More LPA complaints, AI oversight and the safeguards that matter

Reported Ministry of Justice figures

Complaints alleging financial misconduct under LPAs have increased

Figures obtained from the Ministry of Justice by TWM Solicitors and reported by Today’s Wills & Probate show that there were 11,910 complaints alleging financial misconduct by attorneys during the year to 31 March 2026.

That compares with:

• 10,240 complaints during the previous year; and
• 9,538 during the year before that.

The reported figure has therefore increased by almost a quarter over two years.

The same report states that 263 LPAs were revoked or partially revoked by the Court of Protection during the latest year.

The figures are available in the Today’s Wills & Probate report on complaints concerning financial misconduct under LPAs .

Understanding the evidence

What do the figures actually show?

The increase deserves attention, but the available figures do not provide a complete measure of the rate of attorney misconduct.

The figures do not tell us:

• how many complaints were substantiated;
• how many concerned the same donor or attorney;
• how many were resolved without court proceedings;
• how many involved a misunderstanding or wider family disagreement;
• how many required another form of safeguarding action; or
• what proportion of all registered LPAs resulted in a complaint.

The reported 263 revocations should not be treated as evidence that every other complaint was unfounded.

A Court of Protection revocation is only one possible outcome. Concerns may be resolved in other ways, may remain under investigation or may not require the removal of the attorney.

The revocation figure may also include circumstances that do not correspond directly with the financial-misconduct complaints recorded for the same period.

The number of registered powers of attorney is also increasing

There is another important part of the context.

The Office of the Public Guardian’s annual report for 2025–26 records that it received more than 1.58 million LPA and EPA applications during the year.

That represented an average increase in demand of 19% over five years. In October 2025, the number of powers of attorney on the register passed 10 million.

The annual report also records a 17% increase in concerns being raised with the OPG’s investigation service.

We therefore have an increase in complaints and concerns, but also a substantial increase in the number of powers of attorney being made and registered.

Without a reliable comparison against the number of active LPAs and attorney appointments, the figures cannot establish that financial misconduct has become proportionately more common.

Authority and accountability

What are an attorney’s responsibilities?

An attorney does not need professional qualifications or previous legal experience, but they are taking on a legally significant role.

The official GOV.UK guidance explains that an attorney must:

• follow the instructions contained in the LPA;
• consider the donor’s preferences;
• support the donor to make their own decisions where possible;
• act in the donor’s best interests;
• keep the donor’s money and property separate from their own;
• respect the donor’s confidentiality;
• provide information to the OPG when required; and
• keep appropriate records.

An attorney must not use their position for their own benefit or allow another person to use the LPA to make decisions.

Gifts require particular care

For Property and Financial Affairs LPAs, the restrictions surrounding gifts are particularly important.

The official guidance permits only limited gifts in ordinary circumstances.

Other gifts—including some loans, transfers of property and arrangements allowing somebody to occupy the donor’s property below market value—may require authority from the Court of Protection.

The fact that the donor made similar gifts previously does not necessarily give the attorney authority to continue them.

Records protect the donor and the attorney

The OPG’s guidance requires records of important decisions, the donor’s assets and income, and how their money has been used.

Details should also be kept of professional advice obtained and any disagreements between attorneys or other people involved in a decision.

Good records help demonstrate:

• what decision was made;
• what information was considered;
• how the donor was involved;
• why the decision was believed to be in the donor’s best interests;
• whether any conflict was identified; and
• where the donor’s money has gone.

An attorney who keeps clear records is better able to account for their actions if questioned by the donor, another attorney, a family member, a bank, the OPG or the Court of Protection.

Poor records do not automatically prove misconduct. They can, however, make it substantially more difficult to establish that decisions were lawful, proportionate and properly considered.

Professional practice

What should the industry do in response?

The figures reinforce a point that should be addressed before the LPA is signed.

Choosing an attorney is not only about deciding who is trustworthy.

The donor should also consider whether the proposed attorney:

• understands financial responsibility;
• is likely to keep reliable records;
• can separate their own interests from the donor’s interests;
• will involve the donor as far as possible;
• can work constructively with any other attorneys;
• is willing to obtain advice when necessary; and
• is likely to remain suitable if family or financial circumstances change.

The conversation should also include the proposed attorney where appropriate.

Some people agree to act without appreciating the extent of the responsibility. They may assume that being a spouse, child or close friend means that they can handle the donor’s money informally.

That is not a safe assumption.

The attorney is not managing their own money. They are exercising authority that belongs to somebody else and are accountable for the way in which that authority is used.

This does not mean making every LPA longer or filling it with restrictive instructions.

Overly complicated restrictions can make an LPA difficult to use. The better approach is usually to identify the donor’s real concerns, explain the available options clearly and record any carefully drafted preferences or instructions that are genuinely needed.

Reporting a concern about an attorney

Anyone can report a concern where they believe an attorney, deputy or guardian may be:

• failing to act in the person’s best interests;
• using money or property improperly;
• failing to perform their role;
• abusing their position; or
• acting outside the legal rules applying to them.

The OPG can investigate in circumstances where the person whose affairs are being managed lacks the mental capacity to deal with the issue themselves.

Where there is an immediate risk of harm, suspected crime or an urgent safeguarding concern, reporting the matter to the OPG may not be the only appropriate step. The police, local authority, financial institution or another relevant body may also need to be involved.

Service-model development

Artificial intelligence moves further into legal-service delivery

A different professional issue arose this week through reporting about the use of artificial intelligence by Co-op Legal Services.

According to The Guardian’s report published on 8 October, an AI system is being used to record, analyse and score conversations involving customers seeking assistance with probate, Wills and estates.

The system is reportedly trained to assess more than 50 aspects of a conversation.

The Co-op told The Guardian that the technology is used as a support and quality-assurance tool rather than as a decision-maker.

It said that human judgment, accountability, care and kindness remain central to the client relationship.

The report also included concerns from staff about the extent of monitoring and the effect of being assessed by an automated system.

The development is nevertheless significant.

AI is no longer being discussed only as a tool for producing a first draft or locating information. It is becoming part of how organisations monitor conversations, assess quality and supervise the delivery of legal services.

That requires a wider discussion about transparency, human involvement and professional responsibility.

Human judgment and accountability

What does responsible AI use require?

The legal and estate-planning sectors should not treat every use of AI as either automatically beneficial or automatically harmful.

The more useful questions are:

• What task is the system performing?
• What information is being processed?
• Does the person providing that information understand how it will be used?
• How accurate and reliable is the system?
• Can its output be challenged?
• Who reviews the result?
• Who remains responsible for the final decision?
• What happens when the system gets something wrong?
• Is the technology supporting professional judgment or quietly replacing it?

Those questions become particularly important in private-client work.

Conversations about Wills, LPAs, probate and bereavement may involve:

• health information;
• family disputes;
• financial details;
• concerns about capacity;
• allegations of pressure or abuse;
• decisions about children and dependants; and
• information about people who are not themselves the client.

The fact that technology can record, transcribe or analyse that information does not mean that every possible use is appropriate.

The developing professional standards

The Law Society has published research on the future of agentic AI in the justice system.

Agentic AI refers to systems that can undertake multi-stage tasks with a degree of autonomy, rather than simply generating a response to an individual prompt.

The Law Society’s work emphasises the need for clear accountability, transparency and meaningful human oversight. Legal judgment should remain with the responsible professional.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has also opened a consultation on proposed changes to the Statement of Solicitor Competence.

The proposed amendments would make the use and supervision of technology and AI more explicit within areas including:

• ethics, professionalism and judgment;
• legal research and drafting;
• the risk of inaccurate or fabricated AI output; and
• supervision of work involving technology.

The consultation opened on 8 October and closes on 3 December 2026.

This is a consultation rather than a new regulatory rule. Any final changes are expected to be published in April 2027 and would take effect from September 2027.

Elephant Legal is not regulated by the SRA and the Statement of Solicitor Competence does not apply to the business in the same way that it applies to solicitors.

The consultation is nevertheless relevant as an indication of the direction in which wider professional expectations are moving.

My approach to AI in estate-planning work

AI can be useful.

It may support initial research, document comparison, drafting, quality checks and the organisation of information. It can also help identify inconsistencies that should be considered by the practitioner.

It should not become a substitute for the professional responsibility attached to the work.

There is also a difference between using technology to assist a practitioner and using it to monitor the practitioner.

Where conversations are recorded or assessed automatically, organisations should consider transparency, data protection, confidentiality, accuracy, staff supervision and the ability to correct a misleading assessment.

Political proposal

A new Inheritance Tax announcement—but no change to the law

On 7 October, the Conservative Party announced that a future Conservative government would propose changes to the treatment of the family home and other assets for Inheritance Tax.

The party said that its proposal would abolish Inheritance Tax on a family home passing to direct descendants and increase the individual threshold for other assets to £500,000.

It stated that the proposal would allow a couple to pass their principal home to direct descendants without Inheritance Tax and a further £1 million to other beneficiaries.

For the proposal to take effect, a future government would need to introduce legislation and secure its passage through Parliament.

The detail could change substantially before that happened.

Clients should therefore continue to plan using the law that applies now and confirmed changes that are already due to take effect.

Websites, client documents and calculations should not be amended as if the proposal were in force.

Political proposals may be worth monitoring. They should not be presented as present law.

Financial-planning connection

More life-protection policies are reportedly being placed in trust

Research reported by Today’s Wills & Probate suggests that the use of trusts for life-protection policies has increased.

The report is based on Stonebridge’s analysis of approximately 8,000 policies.

For one of its six provider partners, the proportion of policies placed in trust reportedly increased from 5.3% in 2021 to 14.3% in 2026.

This is commercial research based on a limited section of the market. It should not be presented as a national measure of every life-insurance policy or provider.

It does, however, identify an important estate-planning issue.

Depending upon how a policy has been arranged, the proceeds may be payable to the estate or may pass under a trust or another provider arrangement.

This can affect:

• who receives the money;
• how quickly it may be available;
• whether a grant of probate is required before payment;
• the control retained by the policyholder;
• how trustees and beneficiaries are selected; and
• the wider tax and estate-planning position.

A Will does not automatically correct an unsuitable insurance nomination or policy arrangement.

Equally, placing a policy into trust should not be treated as the automatic answer in every case.

The suitability of a trust will depend upon the policy terms, the intended beneficiaries, the client’s objectives and the financial and tax consequences.

The wider protection gap

The Financial Conduct Authority published the final report from its Pure Protection Market Study on 21 September.

The FCA found that 58% of people held no protection product. Of those people, 59% had never considered their protection needs.

The FCA concluded that competition generally produces good outcomes for people who hold protection products, but that limited awareness and difficulties within the sales process can contribute to a wider protection gap.

This is primarily a matter for insurers, intermediaries and regulated financial advisers.

It is nevertheless relevant to estate-planning practitioners because a Will appointment may reveal that a client:

• has life cover but does not know who would receive it;
• has an outdated nomination;
• has death-in-service benefits from an employer;
• assumes the policy proceeds will pass under the Will;
• has no protection for a mortgage or dependant; or
• has placed a policy into trust without reviewing whether the trustees and beneficiaries remain suitable.

The correct response is not for a Will practitioner to provide regulated insurance or investment advice.

It is to identify the issue, explain why it may need attention and refer the client to the insurer, scheme administrator or an appropriately authorised financial adviser.

Status check

What has not changed this week?

No standard change is required to Will or LPA wording as a result of this week’s developments.