Conveyancing software: PEXA integration, identity checks and fraud controls

How does a file move from contract to settlement?

In electronic conveyancing the file lives in your matter system, and the settlement lives in an ELNO workspace. Most of the manual effort is moving information between the two and keeping the client informed. A typical purchase file looks like this:

1. Engagement. Costs agreement, client authorisation and verification of identity.
2. Contract review. The contract and its certificates are read, special conditions noted and the client advised.
3. Searches and enquiries. Ordered through InfoTrack or similar, results attached to the matter.
4. Exchange. Deposit arrangements confirmed, cooling off tracked where it applies.
5. Pre settlement. Requisitions, finance approval, the incoming mortgagee’s requirements and the settlement statement.
6. Workspace. The matter is opened in PEXA or Sympli, the parties join, figures are balanced and documents signed.
7. Settlement and after. Lodgment, notices to authorities and the client’s final report.

Each step generates messages: “has the bank sent the approval?”, “when is settlement?”, “what do you still need from me?” Answering those by hand on 60 open files is where hours go.

Matter system, searches and ELNO: who does what?

The matter system is the record, the search provider supplies the documents, and the ELNO runs the settlement. Custom software should connect them, not replace any of them.

Layer	Typical products	What it does well	Where the gaps are
Matter management	LEAP, Smokeball, Actionstep, Triconvey	Precedents, time, trust accounting, document storage	Client facing updates, views across all files, intake from third parties
Searches	InfoTrack	Title, planning and other searches into the matter	Summarising what the searches mean
Settlement	PEXA, Sympli	Workspaces, financial settlement, lodgment, PEXA Key for client bank details	Linking workspace status back to client communications

On interoperability: ARNECC worked for several years on letting ELNOs interoperate, so that parties on different networks could settle together. iTnews reported in June 2024 that ARNECC had paused the program because its financial services aspects were beyond the states’ remit, with PEXA holding about 90% of the market at the time. At the time of writing, ARNECC also notes that IPART has published a draft report on ELNO service fees. In practice, a single workspace still sits on one ELNO, and your systems should expect that.

Verification of identity under the participation rules

ARNECC’s Model Participation Rules require a subscriber to take reasonable steps to verify the identity of clients, mortgagors and signers, and to retain the evidence of those steps. At the time of writing the current version is Version 7, and a Version 8 consultation draft has been released.

The rules give two routes:

• Apply the Verification of Identity Standard in Schedule 8. It requires a face to face interview and set document checks. ARNECC says it isn’t mandatory, but if it is properly carried out, the subscriber is deemed to have taken reasonable steps.
• Verify identity some other way that constitutes reasonable steps. ARNECC’s April 2026 guidance on clients overseas lists options such as consular services, electronic verification of Australian documents and checking foreign documents against the issuing government’s website.

Guidance Note 2 also covers identity agents (who must apply the Standard if appointed as an Identity Agent) and when a previous verification within two years can be relied on.

What this means for software:

Requirement	Software feature
Record which route was used	A VOI record per person per matter, with the method chosen
Retain supporting evidence	Document copies, verification results and the interviewer’s notes stored against the record
Use of identity agents	Agent name, instructions given and the Standard applied
Reliance on an earlier verification	Date of the previous check and the steps taken to confirm it is the same person
Audit by the registrar	An export of every VOI record for a period

Payment redirection: controls software should enforce

Business email compromise is the fraud that turns a settlement into a loss: a scammer inside an inbox, or impersonating one, sends “updated” bank details just before money moves. Scamwatch’s advice is to stop and check any change to payee details, and to contact the business by phone on a number you sourced independently, not one from the email.

Good intentions fail at 4pm on settlement day, so the controls belong in the workflow:

• Clients are told in the engagement letter and every key email that you will never change bank details by email.
• Client bank details are collected through a secure channel such as PEXA Key, not email or PDF.
• Any change to a payee, from any party, locks the payment until a call back is recorded.
• The call back number comes from the matter record or an independent source, never the email requesting the change.
• The person who records the call back is not the person who requested the change.
• Multi factor authentication on email, the matter system and the ELNO for every user.
• An incident path that calls the bank immediately and assesses whether a notifiable data breach has occurred.

Our cybersecurity service covers email and account hardening, and the notifiable data breaches guide explains what to do if personal information is exposed.

What does a practice running many files need to see?

A principal running 50 to 200 open files needs one screen that answers three questions: what settles this week, what is blocking each file, and who is waiting on whom. Matter systems show one file at a time very well. They are weaker at the view across all of them, because the blocking information often sits outside the matter: a workspace that hasn’t been balanced, a bank that hasn’t confirmed its figures, an agent who hasn’t sent the deposit receipt.

A cross matter dashboard pulls those signals together. For each file it shows the settlement date, the days remaining, the outstanding items and the party responsible for each, and it sorts the list by risk rather than by matter number. Files with a changed payee awaiting call back, a missing VOI record or an unbalanced workspace within two days of settlement go to the top.

Document intake feeds the same view. Banks, agents and other practitioners send approvals, discharge authorities and receipts by email in many formats. Reading each one, matching it to the right matter and ticking off the outstanding item is routine work that software can do reliably, with exceptions sent to a person. The aim is that nobody on the team has to open an inbox to know where a file stands, and that the client update goes out when the item arrives, not when someone remembers.

Apportionments and settlement statements

Adjustments are arithmetic with many inputs: rates, water, strata levies and other outgoings, apportioned to the settlement date. Matter systems already calculate the common ones. Custom work helps when inputs arrive in many formats, for example reading council rates notices and strata certificates into structured figures, then flagging any figure that doesn’t match the workspace. Trust money still moves only through your trust account; in NSW the Conveyancers Licensing Act 2003 requires an annual audit for the year to 30 June, submitted by 30 September.

Where AI helps on a conveyancing file

AI is useful for reading and summarising volume, and for keeping clients informed, with the conveyancer reviewing anything that affects advice.

Use	What it does	Review needed
Contract and certificate summary	Lists parties, dates, special conditions, attached certificates and anything missing	Conveyancer checks before advising
Requisitions draft	Produces standard requisitions plus ones prompted by the contract	Conveyancer edits and sends
Document intake	Reads bank approvals, discharge authorities and agent emails into the matter	Spot checks, exceptions to staff
Client updates	Sends milestone messages from matter and workspace status	Templates approved once, then automatic

These are standard AI document processing patterns. Our AI for law firms page covers privilege and confidentiality controls for firms that also run other practice areas.

Typical builds and indicative costs

Most conveyancing builds are small to mid sized tools around the matter system. Expeed’s 2026 survey puts simple internal tools at $15,000 to $40,000 and mid complexity systems at $40,000 to $150,000 in Australia.

Build	Indicative range (AUD, ex GST)	Main drivers
Client update portal and automated milestone messages	$15k to $45k	Matter system API, channels (email, SMS), portal logins
AI contract and certificate summariser with human review	$25k to $60k	States covered, document types, accuracy testing
Bank detail verification and call back workflow	$10k to $30k	Integration with the matter system and payments process

These are market ranges, not quotes. For portal costs in more depth, see the customer portal guide.

How AWLabs approaches conveyancing projects

We start with your matter system and ELNO and check what their existing connectors already do. Every build starts with our Discovery Audit, a paid step credited in full against the build, followed by a fixed price Schedule of Work with three options: The Minimum, The Recommended and The Complete. Senior engineers lead every build, updates come every Tuesday and Friday in Sydney business hours, and the code and IP are assigned to you as they are paid for. We haven’t yet delivered a project for a conveyancing practice, and we are not a subscriber or an ELNO; your principal owns compliance with the participation rules. Start with a Development Consult, or see our API development service for integration work.