More people than ever are ‘unbundling’ legal services, with one in five consumers dividing the tasks that need to be carried with their solicitors. The highest incidences of the practice were found in probate, trademarks, employment and immigration law, where more than a third of consumers took on some of the legal work.
The figures have been released as part of the Legal Services Consumer Panel 2025 Tracker Survey, which reports on how consumers are choosing and using legal services. The rates of unbundling are the highest since tracking began in 2014.
‘As the cost of living bites and legal aid provision dwindles, many consumers are struggling to access justice,’ the report notes. ‘Understandably, they are turning to more flexible and affordable delivery models’.
“This growth shows the market is reacting to the financial strain facing potential legal services consumers.”
The LSCP is urging regulators to ‘move beyond talk’ to identify ways in which high quality and affordable legal services can be made available to consumers.
LSCP chair Tom Hayhoe commented:
“It is scandalous that so many people who need legal advice cannot afford it. Innovative and affordable delivery models are no longer optional; they are essential to ensuring everyone can access a level playing field, not just those who can foot the bill.”
In June, the Law Society of England and Wales said the risks and opportunities that unbundling legal services creates must be addressed. In its 21st Century Justice report, the Law Society said the practice may play a role in enabling access to justice as access to legal aid becomes increasingly limited.
However, Hayhoe believes regulators should play a greater role in ensuring access to justice. He added:
“We applaud the Law Society’s actions to understand the risks in unbundling legal services but call on regulators to play their part in ensuring unbundling is a viable option for consumers… Regulators cannot sit on the sidelines – they must act now to grow the legal services consumer base with affordable options.”
The proportion of legal services consumers choosing unbundled legal services now sits at 21% – up from 18% in 2024. The highest rates were seen in those using legal services for probate (39%), trademarks (36%), employment disputes (35%) and immigration matters (34%).
In other key findings in the Tracker Survey, satisfaction with the service received by legal providers remains high at 88% (up from 87% last year), with satisfaction with the outcome of the case at 89%.
Despite increasing concerns access to justice being out of reach for many, more people than ever said their service provider delivered value for money. Almost three quarters (73%) said the service or advice they received was good or very good value for money, up from 70% in 2024. Most said they found it easy to understand the costs of their legal services (77%), which has been broadly the same since 2018.
An increasing number of people are shopping around for legal services, with 44% in 2025 compared to 41% last year – and just 30% in 2021. Those seeking help with family matters and housing problems as a tenant were most likely to shop around, at 54% and 53% respectively. Only 33% of those seeking help with power of attorney said they would compare options.
Most consumers felt that they had a choice of providers (84%) and agreed that information on price was easy to understand (78%).
The top five factors considered when choosing a legal services provider were regulation (89%), reputation (89%), price (84%), specialism (80%) and speed (78%). Having used the provider before, or having a family member who had done so, was top of the reasons for selecting a legal expert (19%).
Recommendations from friends and family (18%), referral by another organisation (12%) and internet searches (10%) all came out top of the reasons for choosing a professional. Only 2% of people surveyed said they’d hired a provider after being contacted by them, and just 4% reacted to an advertisement.
The majority of legal providers consulted by consumers were solicitors (61%), with barristers and conveyancers both at 5%, followed by Citizens Advice (4%) and chartered legal executives (3%).
Almost half of consumers (46%) received legal services face-to-face, with 34% receiving advice via email or online, 15% over the phone and just 3% by post.
Although more people than ever are finding it easier to find information on costs and complaints, more than half of consumers (53%) said they wouldn’t know how to go about making a complaint if they weren’t happy with the legal service the received.
Only 49% said they would complain directly to the firm. When asked why, 27% said they would prefer to use a third party to complain for them, 25% said they would be concerned about how the provider would react and 20% said they wouldn’t trust the provider to deal with the issue properly.
In Wales, 80% of legal services consumers were satisfied with how things were explained but only 52% thought their legal service providers were knowledgeable.
More consumers in Wales found it difficult to find information about how long the service would take than in England (20% and 14% respectively) and said pricing information was difficult to understand (8% versus 5%).
Welsh consumers also felt they had less choice than those in England (77% versus 84%) and were slightly less likely to be confident in receiving a good service (92% versus 95%). Fixed fees were less common in Wales than England (52% and 57%) and consumers were more likely to engage a local firm than those in England (68% and 58%).
The Legal Services Consumer Panel investigates issues that affect consumers and use the information to infludence decisions about the regulation of legal services. Since 2022, MEL Research has been commissioined to conduct the annual survey. In 2025, 3,750 adults who used a legal service in the past two years were questioned for the survey, which was carried out online.
The full data can be seen at https://www.legalservicesconsumerpanel.org.uk/what-we-do/research-and-reports#2025
One Response
The LSCP may be urging regulators to push forward with the unbundling of legal services. But the judiciary will not take any notice, since clearly the LSCP fails to understand the complexity of the professional responsibilities imposed upon property lawyers. Furthermore imagine what law firms’ insurers would say if, for instance, conveyancing factories started offering ‘execution only’ conveyancing. And what about lenders?
Sadly these ideas demonstrate that the LSCP has little understanding of the law in general and property law in particular.