Transparency in Will Drafting - Not Just for Lawyers
Wills are not always prepared by solicitors. In practice, they may be drafted by a range of professionals, advisers or organisations. Regardless of who prepares a will, the same basic question applies if it is later challenged:
Was the will made freely, with understanding and without undue influence or coercive control?
This is where the principles commonly associated with Larke v Nugus become relevant.
In the Isle of Man, the equivalent legal professional is known as an advocate. References to solicitors in this article reflect the UK context in which the Larke v Nugus principle developed.
What a “Larke v Nugus – style enquiry” really means
A Larke v Nugus request is not a legal action in itself.
It is not a statutory requirement.
And it does not only apply to solicitors.
In simple terms, it is a request for information about how a will was prepared.
That can include:
- how instructions were taken
- whether the person appeared to understand what they were doing
- who was present at the time
- whether any concerns about pressure, influence or vulnerability were identified
- and whether contemporaneous notes or checklists exist
If a will is challenged, it is reasonable to expect that the person or organisation responsible for drafting it can explain what steps they took to satisfy themselves that the will was genuine.
Coercive control and wills - why this cannot be ignored
Another important consideration when assessing how a will was prepared is the legal recognition of coercive control.
Coercive control is recognised in Manx statute under the Isle of Man’s Domestic Abuse legislation. In the UK, it is recognised both under the Domestic Abuse Act and under the Serious Crime Act 2015. These laws acknowledge that abuse does not always involve physical violence and that patterns of control, pressure and domination can undermine a person’s freedom of choice over time.
Where coercive control is a recognised form of abuse in law, it cannot be dismissed as irrelevant when considering whether a will truly reflects a person’s free wishes.
This is particularly important in estate planning, where:
- dependence may have developed gradually
- control may be subtle rather than overt
- and pressure may be normalised within family or domestic relationships
A will made in the context of coercive control may appear valid on its face, while still failing to reflect genuine autonomy.
For this reason, anyone involved in drafting a will should be alert to indicators of coercive control and should be able to demonstrate that these risks were at least considered at the time. Contemporaneous notes and basic checklists are often the only record that such considerations took place.
A Larke v Nugus – style enquiry is not an accusation.
It is not a finding of wrongdoing.
It is a way of understanding whether:
- basic safeguards were in place
- obvious risks were considered
- and the will-maker’s autonomy was respected
In today’s environment, particularly where there are concerns about vulnerability, illness, dependency, family pressure or coercive control, having no notes at all is no longer a neutral position.
What should reasonably be expected of anyone drafting a will
While there is no single legal checklist that must be followed, good practice now expects that anyone preparing a will has, at the very least:
- considered whether the person was acting freely
- considered whether there were indicators of undue influence or coercive control
- satisfied themselves that the person understood the nature and effect of the will
- and kept a brief, factual record of that assessment
This does not require medical opinion.
It does not require legal jargon.
It requires professional judgment and basic documentation.
How Bridge to Justice approaches this
At Bridge to Justice, contemporaneous attendance notes and checklists are a routine part of all estate planning and will preparation work.
This includes:
- recording how instructions were taken
- noting who was present
- distinguishing physical frailty from mental capacity
- and documenting, in plain language, our professional assessment at the time
We do this not because the law demands it, but because people deserve transparency and because proper records protect everyone involved, including the will-maker.
Why UK cases like Larke v Nugus still matter here
Although Larke v Nugus is a UK case, its relevance does not depend on geography alone.
In the UK, Larke v Nugus – style enquiries are routinely used by the courts to understand how a will was prepared, particularly where issues such as capacity, undue influence or coercion are raised. The information obtained often feeds directly into hearings and outcomes. It is not treated as a technical exercise but as a practical way of ensuring fairness.
In the Isle of Man, courts regularly look to UK law and judicial reasoning when dealing with wills, capacity and undue influence, especially where the underlying legal concepts are shared. Appeals ultimately lie to the Privy Council and UK principles frequently inform the standards applied.
For that reason, where UK law recognises transparency around will drafting as good practice, it is reasonable to expect the same standard of openness to apply here. Courts and decision-makers cannot selectively rely on UK legal principles to assess whether a will is valid, while dismissing the mechanisms that allow those assessments to be made.
Put simply, if UK law is relevant in deciding whether a will stands, it is also relevant when considering how that will was made.
If you have concerns about a will
If you have concerns about how a will was prepared or believe it may not reflect the true wishes of the person who made it, you may wish to consider a Larke v Nugus-style enquiry.
This can be directed to:
- the solicitor who drafted the will
- the professional or organisation who prepared it
- or another appropriate body involved in the drafting process
Bridge to Justice can help you understand:
- what information it is reasonable to ask for
- how to frame those questions
- and what the presence or absence of notes may indicate
Important note
This information is provided for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Formal legal advice should be sought where appropriate.