Solicitor wants to charge €600 for confirming that they witnessed a will?

Using a solicitor to witness and verify a wet signature is completed outdated, we have technology that can do that and do it better.

e signatures

This type of requirement is just a form of rent extraction at this point.

Interesting discussion, one take away I hadn't considered is to use a younger & healthy solicitor and witness for your will!
 
Oh dear. Sorry if this sounds patronizing, but do you really believe that the average 80 year old is able to securely maintain e-security protocols without writing them down or sharing them, and therefore being open to hijack?

When technology gets to the point that a signature can be executed with an iris, or DNA, with the technology used by everybody as a matter of course, then perhaps your argument will finally be correct.
 
They can get assistance to do this - the point is that it doesn't require verification of a signature costing 600 euro.
The signature is verified on entry and stored securely in a verifiable environment. The system to store these is costing around $10 per month per practice in the US as per a link I included in an earlier post.

Apologies if this technical answer sounds patronising etc.
 
Ok, I'll bite. I'm on a day off anyway.

To me, an e-signature offers verifiable proof, to a fairly high degree of certainty, that the person who submitted an e-signature is the person who controlled the associated electronic identity.

Now, let's go back to the real world for a moment or two

Your mother is making her will. What does she need to do before making her will in order to be able to securely e-sign it?
 
RonnieShinbal88 said:
She could go to a solicitors office and digitally sign her will.
Click to expand...

Ok. So you envisage a system in which the verification process is paid for and controlled by the solicitor ( and reflected in their charges). That's not what the law requires. The law to which you helpfully posted a link requires that a valid e-signature should have the following:

(a) Uniquely linked to the signatory;
(b) Capable of identifying the signatory;
(c) Created using means that are capable of being maintained by the signatory under his, her or its sole control; and
(d) Linked to the data to which it relates in such a manner that any subsequent change of the data is detectable.


So you want to jettison paragraph c). Am I right?
 
Here are some legal costs I've incurred over the years:

Selling a house: just over €2k
Buying a BTL apartment: about €1800
Appealing (successfully ) district court speeding conviction to circuit court: €350
Advice and statutory declaration for BTL Notice of Termination: €200
Amicable(ish) divorce, including property conveyances €11k
Obtaining counsel opinion on complicated pension issue:€1500 (about 40% to solicitor, rest to barrister)
Drafting enduring power of attorney, etc: €500
Making/updating wills: nominal or included in divorce, conveyancing bills

I would consider all of the above to be very fairly priced for the skill, expertise and effort involved, not to mention the office overhead and professional indemnity insurance.

I've also got a fair bit of experience in commissioning legal services for my former employer. While not cheap, prices were reasonable particularly for repeat work, and you could see what you're paying for in terms of the service provided.

But €600 to confirm a signature? On a document that the firm had already been paid for! That's just taking the proverbial...
 
MOB said:
So you envisage a system in which the verification process is paid for and controlled by the solicitor ( and reflected in their charges).
Click to expand...

I think you are focusing on the wrong bit.

Initial verification may be done by solicitor if that's required by law, it wouldn't even have to be an e-signature, they enter the document into a third party system. The control and maintenance of the verification system is done by a regulated third party - they charge a fee for this, it looks like around $120 per year per practice, for however many documents are stored in their blockchain system. The regulatory stuff shifts to them in getting set up, storage and searching shifts to them (very simple automated tasks).

The bit where someone charges 600 euro to verify a signature disappears, the person requesting verification could be provided with a view key by the third party software company for a small fee. They key might be a hash of the deceased PPS for example.
 
I looked at those links you posted. That is not a regulated third party. The annual cost is not $120 per year per practice. It's all nonsense I'm afraid.
 
MOB said:
I looked at those links you posted. That is not a regulated third party. The annual cost is not $120 per year per practice. It's all nonsense I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
The link earlier was for a US company that stores documents for solicitors on blockchain, and you are right they actually charge $20 a month for 2 users to store unlimited documents on a verified blockchain that would remove the need to have a human solicitor verify their own signature.

It's a small step to having a central regulated body/registry running this.

The land registry for example is surely going to move to Blockchain, making searches trivial:

Could blockchain be the future of the property market? - HM Land Registry

News and updates from HM Land Registry
hmlandregistry.blog.gov.uk

I don't see why other legal documentation cannot be centrally controlled in a similar manner there is no need for archaic human verification where the verifying party might lose documents or die, not to mention the charging practices everyone is complaining about here.
 
It’s where the clock ends in this case that has me baffled.
 
Salvadore said:
It’s where the clock ends in this case that has me baffled.
Click to expand...
I think you should ascertain from the Probate Office the reason why the Affidavit of Attesting Witness is required.

If it is because of a faulty attestation clause in the will (and the will was drafted by the same firm of solicitors that the witness is working in) then I believe that the Affidavit should be supplied free of charge. As it is therefore apparent that the will was drafted incorrectly in the first place.
All wills must include an attestation clause which confirms that the will was executed by the testator / testatrix in the presence of the 2 witnesses and then signed by the 2 witnesses in the presence of the testator / testatrix. If this clause is omitted from the will or is incorrectly worded or incorrectly refers to the testator as a female ( use of word her instead of him ) or visa versa then an Affidavit of Attesting Witness is required to confirm due execution of the will.

I do not see why a Solicitors firm having already been paid by the Testator / Testatrix for drafting and executing the Will should later be paid to fix errors they made when drafting said Will. In fact I believe they should be apologetic for having caused you this additional work in an already stressful time.

Of course It is possible that the Affidavit has been requested for other reasons which possibly may have been outside of the control of the drafting solicitor.
 
Hi Curlywurly

Many thanks for that. I assumed that the request for an affidavit was a standard request from the Probate Office. I didn’t realise it was indicative of a problem with the Will itself. The Probate Office didn’t provide an explanation as to why it was needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register