Client service

"Can I get help with the cost?" and the honest shape of the answer

Enquiries about funding arrive from people who have usually already been told no somewhere, or who assume the answer is no and are asking anyway. Both deserve the same thing: the actual criteria, in plain words, without either an encouraging guess or a discouraging shrug. The firm cannot tell them whether they qualify. It can tell them exactly what the question depends on, and that is most of what they came for.

The criteria are public, the outcome is not

Eligibility rests on things that are written down somewhere: the type of matter, income and capital thresholds, whether the case passes a merits test. An assistant can set all of that out accurately because it is published. What it cannot do is apply it, because applying it needs documents, verification and a judgement. Explaining a test is not predicting its result, and the wording has to keep those apart in every sentence.

Never estimate, and be careful even with ranges

A figure said out loud becomes a figure the enquirer plans around. "You would probably qualify" is the worst sentence in this category: it is unverifiable, it is remembered as a promise, and the disappointment lands on the firm rather than on the scheme. Even "most people in your situation" is a bet the assistant should not be placing.

Say what the alternatives are, because people stop asking

The enquirer who learns they are outside the scheme usually stops there and goes without advice entirely. Fixed fees, staged payments, a first appointment at a known cost, a pro-bono clinic, a union or insurer who may cover it: naming those in the same answer is the difference between a dead end and a route. This is also where a firm wins work it would otherwise never hear about.

Collect the facts the assessment will need anyway

Matter type, rough timeline, whether proceedings have started, whether anyone else is funding it. Gathering those in the first conversation means the person who assesses eligibility starts with something, and it means the enquirer is asked once rather than three times. Income figures are a different matter and belong in a proper form, not a chat window.

Frequently asked questions

Can an assistant tell someone whether they qualify for legal aid?
No. It can explain every criterion the decision rests on, which is published information, and it must not apply those criteria to the person asking. Eligibility needs verified documents and an assessment, and a guess in a chat window is remembered as a promise.
Is there any value in answering at all, then?
Considerable. Most people asking do not know what the test depends on, and knowing that is what lets them decide whether to apply, what to gather, and what to ask next. The failure mode here is not over-answering, it is answering so cautiously that nothing is conveyed.
What should it say to someone clearly outside the scheme?
What else exists. Fixed fees, staged payment, a first appointment at a stated price, clinics, and the possibility that an insurer or union already covers it. An enquirer told only "you do not qualify" generally goes without advice, and that is a worse outcome for them and a lost matter for the firm.
Should the assistant ask about income?
Not in a chat window. Matter type, timing and whether proceedings have begun are useful and harmless; income and capital figures belong in a form built for them, with the retention and access rules that implies.
Which languages can an enquirer use?
English, Hebrew and Russian, detected from the message. People asking whether they can afford a lawyer are the least likely to persist through a language barrier.

Get in touch

Leave your details and we will reply. You do not need a sales call to get an answer.