It’s long been a frustration for conveyancers that they can carry a disproportionate share of the risk when things go wrong – even though a property transaction involves multiple parties and handoffs.
That imbalance is most visible at completion, where client money moves under time pressure and fraud attempts often concentrate.
This article explores why the risk equation in conveyancing feels so lopsided, what regulatory change could mean for firms, and why we now need to shift from relying on vigilance alone, to building stronger protection into how completion happens.
Why conveyancers carry the risk burden
For many conveyancers, professional indemnity insurance (PII) is often one of the largest costs after salaries. Yet while risk is shared in practice, it’s often the conveyancer who clients turn to when a property transaction involves loss, delay or distress.
There are understandable reasons for that. The legal profession is held to a high standard; firms are heavily regulated; and conveyancers are expected to be the steady hand guiding clients through a complex process.
But there’s also a practical truth. Conveyancers are usually responsible for holding and moving the critical funds at completion – at precisely the moment where time pressure is highest and tolerance for error is lowest.
Completion – where pressure meets exposure
Beyond anti-money laundering obligations during onboarding, the handling of funds at completion is one of the most common areas that can trigger serious complaints and high-impact claims. Conveyancers are here to support clients and apply expert knowledge in real-world practice – not to become payment operations managers. Yet risk, compliance and financial governance obligations can feel like ever-expanding additions to the job – often carried out at pace, with limited room for error.
Modern fraud doesn’t succeed by “breaking” a system. It succeeds by exploiting the seams between people, processes and technology. Impersonation, intercepted emails, last-minute changes to bank details, and urgent requests that land at exactly the wrong moment.
Firms can do everything “reasonably” and still be put in a position where the only barrier between client funds and diversion is someone having to spot the one detail that doesn’t look quite right. That’s not a criticism of individuals – it’s a sign the system can place too much weight on human detection at the busiest point in the transaction.
Recent reporting illustrates the scale of the issue. Conveyancing fraud rose by 29% between January ’23 and April ’24 1, with 143 cases and £11.7m in losses recorded between April 2024 and March 2025.²
The Future Property Transactions (FPT) Group’s Future of Residential Property Transactions report adds important context – a fragmented home-moving process with heavy manual intervention can amplify both delay and risk – especially at the point funds move.
Regulation is tightening, and why it may shift
Regulators have long emphasised that firms must understand fraud risks, maintain robust policies and procedures, and evidence that controls are genuinely embedded day-to-day. Those expectations are not going away.
At the same time, the regulatory backdrop is evolving. Recent announcements and consultations, particularly those from HM Treasury, point towards a potential shift in anti-money laundering supervision for the legal sector, with the FCA expected to play a bigger role over time. Even before the detail is finalised, the message for firms is consistent: regulators will increasingly expect controls that are practical, provable and consistently applied.
That’s likely to sharpen a question many firms already ask internally – how do we reduce exposure in the highest-risk moments, without adding more burden to already stretched teams?
From vigilance to design: what firms can do now
Awareness still matters. Training, clear escalation routes, dual controls and disciplined verification remain essential. But awareness alone isn’t a fraud strategy.
The bigger opportunity is designing out avoidable risk at completion. In practice, that means:
- making verification “default” rather than discretionary, especially around any change of bank details
- tightening internal controls, including role-based permissions, dual approvals, clear audit trails
- reducing reliance on fragmented handoffs and last-minute manual steps
- and, where appropriate, reducing the need to hold and manually transmit client money in the first place.
Fraud thrives where money moves faster than certainty. The goal is to design clear processes, so certainty comes first.
Regulated rails: reducing manual client-money handling at completion
This is where regulated digital payment infrastructure can play an important role. The point isn’t to replace conveyancers – it’s to support them with a safer framework around the most exposed part of the transaction.
Regulated completion platforms can support a more controlled alternative to manual client-money handling, with clearer approvals and auditability around the movement of funds. For example, PEXA is FCA-regulated, and its model is designed to reduce reliance on ad-hoc instructions and fragmented channels at the moment money moves.
It’s also important to be realistic about change. Firms will rightly consider how disbursements are handled and what the operational impact looks like. Those questions deserve transparent discussion and careful implementation.
But they shouldn’t distract from the bigger point. Reducing exposure in the highest-risk part of the transaction can help improve the risk burden that currently sits so heavily with conveyancers – while improving speed, certainty and client experience.
What happens next
Conveyancers may watch these regulatory and technological developments closely, and many will begin assessing which changes genuinely reduce exposure without adding burden.
Conveyancers will always be central to protecting clients in a complex process. But they shouldn’t have to carry disproportionate risk simply because the system relies on manual money movement under pressure. Industry collaboration will be key, including the role regulated digital infrastructure can play in reducing reliance on last-minute manual steps and strengthen auditability around the movement of funds.
Digital platform such as PEXA are focused on supporting that shift by working alongside conveyancers, lenders and industry bodies as adoption and standards continue to evolve.