National estate planning firm Simpler Law, a part of Lincoln-based HAIG Consumer Group, has introduced a first-of-its-kind subscription-based estate planning service called “Simpler Infinity.” The monthly plan includes a family and estate Will, a Lasting Power of Attorney, estate administration, ongoing consultations and advice, Inheritance Tax planning, unlimited document changes, copy documents, and insured document storage.
This innovative service emerged as clients were faced with choosing between drafting a Will or obtaining a Lasting Power of Attorney due to upfront costs. Additionally, various life events can prompt changes to a Will, resulting in further fees. Simpler Law’s subscription model allows for a more affordable approach, with plans starting at £11.99 per month.
Simpler Law distinguishes its offering from pre-paid probate plans, which it deems questionable. Instead, the company’s team handles probate for estates worth up to £500,000, excluding additional charges such as disbursements and court fees. The goal of the Simpler Infinity plan is to make estate planning accessible to a wider audience.
The emergence of subscription-based legal service models, such as Simpler Law’s innovative estate planning offering, represents a novel approach to addressing the challenges posed by legal aid cuts. These models aim to provide cost-effective and accessible legal services, allowing a broader range of individuals to access justice. However, as with any new approach, subscription-based legal services come with their own set of advantages and disadvantages. To better understand the potential impact of these models on the legal sector and clients alike, let’s delve into the pros and cons of subscription-based legal services.
Pros
- Cost-effectiveness: Subscription-based legal services allow clients to pay a fixed monthly or annual fee for access to a range of legal services, making legal support more predictable and budget-friendly, particularly for those who cannot afford traditional legal representation.
- Preventive approach: With a subscription-based model, clients can access legal advice and support before issues escalate, potentially preventing disputes and reducing the need for costly litigation.
- Flexibility: Subscription services can offer a range of service levels and plans tailored to the specific needs of clients, such as individuals, families, or businesses. This allows clients to choose a plan that fits their budget and legal requirements.
- Increased access to justice: By providing more affordable legal services, subscription-based models can help bridge the gap in access to justice, particularly for those who are ineligible for legal aid but cannot afford traditional legal representation.
- Predictable revenue stream for providers: Subscription models offer a more predictable revenue stream for legal service providers, allowing them to better manage their resources, invest in technology, and plan for the future.
- Enhanced client relationships: Subscription-based legal services can promote stronger client-lawyer relationships, as clients have ongoing access to legal support and feel more comfortable seeking advice when needed.
- Incentive for innovation: The growth of subscription-based legal services can drive innovation in the legal sector, encouraging the development of new technology and service delivery methods to improve efficiency and reduce costs.
Cons
- Quality concerns: In an effort to maintain cost-effectiveness, subscription-based models may prioritise high client volumes, potentially compromising the quality of the services provided. This can lead to less personalised attention and a lower level of expertise in handling complex cases.
- Scope limitations: Subscription services might not cover every legal need or specialised service related to estate planning or private client work. Clients might need to seek additional legal assistance or face extra costs for services not included in their subscription plan.
- Ethical considerations: Law firms and legal service providers must navigate potential conflicts of interest, ensuring that their primary duty to the client remains a priority, even when operating under a subscription-based model.
- Overuse of services: Clients might make unnecessary changes to their estate plans or request more consultations than needed, creating a burden on the legal service provider’s resources and potentially affecting the quality of service for all clients.
- Fragmented representation: Subscription-based models could lead to more fragmented legal representation if a client opts to use multiple service providers for different aspects of their estate planning or private client needs, potentially resulting in inefficiencies and coordination issues.
- Financial sustainability: The long-term financial sustainability of subscription-based models is uncertain, particularly for smaller firms or those with less diverse revenue streams. If these providers cannot maintain profitability, they may face closure or consolidation, which could leave clients with limited options for continued service.
- Client commitment: The ease of changing legal service providers under a subscription model may result in clients frequently switching between providers. This could hinder the development of strong, long-term relationships between clients and their legal representatives.
- Industry perception: The adoption of a subscription-based model may lead to concerns about the commoditisation of legal services, which could affect the overall reputation and public perception of the legal profession.
Legal aid cuts have resulted in significant challenges for many individuals seeking access to justice, particularly those with lower incomes. The emergence of subscription-based legal service models, such as Simpler Law’s innovative estate planning offering, represents a positive first step toward addressing these challenges by providing cost-effective and accessible legal services. However, it is important to recognise that such models, while helpful, are not a comprehensive solution to the issues caused by legal aid cuts.
Subscription-based models can undoubtedly cater to the growing demand for alternative and affordable legal services, but they may not be able to serve all individuals who require legal assistance, particularly those with more complex cases or unique legal needs. Additionally, these models may not cover all areas of law, leaving some individuals without the necessary representation.
Furthermore, while subscription-based models may drive innovation and the adoption of technology in the legal sector, they alone cannot solve systemic issues related to access to justice. The legal profession as a whole, along with government and other stakeholders, must continue to seek sustainable and comprehensive solutions to mitigate the effects of legal aid cuts.
This could involve advocating for increased funding for legal aid, exploring collaborations with non-profit organisations, expanding pro bono initiatives, and pushing for legal reforms that simplify and streamline processes to make them more accessible. It is important for legal firms and professionals to stay informed about the broader implications of legal aid cuts and work together to create a more inclusive and accessible legal system for all.
Jessica Jarvis 
Leave a comment