How to record which fee earner checked what before completion
When something goes wrong after a deed completes, the question is always: who checked this? If the matter file can't answer that, the problem is yours to defend.
Why it matters who verified what
In any practice with more than one person working a matter, pre-completion review rarely falls to a single pair of hands. A paralegal might run through the ID documents, a trainee checks the title documents, and the fee earner reviews everything before the deed is signed. The problem comes when a discrepancy surfaces after completion and nobody can recall who saw it.
Without a record of who checked each piece of information — and when — the matter file cannot answer that question. Not because the checks weren't done, but because no one recorded them.
Recording verification isn't box-ticking. It's the only way the matter file can demonstrate the work was done.
What the matter file needs to show
No complex system is required. For each check carried out before completion, the file needs to be able to answer three questions:
- What was checked? The specific piece of information: full name, ID number, expiry date, property description, scope of authority in a power of attorney.
- Who checked it? The name or initials of the person who ran the check — not just the fee earner who will oversee the matter.
- When? The date, and if the deed is completing the same day, the time.
Applied consistently across the pre-completion review, those three elements turn a checklist into a traceable record.
How to build it into the workflow without creating extra work
The mistake most practices make is designing a separate verification form that nobody fills in. Verification records work best when they live inside the existing review workflow, not alongside it.
If you use a paper or digital checklist: add a column for initials and date next to each item. The person completing the check signs off with their initials and the date. By the time the file reaches the fee earner for sign-off, it's clear exactly what was checked, by whom, and when.
If you coordinate review by email: the email thread is already an implicit record, but it isn't organised. Ask team members to confirm checks in explicit terms: "Confirmed — client name and ID number on the contract match the passport." That line, saved to the matter file, is adequate record.
If you work alone: the same principle applies. Record each check as you carry it out, not from memory at the end. A timestamped note ("14:22 — name checked against passport, consistent") is more defensible than an undated tick at the end of a list.
When to make the record
Timing matters as much as the record itself. A note written hours after the review reconstructs memory rather than documenting a check.
The practice that works: record each item at the point of verification, before moving to the next. If the review is interrupted, note how far you got before stopping.
This is especially important when there are last-minute changes. If a revised document arrived on the morning of completion and you ran an abbreviated review, that fact should appear in the file: "Final version received 09:45. Check limited to amended sections: property description and purchase price. Checked by: S.P."
The reviewer's sign-off isn't optional
In many practices, the only signature in the matter file is the fee earner who authorised or supervised the transaction. That leaves a gap: the file shows who signed off, but not who actually ran the verification.
Where more than one person handles the review, the file should reflect that. Not to spread responsibility in a confusing way, but to make the record accurate.
A single line at the end of the checklist is enough: "Review completed by [name], [date]. Checked by [name], [date]."
When part of the check happens at completion itself
Sometimes there isn't time for a full pre-completion review and some checks happen in the room during the signing itself — verifying a client's ID while they're present, for example. In those cases the record can't be made beforehand, but it should be made immediately afterwards.
Before the matter file is closed after the appointment, note what was checked during the meeting and who did it. Even a single line: "ID checked in person at completion by [name]. Date and time: [date/time]."
That delayed record is still better than none, provided it's made before the detail of that appointment blurs into the next.
The file is the only witness
If a matter becomes contentious later, the file is the only account of how the review was carried out. A check that was done but not recorded is, as far as the file is concerned, a check that didn't happen.
Verification records don't prevent errors — errors happen even when everything is logged. What they do is establish what was checked, with what information available at the time, and who was responsible for each step.
That's what the matter file needs to be able to show.
If you'd like support with document review and verification in your practice, VerifyAct has tools built for that.