How to record your document checks in the matter file before completion
A document check only counts once the file shows it happened. Verifying a client's identity or confirming the property description against the draft deed is essential — but if there is no record of it in the matter file, the check is invisible the moment it is questioned.
Why the matter file needs to show what you checked
When something goes wrong after completion — a disputed deed, a discrepancy raised by a third party, a complaint — the first thing examined is the matter file. If there is no evidence of the checks that were done, the burden falls on the fee earner to demonstrate they were carried out, with nothing to point to.
A review record is not administrative overhead. It is what turns "I checked that" into a demonstrable fact rather than an assertion.
This applies whether your practice runs paper files or a digital practice management system. The format does not change what needs to be recorded.
What needs to be in the file
The aim is not a long report. Four things need to be clear:
What was checked. For each critical field — each party's full name, their ID document number, the expiry date of that document, the title number, the scope of any authority a representative holds — the file should show that it was verified and which document it was checked against.
When the check was done. The pre-completion review needs a specific date. Not "before completion" — the actual day the review was carried out.
Who did it. In a multi-fee-earner practice, it needs to be clear who carried out the document checks — not who has conduct of the matter overall, but who ran the review.
What the outcome was. If everything matched, a brief note to that effect is enough. If a discrepancy came up and was resolved, the file needs to show what it was, how it was resolved, and which document resolved it.
Format matters less than the record existing
The record can take any form: a checklist on the matter template, a note in the practice management system, a signed checklist attached to the digital file. What matters is that it exists, that it is dated, and that it is part of the matter file — not something that lives only in the memory of the fee earner who did the work.
Some practices use a standard-form checklist per matter type. That works well because it makes the review repeatable and easy to audit: anyone who opens the file can see exactly what was checked and what was found.
A short note also does the job: "Pre-completion document check completed [date]. Client IDs, company authority and title register entry checked against engrossment. No discrepancies noted."
What does not work is a vague entry that does not say what was reviewed or when.
When to write it up
The review record should be written immediately after the checks are done — not the next day and not when time allows. Details blur quickly, and if the review and the file note are separated by several days, the record loses precision.
If completion is delayed after the review has been done, the file should reflect that the check was carried out on the documents as they stood at that point, and that any new or updated documents received before completion will need to be checked again. That second review also needs its own record.
Resolved discrepancies: the most important thing to document
If a discrepancy came up and was resolved before completion — a client brought in a renewed identity document, a name was corrected, an authority document was updated — that process needs more detail in the file than a straightforward check.
The minimum: what the discrepancy was, which document raised it, what was provided to resolve it, and when. Without that record, if the file is reviewed later, the presence of two versions of a document for the same party will look like an error in file management rather than a properly resolved issue.
What does not need to go in
There is no need to copy documents into the review record or to list every matching field one by one. The review record is not a duplicate of the file: it is evidence that the work was done, with enough detail for someone reading it later to understand what was checked, what was found, and who was responsible.
The clearer and more specific, the better. The longer and vaguer, the less useful.
If you'd like support with document review and verification in your practice, VerifyAct has tools built for that.