Conveyancing is the highest-risk practice area in UK law, and the software you use to run it now has to carry that weight. The Solicitors Regulation Authority’s Anti-Money Laundering Annual Report 2024–25 found that 73% of all suspicious activity reports submitted by the profession came from conveyancing transactions. The 2025 National Risk Assessment again rated the legal sector’s money-laundering risk as high, singling out conveyancing alongside trust and company services as the most vulnerable area.
That reframes what conveyancing management software is for. It is still the system that runs a property transaction from quote to completion — quotes, case files, Land Registry submissions, SDLT, milestone tracking, completion. But it is also, increasingly, the system a regulator will inspect when it wants to know whether your source of funds checks were real.
This guide covers what conveyancing management software does, how the leading UK systems differ, honest pricing including the per-case models specific to this area, and the compliance requirements that now shape the buying decision more than any feature list. It is written for conveyancing partners, practice managers, COLPs, MLROs and licensed conveyancers.
A note on who wrote this. This guide is published by OnBoardNow, which makes client onboarding software with built-in identity verification and source of funds collection for regulated UK firms, including conveyancers. We are not a conveyancing case management vendor — we integrate with them. That gives us a clear view of where these systems are strong and where the compliance gap sits, and it also gives us an interest, which we have stated so you can weigh it. Read every vendor-published buying guide with that question in mind, this one included.
What Is Conveyancing Management Software?
Conveyancing management software is case management specialised for property transactions. It handles the specific sequence of a conveyance — quote, instruction, searches, enquiries, contract, exchange, completion, post-completion — with the forms, integrations and milestones that property work requires and general legal software does not.
The distinction from general case management is depth, not architecture. A general practice management system can hold a conveyancing matter, but it will not natively handle SDLT submission, HM Land Registry integration, the Law Society TA forms, or search ordering. Conveyancing-specific systems build these in, which is why property teams usually run dedicated software even when the wider firm uses something else.
Most UK systems in this category bundle case management, document automation, client communication and legal accounting. Several now include client onboarding features, and this is where the category is evolving fastest — because onboarding is where the regulatory pressure is concentrated.
Core Features
The features that genuinely differentiate conveyancing systems, as opposed to those every system claims:
| Feature | Why it matters in conveyancing specifically | Tier |
|---|---|---|
| HM Land Registry integration | Direct submission avoids re-keying and rejection delays | Essential |
| SDLT calculation and submission | Errors carry client liability and delay completion | Essential |
| Search ordering integration | Search turnaround is a common completion bottleneck | Essential |
| TA form automation (TA6, TA10, TA13) | Populated from case data, not re-typed | Essential |
| Milestone tracking | Clients and estate agents expect status on demand | Essential |
| Legal accounting (SRA Accounts Rules) | Client money handling is compliance-critical | Essential |
| Source of funds workflow | The single most inspected element of conveyancing files | Differentiating |
| Identity verification | Now a regulator focus, especially against deepfakes | Differentiating |
| Client portal or onboarding link | Reduces the document-chasing that delays completion | Differentiating |
| Quote and instruction tools | Conversion speed affects win rate | Differentiating |
| Estate agent and broker portals | Third-party visibility reduces update calls | Situational |
| Panel management | Only relevant for volume and lender panel work | Situational |
Why Conveyancing Is Under Regulatory Pressure
Understanding the enforcement position is now part of choosing software, because the software either helps you meet these obligations or leaves you exposed to them.
Property transactions have always attracted money laundering — large sums, tight deadlines, and the respectability a solicitor lends to a deal. The current data shows how concentrated the risk has become and how forensic the supervision has turned.
The SRA’s thematic review of source of funds and wealth compliance, published in late 2025, examined the issue across three years of proactive supervision. Its findings from more than 5,800 files reviewed in 2024–25 are specific and uncomfortable: 11% of files lacked source of funds checks entirely, 18% showed inadequate scrutiny of the documents collected, and in 8% of cases the source of funds recorded in the ledger was not supported by the evidence on file.
The regulator’s own suspicious activity reporting tells the same story. Of the SARs the SRA submitted to the National Crime Agency between April 2023 and April 2025, 73% related to conveyancing matters. Property conveyancing was identified as the most prominent money-laundering risk area within the profession.
Enforcement has followed the findings. Analysis of the sanctions issued this year indicates that around 80% of firms sanctioned either failed to complete client and matter risk assessments, completed them retrospectively, or could not demonstrate they had been carried out at all. The SRA’s broader AML report found roughly a third of inspected firms fully non-compliant with the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 and a further 54% only partially compliant.
The message the SRA has repeated is that source of funds compliance is not a documentation exercise. Firms were found holding source of funds information but failing to scrutinise it — information which, had it been examined, should have raised concerns. The regulator expects a risk-based approach that interrogates the evidence, not a tick-box that files it.
What the SRA Expects on Source of Funds
The SRA has set out the questions a firm should be able to answer, supported by a clear audit trail, on every transaction where source of funds checks apply:
- Where did the money for the transaction come from?
- Is the source consistent with what the firm knows about the client?
- Has the documentary evidence been scrutinised, not merely collected?
- Where the firm treated a risk as lower than its firm-wide assessment indicated, is the reason documented?
- Does the client and matter risk assessment support and reflect the decision reached?
- Is there a file note proportionate to the size and unusualness of the funds involved?
The practical implication for software: a system that lets a fee earner attach a bank statement and tick a box does not meet this standard. What meets it is a workflow that captures the funds narrative, records the scrutiny and rationale, and produces an audit trail that survives inspection. This is precisely the gap between recording that a check happened and evidencing that it was done properly.
Best Conveyancing Management Software
The systems most commonly evaluated by UK conveyancing firms are below. Pricing reflects publicly available information as of July 2026; verify directly, as models vary and several vendors quote rather than publish.
| Platform | Best suited to | Notable strengths | Pricing signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hoowla | Firms wanting conveyancing-first cloud software with transparent pricing | Purpose-built for UK conveyancing; Land Registry and Law Society integration; quote tools | Per completed case for conveyancing (no fee for fall-throughs); per user for other work |
| Redbrick Solutions | Established firms wanting a mature conveyancing platform | Long UK track record; workflow depth | Quote-based |
| InfoTrack | Firms prioritising searches and e-submission | Strong search ordering and Land Registry submission | Per-transaction and quote-based |
| Osprey Approach | High-street firms wanting conveyancing within full practice management | Integrated legal accounting; multi-department | Quote-based |
| LEAP | Small to mid firms wanting conveyancing plus other practice areas | Large UK forms library; built-in tools | Commonly cited around £80–£100 per user/month |
| Clio | Firms wanting conveyancing within a broad cloud ecosystem | Large integration ecosystem; modular | From around £49–£99 per user/month by tier |
| Dye & Durham / equivalents | Volume conveyancing operations | Process automation at scale | Quote-based |
A Note on Pricing Models
Conveyancing pricing is unusual because volume and value do not correlate the way they do elsewhere in law. A firm can complete many low-value transactions or few high-value ones, so per-user pricing can penalise high-volume teams.
Some vendors have responded with per-completed-case models specific to conveyancing. Hoowla, for example, charges per completed case for conveyancing work with no fee for opening cases or fall-throughs, while charging per user for other practice areas. This can suit high-volume conveyancing operations better than a flat per-seat licence, but it makes direct comparison harder — model your actual completion volume against both structures before deciding.
Whatever the headline model, budget beyond it for data migration, implementation, training, and any separately-priced modules such as onboarding, verification or estate-agent portals.
Free Conveyancing Software
Searches for “conveyancing management software free” and “free download” are common, and the honest answer needs stating plainly: there is no free, downloadable conveyancing case management system suitable for a practising firm, and there cannot realistically be one.
Three reasons. First, conveyancing software depends on paid integrations — HM Land Registry, SDLT submission, search providers — that carry per-use costs no free product can absorb. Second, the legal accounting must meet SRA Accounts Rules, which is specialist and maintained software, not a free download. Third, and most importantly in the current climate, no free tool provides the source of funds workflow, identity verification, or audit trail the SRA now expects on property files.
What genuinely exists at low or no cost: free trials of the paid platforms above, typically 14 to 30 days, which is the sensible way to evaluate. General tools such as spreadsheets can track a caseload but produce none of the integrations, none of the accounting compliance, and none of the audit trail — and for a practice area where a third of inspected firms were found non-compliant, that is a false economy rather than a saving.
Where Conveyancing Systems Are Weakest
This is where our commercial interest sits, so weigh it accordingly — but the gap is independently verifiable against the SRA’s own findings, which is the strongest evidence available for any claim in this guide.
Conveyancing case management systems are, on the whole, strong at what they were built for: the transaction workflow, Land Registry integration, SDLT, forms, and accounting. Where they are consistently thinner is the front of the matter — specifically, source of funds collection and analysis, identity verification to a standard that resists fraud, and the documented risk assessment that gates the file.
Most systems offer document upload and a place to record that checks were done. Fewer perform the verification itself, and fewer still enforce the scrutiny the SRA now demands. The regulator’s finding is precise on this point: firms were not generally failing to collect source of funds documents; they were failing to scrutinise them, and in 8% of cases the ledger did not even match the evidence held. That is not a collection problem a document-upload field solves. It is an analysis and evidence problem.
The SRA has also specifically flagged deepfake identity fraud and digital onboarding conducted without adequate verification as emerging threats. In conveyancing, where identity fraud enables some of the most damaging property frauds, this matters acutely. Collecting a photograph of a passport through a portal is digital onboarding without adequate verification — faster than post, and no more reliable against a determined fraudster.
What closes the gap is verification with biometric liveness detection, which confirms a real person is present rather than a photograph or synthetic face, combined with a structured source of funds workflow that captures the narrative and the scrutiny, and a risk assessment that produces a defensible audit trail. There are three ways to get this: use your conveyancing system’s module if it genuinely does this rather than recording that someone did; buy a standalone provider and accept a two-system audit trail; or use an onboarding platform that integrates with your case management system so verified data and a completed source of funds record land in the matter file. OnBoardNow does the third, integrating with Clio, LEAP and Access/DPS/Eclipse, and generating TA6 and TA10 forms from the client interview. Other providers exist and you should compare them.
The Conveyancing Onboarding Workflow
A reference sequence for the front of a conveyancing matter, written as the compliant order rather than any product’s process.
| Stage | What happens | Where it commonly fails |
|---|---|---|
| Quote and instruction | Client accepts quote and instructs | Details re-keyed from quote into the case file |
| Identity verification | Buyer and seller identity confirmed with liveness | Passport photo accepted without proof of presence |
| Client and matter risk assessment | Risk rated against firm criteria and documented | Completed retrospectively or not at all |
| Source of funds collection | Funds narrative and evidence gathered | Documents collected but not scrutinised |
| Source of funds analysis | Evidence interrogated; rationale recorded | No file note; ledger unsupported by evidence |
| Sanctions and PEP screening | Parties screened; matches handled | Screening skipped on lower-value work |
| TA forms | TA6, TA10 completed from client information | Forms typed manually after data collection |
| File opening | Matter opened with verified, evidenced client | File opens before checks complete |
The two stages firms most often collapse are source of funds collection and source of funds analysis. Collecting is easy; the SRA’s findings show that scrutiny is where firms fail. A workflow that separates the two — capturing the evidence and then requiring a recorded rationale — is what turns a pile of bank statements into a defensible file.
Common Mistakes
Treating source of funds as collection. The SRA could not be clearer: holding the documents is not compliance if they are not scrutinised. A system or process that stops at upload leaves the exact gap the regulator is fining firms for.
Completing risk assessments retrospectively. Around 80% of sanctioned firms had CMRA failures, and completing them after the fact is one of them. The assessment must precede the work and gate the file.
Assuming document upload is identity verification. It confirms someone sent an image. It does not establish presence, document authenticity, or a match — which is what property fraud exploits.
Skipping screening on lower-value transactions. Risk is not purely a function of value. The firm-wide risk assessment sets the baseline, and treating a matter as lower risk requires a documented reason.
Choosing software on transaction features alone. The workflow, Land Registry integration and SDLT tools matter, but a system that handles all of those and leaves the compliance front-end thin has optimised for the part the regulator inspects least.
Buying per-user when you complete high volumes. For a busy conveyancing team, a per-completed-case model can cost substantially less than per-seat. Model both against your real volume.
Ignoring the audit trail. Under intensifying supervision, being compliant and being able to demonstrate compliance are different capabilities. Only the second is a software feature.
Implementation Roadmap
A realistic implementation for a conveyancing team runs 8 to 14 weeks, longer with complex data migration. The work is in process and data quality, not configuration.
- Weeks 1–2: Map the transaction and the front-end. Document how a matter runs today from quote to completion, including how source of funds is currently handled. Involve the MLRO. Identify where files stall and where compliance gaps sit.
- Week 3: Define the compliant onboarding sequence. Agree the order — verify, assess risk, collect funds evidence, scrutinise, screen — and the rule that the file does not open until it is complete.
- Weeks 4–6: Configure the transaction workflow. Build your standard sale and purchase flows first. Connect Land Registry, SDLT and search integrations, and test them with real data.
- Week 7: Configure or integrate onboarding. Whether using a built-in module or an integrated provider, confirm that verified identity and the source of funds record land in the matter file automatically.
- Weeks 8–9: Pilot. Run real transactions through the system with the old process as fallback. Check specifically that the source of funds workflow produces a defensible file, not just a populated one.
- Weeks 10–11: Refine and train. Fix what the pilot exposed. Train fee earners and support staff on the corrected configuration.
- Weeks 12–14: Roll out and baseline. Move to the new system, record baseline metrics including onboarding time, and schedule a 90-day compliance review.
Future Trends
Source of funds moving from collection to analysis. The SRA has signalled it will keep running thematic reviews on this. Expect systems to add scrutiny prompts and rationale capture rather than just document storage, and expect inspections to keep testing the difference.
Deepfake-resistant verification becoming standard. As synthetic identity fraud improves and property remains its most lucrative target, liveness detection is moving from advanced feature to baseline expectation.
FCA supervision raising the evidential bar. AML supervision of legal services is transferring from the SRA to the FCA. The obligations do not change; the expectation of demonstrable, data-heavy evidence does. Systems chosen now will be judged against that standard.
Consolidation of onboarding and matter opening. The boundary between client due diligence and file opening is dissolving. The firms getting the most value treat them as one workflow rather than two teams passing paper.
AI-assisted validation, cautiously. The SRA itself has flagged interest in AI-based validation of AML declarations. Expect assistive checks that flag inconsistencies for human review, not autonomous decisions — the regulator still expects a human-authored rationale.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the best conveyancing management software?
There is no single best system; it depends on volume, whether conveyancing sits alongside other practice areas, and your existing stack. The most commonly evaluated UK options are Hoowla, Redbrick Solutions, InfoTrack, Osprey Approach, LEAP and Clio. Hoowla is purpose-built for UK conveyancing with transparent per-case pricing. Redbrick and InfoTrack have strong conveyancing track records. Osprey, LEAP and Clio offer conveyancing within broader practice management. Shortlist three, run real transactions through each demo, and speak to reference firms of similar volume.
Is there free conveyancing management software?
Not in any form suitable for a practising firm. Conveyancing software depends on paid integrations with HM Land Registry, SDLT submission and search providers, requires legal accounting that meets SRA Accounts Rules, and — critically now — needs source of funds and verification workflows the SRA expects. None of that can be a free download. The realistic no-cost option is a free trial of a paid platform, typically 14 to 30 days.
How much does conveyancing software cost?
It varies by pricing model. Some vendors charge per user per month, clustering in the same range as general UK practice management (roughly £35 to £120 per user). Others, recognising that conveyancing volume does not track user numbers, charge per completed case — Hoowla, for example, charges per completed conveyancing case with no fee for fall-throughs. For a high-volume team a per-case model can be cheaper than per-seat. Budget separately for migration, implementation, training, and modules such as onboarding or verification.
What is InTouch conveyancing software?
InTouch is one of several conveyancing and legal case management tools in the UK market, generally positioned around workflow and client communication for property and legal work. As with any system in this category, the key questions before shortlisting are whether it integrates with HM Land Registry and SDLT submission, whether its accounting meets SRA Accounts Rules, and — increasingly decisive — whether it provides a source of funds and identity verification workflow that meets current SRA expectations rather than simply recording that checks were done. Confirm these in a demo with your own transaction types.
Does conveyancing software handle source of funds and AML?
Partially, and this is the single most important thing to test rather than assume. Most systems let you record that checks were done and attach documents. Fewer provide a workflow that captures the funds narrative, requires documented scrutiny, and produces the audit trail the SRA now inspects. Given the regulator found 11% of files lacked source of funds checks and 18% showed inadequate scrutiny, ask vendors to demonstrate the analysis and evidence trail, not just the upload field — and consider a specialist onboarding platform that integrates with your case management system if the gap is material.
Why is conveyancing considered high risk for money laundering?
Property transactions involve large sums, tight deadlines, and the legitimacy a solicitor’s involvement lends a deal, which makes them attractive to criminals. The evidence bears this out: 73% of all suspicious activity reports from the legal profession relate to conveyancing, and the 2025 National Risk Assessment rated it among the highest-risk areas in the UK, singling out super-prime residential property. This is why source of funds checks, sanctions and PEP screening, and identity verification are inspected more forensically in conveyancing than in almost any other practice area.
Conclusion
Choosing conveyancing management software used to be a question about transaction efficiency — quotes, forms, Land Registry, completion. It still is, and the systems that do that well are worth having. But the decision now carries a second weight it did not before.
Conveyancing is where 73% of the profession’s money-laundering reports originate, where a third of inspected firms were found non-compliant, and where the SRA has shown it will inspect source of funds files forensically and fine the failures. The software you choose either helps you meet that standard or leaves you exposed to it.
Two things decide whether it helps. First, whether the transaction workflow genuinely fits how your team works — which the demos will show you. Second, whether the compliance front-end does more than record that checks happened, because the SRA’s findings are unambiguous that collecting documents is not the same as scrutinising them. Get the transaction engine right, and make sure the source of funds workflow would survive an inspection. A firm with a fast completion process and an indefensible source of funds file has an expensive problem waiting.
About OnBoardNow
OnBoardNow is client onboarding software with built-in identity verification, built for regulated UK firms including conveyancers. It runs the front of the matter — verifying identity, collecting and evidencing source of funds, screening for AML, PEP and sanctions, and producing a defensible audit trail before the file opens.
The platform runs structured onboarding flows for each scenario. A secure link is sent to the client by email, text or WhatsApp — no account or login required on their side. The client completes a case-specific interview, uploads documents, and verifies their identity through the OnBoardNow mobile app using passport or driving licence capture with biometric liveness checking. AML, KYC, PEP and sanctions checks are automated into a single report alongside the verified identity, and source of funds evidence is collected in a structured workflow. Interview responses populate conveyancing forms including TA6 and TA10 without re-keying, and the firm tracks progress in real time.
Outputs return structured and referenced — delivered directly into the correct case file for integrated systems including Clio, LEAP and Access/DPS/Eclipse, or in a fully organised format where no integration exists. A custom API is available, and firms without an integration can trigger onboarding by email.
Alongside conveyancers, OnBoardNow serves other law firm practice areas, accountants, financial advisers, estate agents, letting agents and recruitment agencies. It is based in Goffs Oak, Hertfordshire. To see the platform or discuss requirements, visit onboardnow
Leave a Reply