Jessica Jarvis

A man dies. His partner is left to grieve and discovers that the Will he made online for £19.99 includes a clause she had no idea existed. It names the Will-writing service’s parent company as professional executor and entitles them to 4% of the estate. The company demands nearly £10,000. The house she lived in, left to her by her partner, is at risk.

This is not a hypothetical. This happened.

The facts, recently reported by The Telegraph, are stark. Nigel Smith bought a low-cost online Will. Included a standard clause appointing the company’s parent firm, MedEx Direct, as professional executor. This clause authorised them to charge a 4% fee on the gross estate. When Mr. Smith died, his partner, Wendy Roberts, was told that MedEx now had legal authority to administer the estate and intended to claim close to £10,000 in executor’s fees; despite the simplicity of the estate and her being the sole beneficiary. The firm reportedly threatened to sell or charge the family home to recoup the fee.

For many of us working in the Court of Protection or broader private client practice, this is sadly unsurprising but no less appalling. The ethical and professional concerns it raises go to the heart of how we approach will drafting, conflicts of interest, and the protection of vulnerable individuals.

The Illusion of a Bargain

A £19.99 will may seem attractive. But when that “bargain” leads to a 4% charge on a person’s entire estate, it becomes clear that cost is not the same as value.

The model is simple: provide wills at little or no upfront cost, and recoup fees later through default executor appointments. But if those appointments are inserted without proper discussion or explanation, they stop being administrative convenience and start becoming self-serving traps. And because will writing is unregulated, there is little to stop this kind of conduct.

That is the central problem. These executor clauses often go unchallenged, not because they are necessarily valid, but because the clients never knew they were there in the first place.

What Was the Advice?

As professionals, we know that the appointment of an executor is one of the most important decisions a person can make in estate planning. Executors are entrusted with identifying assets, settling debts, applying for probate, and ultimately ensuring that beneficiaries receive what was intended. They also hold significant powers: to charge fees, liquidate property, instruct solicitors, and resolve disputes. The role demands trust, competence, and impartiality.

Where a professional executor is proposed, particularly one charging fees, it is essential that the client receives clear, tailored advice. The rationale for the appointment should be explained, and the client’s informed consent documented. This is not a formality. It is a matter of autonomy and financial clarity.

The SRA’s guidance on will drafting is unequivocal. Regulated firms must:

• Discuss all executor options with the client
• Only recommend a professional appointment where there is a demonstrable benefit
• Disclose any financial interest, including fees and potential conflicts
• Document the client’s understanding and agreement in writing

In this case, none of those safeguards were present. The will was produced by an unregulated service provider, and the executor clause was standardised – not discussed and definitely not meaningfully consented to. There was no obligation to explain why a professional executor was appropriate, nor to disclose the 4% fee in a transparent manner. When Mr. Smith died, his partner was left with no recourse and no way to contest an appointment she had never even seen coming.

Unregulated, Unaccountable and Unacceptable

Will writing remains an unreserved legal activity. Anyone can set themselves up as a will writer. They do not need legal qualifications. They owe no fiduciary duty. They are not accountable to the SRA or to any professional body.

This case is a textbook example of why that must change.

Where else in legal practice would it be acceptable to embed a future financial interest, one that only activates after the client’s death, without their full understanding or consent? And yet that is precisely what happened here: a £19.99 Will quietly assigned a £10,000 liability, with no advice, no discussion, and no oversight.

We have allowed a double standard to take root. Solicitors are held to rigorous professional obligations. Unregulated Will writers are not. The public, understandably, does not always distinguish between the two, and when something goes wrong, trust in the entire system is damaged.

This case reinforces the urgent need for formal regulation of Will writing. The issue is not limited to one firm, one client, or one clause; it reflects a broader, increasingly prevalent model in which professional executors are appointed by default, often without the client’s informed understanding or genuine consent. Fee structures are obscured or insufficiently explained, and bereaved families, often unrepresented and already vulnerable, are left with little recourse.

Had Will writers been subject to the same professional standards and regulatory obligations as solicitors, this outcome would likely have been avoided. The client would have received tailored advice. The executor appointment would have been discussed, explained, and properly documented. The associated costs would have been transparent. And the individual left behind would not now be facing the potential loss of her home.

We must stop pretending that budget online Wills are harmless. They are not. And until this area of practice is brought within a proper regulatory framework, more families will be left paying the price.

Final Thoughts

This incident does not amount to a mere drafting oversight; it reflects a systemic failure in ethical standards, procedural transparency, and regulatory safeguards. The consequences for the individuals affected were both substantial and avoidable.

In the context of private client work, the appointment of an executor is a significant fiduciary act. It must be approached with clarity, disclosure, and a clear understanding of the testator’s intentions. The misuse or casual implementation of such appointments, particularly where financial interests are at stake, undermines the integrity of the entire estate planning process.

Unless will writing is brought within a formal regulatory framework, whether under the jurisdiction of the SRA or through equivalent statutory reform, there remains a serious risk of recurrence. The question to be addressed is not simply whether such practices fall within the current bounds of legality, but whether they are consistent with the professional and ethical standards expected in this area of law.

The answer, increasingly, is that they are not.