The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has published a new spotlight piece on complaints arising from estate administration – specifically focused on how solicitors handle requests for information from beneficiaries.

The context is striking: wills and probate complaints to the Ombudsman rose 28% in 2024/25, and there were around 11,000 attempts to block probate last year, an increase of more than 50% since 2019.

Wills and probate was the second most complained-about area of law in complaints accepted by LeO in 2024/25, with 1,128 complaints received. Nearly half of all wills and probate cases with investigative outcomes that year had inadequate handling of the complaint at first tier — meaning the firm’s own complaints process either failed to resolve the issue or failed to engage with it properly before it escalated to the Ombudsman.

What the Ombudsman is saying

The LeO’s core message is straightforward: beneficiaries are entitled to reasonable responses to reasonable requests within a reasonable time. Firms that dismiss beneficiary enquiries on the basis that they are not the client fundamentally misunderstand the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. LeO accepts complaints from all categories of beneficiary, whether they be residuary, specific legatee, and discretionary trust beneficiary, and can (and does) award remedies against firms where communication has been inadequate, even where the underlying legal work was sound.

This point is not new but is consistently misunderstood in practice. LeO’s Scheme Rules make no distinction between residuary beneficiaries and other types of beneficiaries such as specific legatees: any beneficiary of the estate can raise a complaint about the service received. Where a service provider is the sole executor, the standard of what is reasonable in responding to beneficiary requests will be higher than where a lay executor is also in place, since no service provider will complain about their own service.

Good practice involves proactively providing residuary beneficiaries with costs information and meaningful updates, especially where no lay executor is involved. Handling minor expressions of dissatisfaction promptly through the firm’s own complaints process, rather than allowing them to escalate, is critical. Failing to address a clear expression of dissatisfaction, even informally, risks a formal complaint and a case fee from LeO.

The LeO’s guidance also addresses the emotional dimension of probate work explicitly. Understanding why a beneficiary is asking – whether their motivation is financial, emotional, or both – is, in LeO’s experience, an effective way of calibrating what counts as a reasonable response. A widow asking for a simple update on the progress of her late husband’s estate is making a very different kind of request from one asking for a detailed breakdown of every item in the estate, and the two warrant different responses. Where requests become unreasonable or repetitive, firms are entitled to explain what they will and will not provide, but they should document that decision and consult with any lay executors before doing so.

Costs communication deserves particular attention. The Law Society’s guidance makes clear that it is good practice for solicitors to provide residuary beneficiaries with relevant client care information at the outset, along with costs estimates and updates when unexpected expenses arise. LeO’s data shows that complaints about costs are a significant driver of dissatisfaction in estate administration, and that in many cases those complaints could have been avoided by earlier and clearer communication, not by lower charges. The SRA’s own thematic review of probate and estate administration firms found that beyond providing final estate accounts, few firms gave residuary beneficiaries adequate client care, costs, and complaints information.

Actions for you:

• Review how your probate team communicates with beneficiaries, especially residuary beneficiaries where no lay executor is involved. Consider implementing a standard update schedule for beneficiaries e.g. a substantive update every six to eight weeks so that communication is proactive rather than reactive. A brief update explaining that nothing significant has changed is better than silence.
  
  
• Ensure your complaints procedure is shared with beneficiaries at the outset, not just the executor client. LeO’s data shows that nearly half of probate complaints had inadequate first-tier handling. Sharing complaints information with beneficiaries at the start of the matter, and responding promptly to any expression of dissatisfaction, reduces the risk of escalation to LeO and the associated case fee.
  
  
• Train fee earners that dismissing beneficiary queries as ‘not our client’ is not an acceptable response. Where a beneficiary’s request is unreasonable or has already been answered, it is legitimate to decline to repeat information – but that decision should be made in consultation with any lay executors and recorded. Blanket refusals to engage are the single most reliable route to a LeO complaint that the firm will lose.