Consent & Medico-Legal Excellence
Most consent in UK private practice is built around a signed form. But the law judges you by a different set of standards. It does not ask whether a form was signed; it asks whether a real consultation happened: the material risks tailored to this patient, the reasonable alternatives discussed, time to reflect, and a contemporaneous record that proves it. The fallacy is assuming that a signed consent form, and the governance procedures you already have, are enough. Cleritas helps you reach that standard of care, through training, audits, governance systems built end to end, and a retainer that means you are supported throughout the complaints process.
A signature is not consent. Claims are rarely lost on the clinical outcome, they are lost on what was, and wasn't, written down. When the letter arrives, two years after the treatment, the only witness that never forgets is your governance process: the record, the photographs, the timed messages, the proof the conversation ever happened.
Exhibit A
The same patient, the same delayed-onset nodule, the same solicitor's letter. Drag the seam to change the paperwork, and the ending.
Claim-cost example: Hamilton Fraser aesthetic claims data, 2025.
Drag the seam · hover any line to hear how it reads in court
The Problem
Montgomery v Lanarkshire (2015) changed the legal test: consent is no longer what a reasonable doctor would disclose, it is what a reasonable patient would want to know, and what this patient in front of you would attach significance to.
Signing a consent form is not the legal requirement. The requirement is the consent process, and the record is what proves that process happened. So how much does a signature on a generic form actually prove? On its own, very little.
This is a long way from where the law began. Before Bolam v Friern (1957), the doctor's word was effectively unquestioned; Bolam made "a responsible body of medical opinion" the yardstick, and Montgomery moved that judgement to the patient. A claim still needs a clinical shortfall to get off the ground, but whether it becomes a claim, and whether it succeeds, is decided by the record. If yours shows a dialogue, tailored risks, the alternatives weighed and time to reflect, the claim struggles. If it shows a tick-box, the negotiation starts at your expense.
This is the ground our medico-legal expert witness, Professor Irfan Jeeva, works on every week, and the standard every Cleritas system is built to meet.
What Montgomery actually requires →
Claims are rarely driven by clinical error alone. Far more often they turn on unclear communication, a fragmented governance system, and a mismatch between what the patient expected and what they got.Reflecting Hamilton Fraser, on three decades of aesthetic claims data
The Numbers Behind the Risk
England's Licensing Scheme
In August 2025 the government confirmed a traffic-light licensing scheme for non-surgical cosmetic procedures. Consultation on the highest-risk tier began in summer 2026. The scheme is not expected to take full effect until around 2028, but the standards you will be judged against are being written now, which is exactly when it pays to get ahead of them.
Procedures such as microneedling and lighter chemical peels. Licensed practitioners meeting agreed standards, documentation still your first line of defence.
Botulinum toxin and dermal fillers land here. Local-authority licensing, with non-healthcare practitioners working under the oversight of a named regulated healthcare professional.
Procedures such as liquid BBLs restricted to suitably qualified healthcare professionals in CQC-registered settings. Draft regulations consulted on first, in 2026.
60-Second Self-Check
Five questions. No email required. Answer honestly, the only person who sees the result is you.
Choose Your Depth
Four ways in, one destination: a consent process that would stand up in front of a claimant solicitor, your regulator, and your insurer.
From £30 per template
From £95 per CPD place
From £495 per audit
From £249 per month
Cleritas provides education, documentation and coaching. We are not a law firm, an insurer or an indemnity provider, we make sure you get full value from yours.
The expertise behind it
Cleritas is clinician-founded and shaped with Professor Irfan Jeeva, Consultant Oculoplastic Surgeon and medico-legal expert witness. He has read the files from both sides of a claim, so the standards we teach are the ones that actually hold up when a case is examined.
"The consent form is not the legal requirement. The consent process is. The form is simply one of the ways you show the process was followed."Professor Irfan Jeeva, medico-legal expert witnessMeet the faculty →
Founding Cohort
Places in the founding cohort are limited because every consent system we build is clinician-reviewed. Join the waitlist for first access to workshop dates, the ophthalmology CPD programme and founding-member retainer pricing.
Sources
Figures are cited for illustration of sector-wide risk and are not specific to any named case. Anonymised insurer data is reported by the insurer and cannot be traced to an individual claim.