A half-day, hands-on programme that turns hours of suitability reports and file notes into minutes — so you can spend more time with clients and less on admin. Tool-agnostic and built for real advice workflows.
The average IFA spends more time on suitability reports and file notes than on clients. AI eliminates the administrative burden so you can focus where it counts. Tool-agnostic, and designed to complement the platforms your practice already uses.
All sector programme prices exclude VAT at 20% · Virtual or in-person across Oxfordshire and the UK
This is the first thing every adviser asks about, because it is where the hours go. The honest answer has two halves, and the distinction matters more here than in any other sector we train.
AI is genuinely good at the writing. Turning your file notes and recommendation into clear, well-structured prose. Explaining a complex product in language a client will actually understand — which, given the Consumer Duty expectation that communications support informed decisions, is a compliance benefit rather than just a convenience. Producing consistent structure across a team so reports do not vary by whoever drafted them. Rewriting a dense paragraph three times until it is plain.
What it cannot do is the advice. The suitability assessment, the judgement about whether this recommendation fits this client's circumstances, objectives, knowledge and capacity for loss — that is yours, it is regulated, and no drafting tool changes where it sits. A model asked to fill a gap will produce something plausible, and a plausible-but-wrong sentence in a suitability report is a serious problem rather than an editing error.
So the workflow is: you make the assessment and the recommendation, the tool helps you express it, and you read every word before it goes near a client or a compliance file. Firms that work that way report the drafting time falling substantially without the review burden rising. Firms that hope the tool will do the thinking find out why it cannot.
Advice firms hold some of the most sensitive personal data there is: financial positions, family circumstances, health information for protection business, sometimes details of a divorce or a bereavement. Under UK GDPR, health data is special category data and carries a higher bar. That makes the tooling question unavoidable and simpler than people fear.
Identifiable client information does not go into consumer-grade AI accounts. Full stop. If AI is going to touch client material, it needs to be in an environment with terms your compliance function has read, where you know whether inputs are used for training, where data residency and retention are documented, and where access is controlled and logged.
A great deal of the value, though, needs no client data at all. Explaining a product clearly. Drafting template communications. Turning a technical concept into client-friendly wording. Producing content and prospecting material. Summarising a document you are allowed to share. We spend time in the session on anonymising properly — which is harder than deleting the name — and on where the boundary genuinely sits, so the team is neither reckless nor paralysed.
Advisers ask whether using AI creates a regulatory problem. Used carelessly, yes. Documented properly, it tends to improve the file rather than weaken it, because it forces the review step to be explicit.
Three things are worth having in place. A written note of which tools are approved for what, so nobody is improvising with a client file. A record that a named adviser reviewed and approved any AI-assisted output before it was issued — this single record converts an AI drafting error into an ordinary human error inside a controlled process. And a short line in your training records showing the team was briefed, because the difference between a defensible position and an awkward one is usually documentation rather than intention.
It is also worth raising with your professional indemnity insurer and your compliance support before you scale it up rather than after. Most will have a view, and it is a far easier conversation in advance.
This page is general information about training, not regulatory or legal advice. Your own obligations depend on your permissions, your firm's arrangements and your compliance framework.
You can use it to draft and improve the writing, not to make the assessment. AI is genuinely strong at turning your file notes and recommendation into clear, consistent, readable prose — which supports the Consumer Duty expectation that clients can understand what they are being told. The suitability judgement itself remains the adviser's, and every word needs reading before it reaches a client or the file, because a model asked to fill a gap will produce something plausible rather than admit it does not know.
Not into consumer-grade accounts. Advice firms hold financial, family and often health data, and health data is special category data under UK GDPR. If AI is to touch client material it needs an environment your compliance function has reviewed, with known terms on training, retention and data residency. A lot of the value — clearer product explanations, template communications, content — needs no client data at all.
Not inherently, but it needs documenting. Keep a written note of which tools are approved for which tasks, record that a named adviser reviewed and approved any AI-assisted output before issue, and keep a simple training record. That review record is the important one: it places an AI drafting error inside a controlled human process. Discuss it with your compliance support and PI insurer before scaling up rather than afterwards.
The largest gains are in report drafting, meeting write-ups and client correspondence — the writing rather than the advising. Firms that set it up properly find drafting time falls substantially while review time holds steady, because the adviser is editing clear prose rather than composing from scratch. The saving is real but it comes from the writing layer, not from shortcutting the assessment.
Yes, and it is often the most immediately popular use. Structured write-ups from your own notes, action points extracted properly, follow-up letters drafted the same day rather than the following week. If you are considering recording or transcribing client meetings, handle the consent and data questions first — that is a data protection decision before it is a tooling one.
The half-day session for up to 8 people is £2,299 +VAT live online or in person at your offices. Takeaway materials and 30 days of follow-up support are included, and in-person delivery is a small difference rather than a travel surcharge.
10 minutes. No commitment. We'll talk through your advice process and tailor the session to your practice.