DR Solicitors strengthens corporate healthcare offering with appointment of new partner
Specialist healthcare law firm DR Solicitors has announced the appointment of Paul Edels as a Partner, further enhancing its national corporate healthcare practice and expanding its expertise across the dental, pharmacy, and care home sectors.
With more than 15 years’ experience as a corporate healthcare lawyer, Paul joins from Bermans and acts for both buyers and sellers in a wide range of corporate and asset transactions. His work spans dental practice sales and acquisitions, pharmacy and care home transactions, and corporate restructures, as well as associate dentist contracts, partnership and shareholder disputes, and procurement matters.
Paul’s experience extends beyond healthcare into advising corporate purchasers and sellers across multiple industries, including construction, care homes, opticians and nurseries. He also represents healthcare providers in complex dispute matters, such as procurement challenges and claims against the NHS Business Services Authority.
Drawing on his background in investment and product development, Paul takes a commercially pragmatic approach to legal advice – combining technical precision with real-world understanding.
Paul will lead the firm’s Corporate Healthcare Team, supported by senior corporate paralegal Paul Rabbette, to further strengthen the firm’s capabilities in handling complex transactions and strategic advisory work across all healthcare disciplines.
Daphne Robertson, Founder and Partner at DR Solicitors, said: “Paul’s deep sector knowledge and extensive experience in corporate healthcare make him an exceptional addition to our firm. His appointment reinforces our commitment to providing the highest level of specialist legal advice to healthcare professionals and organisations nationwide. With his expertise across dentistry, pharmacy, and care homes, Paul will play a pivotal role in supporting our clients and expanding our national reach.”
Paul Edels, Partner at DR Solicitors, added: DR Solicitors is a firm recognised for its exceptional focus and reputation in healthcare law. The opportunity to work alongside such a highly respected team allows me to continue supporting clients across the healthcare sector with the commercial insight and legal rigour they need to thrive.”
Headquartered in Guildford, DR Solicitors advises healthcare professionals across the UK. The firm acts for more than 2,500 clinical practices, over 250 Primary Care Networks and numerous healthcare institutions and LMCs nationally.
Paul’s appointment comes after DR Solicitors recently reported its average annual growth of consultants at more than 40 per cent year-on-year, taking the total to 26. DR Solicitors was one of the first legal firms to develop a consultant-based operating model and has also been on of the first to integrate into a multi-disciplinary business advisory group.
DR Solicitors is part of the Dow Schofield Watts Group, following its acquisition in November 2024. The Group supports ambitious owner-managed businesses with deal advisory, tax, investment, business recovery, and legal services.

News
Applying for a UMF Grant (Utilisation and Modernisation Fund)? A guide for GP Practices
The NHS Primary Care Utilisation and Modernisation Fund (UMF) provides much needed capital investment to improve the standard of GP practice premises. With more than £100 million earmarked for 2025/26, GP practices are successfully applying for UMF Grant money. But from a legal perspective, exercise care! Understanding the terms of these UMF Grant agreements is critical so you know where liability and risk sits, as well as avoiding funding clawbacks or disputes over property rights.
Why Take Legal advice?
UMF Grants come with strict conditions. No money is free! You need to understand what the terms of the Grant are including risk and liability, the position on clawback, and how the UMF Grant sits alongside any existing bank finance you may have taken out on the surgery premises. Misunderstanding or overlooking certain Grant obligations could lead to serious issues, such as breaches of Grant terms, conflicts with existing lease obligations or mortgages, and difficulties when partners change.
Key Details
The 2025/26 funding round requires projects to be fully completed by March 2026, with a focus on refurbishing and reconfiguring existing Surgery premises. Technology-only solutions or entirely new builds will not qualify.
There are 3 UMF Grant scenarios – which of these apply to you?
1. UMF Funding exceeds £144,000 and relates to freehold property
Documentation: Freehold UMF Grant Agreement with a Legal Charge, Certificate of Title and a Deed of Priority will be required if the property is already charged to a bank. Note: This can raise practical challenges for GP practices with existing bank lending arrangements if NHS England takes a legal charge over the premises.
2. UMF Funding exceeds £144,000 and relates to leasehold property
Documentation: Leasehold Grant Agreement and Certificate of Title. GP Practices should check whether lease terms permit structural alterations or upgrades and obtain landlord consent where required. Note: that a Surgery lease must be in place to secure the UMF Grant money.
3. UMF Funding is less than £144,000 and relates to freehold or leasehold property
Documentation: Short Form Grant Agreement
What This Means for GP Practices
UMF Grant agreements are legally binding contracts; not simply administrative formalities. They govern how money can be spent, how changes to projects must be approved, and what protections are in place in the event of changing circumstances.
Practical Steps GP Practices Can Take
- Check Property Ownership – review HM Land Registry entries to confirm all current partners are correctly listed, and update where necessary. Ask your solicitor to expedite any pending HM Land Registry application
- Secure Third-Party Consents – obtain approval from landlords and mortgage lenders before starting works.
- Review Your Partnership Agreement and/or Declaration of Trust Deed – ensure they reflect how capital improvements are to be treated between current and future partners. For example, if improvements enhance the value of a surgery building, your Partnership Agreement or Declaration of Trust Deed should make it clear on how this ‘benefit’ is treated if property –owning partners retire and are bought out, or new partners join the partnership and buy-in. The grant money should be treated in the same way as you have historically documented how NHS improvement grants were treated
- Prepare a Compliant Business Case – align your Project Initiation Document (PID) with ICB priorities and national guidance to avoid rejection.
- Grant Agreement Changes – it might say on the front page that the Grant Agreement is not open to negotiation, but it is, so take professional advice early!
The Utilisation and Modernisation Fund presents a significant opportunity for GP practices. By taking legal advice at the outset, practices can ensure they secure the benefits of the Grant money while avoiding costly pitfalls.
How DR Solicitors can help
If you’re a GP practice looking to benefit from the UMF, contact DR Solicitors today to navigate the Grant terms with expert advice.

News
Why I chose to replace big law with consultancy work
Elizabeth Duan, director of legal services at DR Solicitors, shares how stepping away from a career in large law firms and becoming a consultant has enabled her to shape her career with both ambition and flexibility.
After qualifying as a solicitor in 2014 I practiced in commercial real estate for a decade. I trained and worked at a few large corporate firms, advising on everything from care home developments to restaurant chain administrations and film studio deals. The work was complex and rewarding and taught me what it means to be a solicitor.
Despite the experience that came with working in a large corporate, it wasn’t without challenges. At any moment, I was expected to be an expert across multiple sectors which, despite giving me a breadth of knowledge, left me feeling that I was lacking the opportunity to carve out my own specialisms.
The ceiling of big law
When I started my career, I made a goal to reach senior associate. Making partner wasn’t something that particularly appealed to me – it’s no secret that in these firms your work can very quickly take over your life, with early starts, late finishes into the early hours and constant targets all leaving very little time outside of work for anything else.
I made senior associate in between having two children. After returning from maternity leave with my second child and at the end of 2023, I left private practice as I knew that I needed something different, and after doing some research, I found out more about the consultancy model and, subsequently, DR Solicitors. The opportunities this model presented felt like the perfect fit for me and the lifestyle I wanted to shape.
Benefits of consultancy work
I joined DR Solicitors in January 2024 and haven’t looked back since. For the first time in my legal career, I had true flexibility to structure my work. The cases I work on at DR Solicitors are still challenging and nuanced, and as legally complex as the corporate deals that I worked on at the big firms, but they also come with the opportunity to focus on the areas that interest me and hone my specialisms.
The consultancy model gives me stimulating work that I am passionate about, without the rigid structures and sacrifices that come with big law. With two children, this flexibility is invaluable to me, and I no longer feel that I must choose between career progression and quality time with my family.
Progression that you can shape
After starting at DR Solicitors as a consultant solicitor, I am now the director of legal services at the firm and get to oversee the day-to-day operations of the firm with the responsibilities of managing our team of consultant solicitors, client relations, risk and compliance, implementing effective processes and driving new business generation.
Leaving the traditional route sharpened my ambition and made me more determined to create a career that challenged me professionally, while giving me the flexibility to carve out time for other aspects of my life that I value – my family and advocacy work for women’s rights.
I now get to harness the entrepreneurial drive that I’ve always had, channelling it into the running of the business, from management of a team to strategic decisions. In a big firm, these opportunities are traditionally only reserved for partners.
And unlike a large city firm, DR Solicitors provides consultants with a steady workflow and trusts us to focus on delivering expert advice to clients, without the pressures of billable hour targets or bringing in new clients.
Why the consultancy model works
Being a consultant allows experienced lawyers to work independently, shape their working days and have control over their careers. At DR Solicitors, we recruit experienced lawyers and provide a platform for those seeking more autonomy, while still being technically challenged. Most of our consultants don’t join us with experience as a contractor, but the model and framework ensure that they get the support they need to run their own business as a consultant. All of this means that it’s rare our consultants go back to big law after joining us.
Deciding to step away from big law and into consultancy isn’t a step back, but a route to a sustainable, successful and rewarding legal career.
How DR Solicitors can help
For more information or a free, no obligation call with one of the DR Solicitors team, please contact us.

News
Freedom and flexibility attract top legal talent to DR Solicitors
Healthcare legal specialist DR Solicitors has announced significant growth in its consultant network, underlining the popularity of its consultancy-led model.
The firm has reported the average annual growth of consultants at more than 40 per cent year-on-year, with a jump of a quarter in the last two months, bringing the total number to 26.
According to the Atlas report by Codex Edge, just 17 per cent of individuals joining UK-based platform firms were hired from UK Top 100 law firms last year. DR Solicitors is bucking that trend and consistently attracting top talent from these prestigious City firms, now making up 85 per cent of its team. Other consultants have often held partner or department-head roles, bringing deep sector expertise and experience.
Founded in 2003 as one of the UK’s first consultancy-led legal practices, DR Solicitors guides healthcare professionals through legal and regulatory complexity. Its pioneering platform model provides all the projects and support consultants need to thrive, while removing administrative burdens, enabling them to focus on delivering high-quality work with the freedom and autonomy to work the way they want.
The firm’s growth has accelerated since its acquisition by business advisory platform Dow Schofield Watts (DSW) in November 2024. Bringing together additional scale and resources, the partnership combines two pioneering platform-based models, providing consultants at DR with enhanced opportunities while strengthening DSW’s multidisciplinary offer.
Daphne Roberston, Founder of DR Solicitors, said: “We have been consulting-led from day one. Our model is unique in that we don’t expect our consultants to generate any of their own leads, nor be responsible for billing, compliance or admin. With 85 per cent of our solicitors having previously worked at Magic, Silver Circle and top-tier law firms, we truly are home to the brightest and best legal minds in the country.
“The rapid growth in our consultant base reflects the enduring appeal of this model and the strength of our reputation in the healthcare legal sector. With the backing of DSW, we are well placed to continue this trajectory.”
Elizabeth Duan joined as a consultant in 2024 before being appointed as DR Solicitors’ Director of Legal Services. She commented: “Having spent over a decade practising in the City as a commercial real estate specialist, I initially joined DR Solicitors as a consultant solicitor. This unique model gave me the chance to deliver the work I enjoy without the distractions of traditional practice.
“Beyond the freedom and flexibility the DR model offers, what stood out was the supportive culture and focus on excellence, which ultimately inspired me to take on a leadership role as COO. It’s an approach that attracts exceptional lawyers because it truly works.”

News
Understanding the UK Arbitration Act 2025: What It Means for General Practitioners
The Arbitration Act 2025 (AA2025) introduces substantial updates to the long-standing Arbitration Act 1996, bringing changes particularly relevant to General Practitioners (GPs) across the UK. As arbitration remains a preferred method of dispute resolution in GP Partnership Agreements, understanding the implications of this legislation is essential for protecting your practice, preserving confidentiality, and managing conflicts effectively.
Why Arbitration Matters for GPs
Arbitration is frequently chosen in GP Partnership Agreements because it offers a private alternative to court proceedings. For GPs, who often maintain respected public profiles within their communities, this privacy is not merely a preference but a necessity. The Arbitration Act 2025 enhances the appeal of arbitration by streamlining processes and reinforcing legal safeguards.
Key Updates for 2025
The Arbitration Act 2025 introduces several important reforms aimed at improving the efficiency and fairness of arbitration proceedings:
- Summary Disposal of Claims: Arbitrators now possess clear authority to dismiss claims or defences that lack merit. This new mechanism aids in reducing time and legal costs by swiftly eliminating weak or vexatious cases.
- Court Powers Over Third Parties: Courts can now exercise authority over third parties not involved in the arbitration, streamlining dispute management.
- Expanded Duty of Disclosure: Arbitrators must disclose any potential conflicts of interest to ensure impartiality and trust in the arbitration process.
What This Means for GP Practices
The Arbitration Act 2025 has practical and strategic implications for GP partners and practice managers:
- Enhanced Confidentiality
Arbitration remains a highly confidential process. The updates in the Arbitration Act 2025 assist GPs in continuing to resolve disputes without the publicity and reputational risks associated with court hearings.
- Greater Efficiency and Cost Savings
The ability to quickly dispose of weak claims means disputes can be resolved more efficiently, saving GP practices valuable time, money, and disruption.
- Improved Trust
The Act’s emphasis on transparency and impartiality enhances arbitration as a reliable tool for resolving internal partnership disputes, where maintaining working relationships is often critical.
Practical Steps for GPs
- Review your partnership agreements: Ensure your arbitration clauses are fully aligned with the new provisions under the Arbitration Act 2025.
- Understand Disclosure Duties: Familiarise yourself with the enhanced duties of arbitrators and how they might affect current or future disputes.
- Seek Expert Guidance: Legal guidance is crucial to ensure your practice is fully leveraging arbitration under the new legal framework.
How DR Solicitors can help
If you’re a GP or practice manager, now is the time to revisit your dispute resolution strategies. Contact DR Solicitors today to ensure your partnership agreements are compliant with the Arbitration Act 2025 and tailored to protect your practice’s best interests.

News
Podcast: David Sinclair on the threat of cyber-attacks on GP Practices and steps to take now
With the threat of cyber-attacks on the rise, coupled with a quickly evolving policy landscape when it comes to GDPR, data protection and information security, our Information Law Solicitor, David Sinclair, discusses with Ockham Healthcare what practices should be doing now to ready themselves, who should take responsibility for this critical area of work, and what to expect going forwards.

News
Trusts in Primary Care: Do you need to register with the Trust Registration Service?
Regular readers of our blog will be aware of the Trust Registration Service and the recent requirement to register all ‘express trusts’. DR Solicitors have recently worked with the GPDF to help prepare guidance on the various trust relationships which exist in primary care, and the circumstances under which such trusts may be registerable. The guidance can be found in full on the GPDF website.
The guidance explains:
“A trust is a legal relationship by which one or more ‘Trustees’ hold and manage assets (such as money, investments, land or buildings) on behalf of one or more other people (the ‘Beneficiaries’), and may be created (whether expressly or by operation of law) for convenience or through necessity.
There are a significant number of trust relationships in primary care, generally created by necessity as a substitute for a ‘missing entity’ – particularly in the case of GP partnerships and Primary Care Networks (PCNs). The most common of these trust relationships relate to the ownership of a practice’s surgery, a PCN’s Bank Account, and shares held by GP partnerships in Federations or PCN companies.
Express trusts and taxable non-express trusts must now be registered with the Trust Registration Service (TRS), but the majority of such trusts in primary care settings will be able to benefit from an exemption for “public authorities” and will not need to be registered. In addition, a smaller number of such trusts will be able to benefit from an exemption for “legislative trusts”. It is therefore likely that only a small residual minority of primary care related trusts will need to register with the TRS.”
We recommend that all practices and PCNs read through the guidance to ensure that their particular trusts are likely to be covered by one of the exemptions, and for the minority of trust relationships which are not exempted to seek support from their professional advisers to assist in the registration process.

News
PCN sub-contracting: new NHS template and factors to consider
NHS England have recently published a template sub-contract for PCN DES services https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/subcontract-for-the-provision-of-services-related-to-the-network-contract-directed-enhanced-service-2022-23/
Many PCNs do not seem to realise that when buying in clinical services (as opposed to employing ARRS resources themselves) member practices are creating a sub-contract of their GMS/PMS/APMS contracts. This is true whether the supplier is a GP Federation, a PCN Company or an entirely separate third party.
Most PCNs rely on securing at least some of their resourcing from these providers, and yet many PCNs seem relaxed about documenting this significant relationship through informal SLAs, supplier provided contracts, wording in their PCN Schedules or in some cases, leaving the arrangement completely undocumented. In reality these sub-contracts are critically important in managing the risks for member practices, as a service delivery problem with a sub-contractor can lead directly to a breach of the GMS/PMS/APMS contracts of all the member practices. Having a poorly drafted or non-existent agreement might itself constitute a breach, since practices are required to include a number of important obligations in all sub-contracts to comply with their own contracts.
With the imminent transfer of responsibility for Enhanced Access, many PCNs will be looking to continue this service with the current providers, at least for the time being. This arrangement will also be a sub-contract and it may not be possible to continue the service provision in exactly the same way as before due to regulatory constraints. As a minimum however, a proper sub-contract should be put in place, and for those who have not already done so, the new NHS template PCN sub-contract would probably be a good starting point.
PCNs should bear in mind however that the published document is just a template, and like all templates it needs to be populated and tailored to the particular situation. It also needs to be amended to reflect the different requirements of each party: put bluntly, practices will want to ensure that as many of their risks as possible are passed on the sub-contractor, and the sub-contractor will want to achieve the opposite. It is important that this is taken into account when completing and negotiating the agreement. It is important to remember that, unlike GMS or PMS contracts, PCN sub-contracts are negotiable, need to be negotiated with the supplier, and the template might not suit all circumstances.
Whether or not you use the new template as a starting point, we would strongly recommend that you take specialist advice on all sub-contracting arrangements before entering into them.
For further information on sub-contracting or on any other legal issues, please contact Nils Christiansen on 01483 511555 or email enquiries@drsolicitors.com

News
How might the new Trust rules impact primary care?
The Trust Register was introduced in 2017 and at that time, no registration was required for those trusts which did not pay tax. New rules were introduced on 6 October 2020 as part of anti-money laundering and counter terrorism measures, which significantly extended the scope of the register. The deadline for registration is 1 September 2022, however the situation is complex and HMRC have only recently issued guidance on how the new rules will apply.
On the face of it, many practices and PCNs may unfortunately get impacted by the new rules. The underlying problem is that neither partnerships nor PCNs are legal entities which are capable of holding assets in their own name which forces them to hold assets in the names of nominees. In normal circumstances this nominee arrangement would be a ‘trust’ relationship, and therefore potentially subject to the new rules.
The three most obvious examples where trusts are commonly used by primary care medical practices are:
- GP Surgery premises where partners jointly own the freehold or long leasehold building(s):
- Shares held by a GP partnership in a GP Federation or PCN company
- PCN nominated bank accounts where a practice is holding funds on behalf of other PCN member practices
It is important to state that the position is still unclear and there is currently conflicting advice available. DR Solicitors are therefore contributing to the production of some national guidance for primary care, which we hope will be issued soon.
One of the reasons that the issue is receiving a great deal of publicity is that there are financial and criminal penalties for failing to register. However we would direct concerned practices to the website of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales which contains some helpful information from HMRC on initial failure to Register or late registration:
In recognition of the fact that the registration requirement is a new and unfamiliar obligation for many trustees, there will be no penalty for a first offence of failure to register or late registration of a trust. The exception is when that failure is shown to be due to deliberate behaviour on the part of the trustees. In that case, or where there are repeated failures, a £5,000 penalty may be charged per offence.
In practice, this means that, should HMRC become aware of a trust which has not been registered by the relevant deadline – either because that trust has been registered late or because HMRC has identified that trust’s existence by other means – HMRC may issue a warning letter to the trustee or agent. It would usually only charge a penalty if that letter were not acted on.
The website contains other relevant information and can be accessed at: https://www.icaew.com/insights/tax-news/2022/aug-2022/hmrc-updates-trs-manual-in-advance-of-1-september-deadline
We will be issuing more guidance on this subject very soon, so please stay subscribed to the blog.

News
Should GPs worry about Directors’ Liability?
When we incorporate PCNs or GP practices, one of the most common questions from concerned GPs relates to the liability they might pick up if they become a director of the incorporated company. In this blog, we look at how real the risks are to company directors, and whether or not you need be concerned.
Financial risk
At a very basic level, it is worth remembering that liability is limited in companies but is unlimited in partnerships. So, if a partnership has assets of £60,000 and £100,000 of creditors, then the partners have personal liability for the shortfall. If a company has assets of £60,000 and £100,000 of liabilities, then the directors can liquidate the company, whereupon the £60,000 of assets are sold and the proceeds distributed to the creditors, leaving the creditors short by £40,000. In other words, in a partnership structure the partners lose out if there are insufficient assets, whereas in a company structure the creditors lose out. This is the very essence of limited liability and is why limited companies come with more onerous rules than unlimited partnerships.
In the above scenario, the shareholders of the company will have no liability: if shareholders could be liable for a company’s debts then neither stock exchanges nor pension funds would exist. Directors could theoretically have liability for some or all of the shortfall, but in practice this is extremely unlikely. However, the likelihood of a partner being held liable for the shortfall in a partnership is 100%.
Directors can incur personal liability to creditors in certain circumstances if the company is insolvent, but such liability only arises in situations which go beyond negligence and into the realms of recklessness or crime. One of those circumstances is fraud, which speaks for itself. The other is wrongful trading, which occurs when a company continues to trade when it has “no reasonable prospect” (which wording sets quite a high bar) of avoiding going into insolvent liquidation or insolvent administration. An example of this in a normal trading company might be continuing to take customer orders and customer money when there is no realistic chance of the orders being met because the company is insolvent. Again, the liability which a director would have in such circumstances is no greater than a partner of a partnership would have in identical circumstances, whilst the hurdles which a creditor would have to overcome to enforce a claim against the director would be considerably higher than in enforcing them against a partner.
By moving trading activity from a partnership of which you are a partner to a company of which you are a director, you are invariably reducing your risk of personal liability very significantly.
Breach of fiduciary duties
So what other liabilities might a company director be opening themselves up to? In law, there are seven fiduciary duties set out in statute:
- to act within powers;
- to promote the success of the company;
- to exercise independent judgment;
- to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence;
- to avoid conflicts of interest;
- not to accept benefits from third parties; and
- to declare any interest in a proposed transaction or arrangement with the company.
To a director who is familiar with these duties in the context of a partnership, these hardly seem onerous and, most significantly, the duties are owed to the company itself, rather than to third parties. It would be the company itself, either through a majority of directors or through minority shareholder action, that would have to sue a director for breach of fiduciary duties. Whilst this is conceivable in a large, listed company, in a small private company which is run and owned by the same people, and in which decisions are made by majority, it is hard to conceive of a situation whereby it might occur.
When it comes to clinical negligence, a company can be liable for the actions of a director, but it is rare for a director to be capable of being held liable for the actions of the company unless the director has themselves done something negligent, in which case the liability arises by virtue of the director’s action rather than by virtue of them being a director. Corporate manslaughter is an exception to this principle, but for a director to be liable in respect of corporate manslaughter it would have to be established that the way in which the activities of the company were managed or organised caused someone’s death and amounted to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed to that person. Again, it is hard, if not impossible, to conceive of circumstances where a director of a company had more liability in identical circumstances than a partner of a partnership.
What steps can be taken to reduce the risk to directors?
A question we are often asked related to directors’ liability concerns directors’ and officers’ liability insurance (D&O Insurance). D&O Insurance first started to feature in the public awareness as a result of the various government-commissioned reports into corporate governance in the 1990s: the Cadbury Report, the Greenbury Report and the Hempel Report. These reports led to an increase in the number of non-executive directors being appointed by listed companies. As these non-executive directors usually had very limited supervisory roles, usually concerned with audit and director remuneration, but could potentially incur the same personal liability as ‘ordinary’ directors, they invariably insisted on companies taking out D&O Insurance on their behalf before they would accept appointments – simply by virtue of the enormous numbers involved in such companies. D&O Insurance in respect of a small private company, such as a PCN company or an incorporated GP practice, would be unusual as the directors invariably have a much greater understanding of the operations of a much simpler business. If however you are concerned about this residual directors liability you should speak with a specialist insurance broker about the risks more generally in primary care.
Conclusion
In summary, when you move trading activity from a partnership to a company you invariably end up reducing your potential personal liability. It is no surprise that well over three quarters of all businesses in the UK trade as limited companies, and the majority of the remainder trade as very small sole practitioners. Partnerships have their advantages, but reducing personal liability is not one of them.
If you have any questions on the topics covered in this blog or on any other legal issues, please contact Nils Christiansen on 01483 511555 or email enquiries@drsolicitors.com.