately, the best way to handle solicitor negligence in wills and estates is to prevent it through high standards and continuous diligence. Following established guidelines, like the Golden Rule for capacity, comprehensive execution instructions, and careful oversight of estate finances, can avoid most pitfalls. Nevertheless, when mistakes do occur, the law as it stands, fortified by full citations to case authority up to the present day, ensures that negligent solicitors can be brought to account and losses rightfully restored to those affected.

Have you suffered financial loss due to solicitor negligence? Act quickly to protect your rights and recover your losses. Speak to a solicitor specialising in professional negligence claims today: