When Baggette & Company, a chartered financial planning firm in Poole, Dorset, found that DocuSign and post were slowing everyday secure client sends, the team looked for a route that would work for advisers and clients alike.
The firm trialled Mailock as a secure email alternative and kept Outlook as the send route for sensitive client communications.
Who Are They?
Baggette & Company is a family-run firm of independent financial advisers and chartered financial planners.
Based on the South Coast, they have served clients for over 20 years with a focus on holistic, long-term planning and trusted personal service.
Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the firm handles sensitive client data and prioritises confidentiality in everyday advice work.
The Challenge
Before Mailock, the team relied on DocuSign and post to send secure communications, even when a signature was not required.
Using DocuSign for everyday secure sends also meant paying signature-platform rates for single-page letters as well as larger form packs.
The workflow also gave advisers limited visibility over whether clients had opened important messages, and manual follow-ups added to the admin burden.
Many sensitive client sends did not need a signature workflow at all.
The team wanted recipient authentication, clearer send evidence, and a simpler client experience without asking people to create portal accounts.
The Solution
Joanna Hjalmas and the team trialled Mailock as a secure alternative. Mailock integrated into their existing Outlook workflows with little disruption for advisers.
No extra logins and no new tools to learn. Secure emails could be sent in just a few clicks through the Mailock Add-in for Outlook.
Unlike portals or file transfer applications, clients did not need separate authentication apps or accounts to open documents.
Recipients could open messages using a question-and-answer check or SMS verification, while advisers could use Message Tracker to see when secure messages had been accessed.
"It was clear from the first demonstration that Mailock would be a better solution.
It was easy to integrate, slick for our team to use, and our clients found it simple to access.
It just made sense - secure, efficient, and cost-effective."
Joanna Hjalmas, Managing Director, Baggette & Company
The Outcome
Since rolling out Mailock, the Baggette & Company team have reported smoother workflows for sensitive client communications, lower send costs compared with DocuSign for non-signature messages, and stronger client uptake among people who dislike clunky logins.
Mailock also helps the firm add safeguards and evidence around sensitive communications, supporting data protection expectations under UK GDPR.
Could This Work In Your Organisation?
Book a Mailock demo to talk through your current email process, the data you send, and where extra controls could help.
Book a Mailock demo
With most clients now comfortable with digital communication, secure email is helping the firm meet expectations for modern service without sacrificing security.
"Adviser firms tell us the practical test is whether clients can open documents quickly and whether the team can see what happened next. Mailock is built for that everyday secure email workflow."
Carole Howard, Head of Networks, Beyond Encryption (Mailock)
For firms reviewing secure email alongside signature tools, the decision usually comes down to which workflow each client message needs.
FAQs
Why Was DocuSign Not the Right Fit for Every Client Send?
The case study shows that not every sensitive document exchange needs an e-signature workflow, especially when advisers mainly need secure delivery.
What Made Outlook-Based Secure Email Useful?
Keeping Outlook as the sending route reduced workflow change while adding secure access for client documents.
What Should Advice Firms Consider When Replacing Post?
Check which documents need signature, which need secure delivery, and how each option affects clients, advisers, cost, and evidence.
References
Guide to the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), Information Commissioner's Office, 2025
Reviewed by
Sam Kendall, 28.05.26
This content is for general information only and is not legal advice.