An injured adult who cannot conduct their own civil claim may need a litigation friend, but a relative does not automatically acquire that authority by becoming their carer or being named as next of kin. The starting point is a proper assessment of the person's ability to make the relevant decisions, with appropriate support. Representation, medical decisions and management of compensation can require different authority.
A brain injury, mental illness, learning disability or communication difficulty does not by itself establish lack of capacity. Nor does someone speaking fluently or managing familiar daily tasks prove that they can understand and weigh the decisions involved in substantial litigation. The question must fit the actual decision and the person's circumstances, rather than a label applied to their diagnosis.
This guide concerns an injury claim conducted through the civil courts of England and Wales. It explains what families can prepare, how conflicts should be identified and why capacity and authority need to be kept under review. Different legal systems require separate advice. The practical aim is to protect the person's claim while preserving as much of their own participation and decision-making as possible.
Decision-specific assessment: define what needs to be decided
Avoid the broad question of whether someone has capacity for everything
A person may make choices about daily purchases but struggle to weigh a settlement involving uncertain future care needs. Another person may need help communicating but understand the legal issues when information is presented accessibly. A useful assessment starts by identifying the decision or set of decisions under consideration. A general statement that somebody is confused does not answer whether they can conduct their litigation.
Prepare examples of the difficulties observed, with dates and context. Describe what happened when the person was asked to compare choices, understand a risk or remember relevant information. Avoid conclusions such as incapable of everything unless a qualified assessment supports a carefully defined finding. Practical observations help the assessor; a relative's legal conclusion can obscure the very detail that needs investigation.
The Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice provides the official England and Wales framework for applying the Act. The principles include starting from capacity and supporting decision-making rather than taking over simply because an adult makes a choice others dislike. Families should ask the solicitor how those principles will be applied to the particular litigation issue.
Identify the support that has already been tried
Before interpreting an unsuccessful conversation as inability, consider how the information was given. Was the person exhausted after therapy? Were several people speaking at once? Did the explanation rely on unfamiliar legal terms? Was an interpreter or communication aid needed? Record these circumstances because the quality of support can materially affect what a person is able to understand and express.
Possible adjustments include shorter appointments, written summaries, visual comparisons, breaks and communication at the time of day when the person functions best. These are examples to discuss with the professionals involved, not a prescribed assessment method. The objective is to identify effective support without rehearsing a desired answer or replacing the person's reasoning with a relative's explanation.
Keep a record of which adjustments helped and which did not. If a person understands a two-option explanation but becomes overwhelmed by a long document, that is useful information about presentation. It is not a reason to strip the decision of its real consequences. The solicitor and assessor need to ensure that accessible information still conveys the relevant choices and risks accurately.
An unwise decision is not the same as an inability to decide
A family may be distressed when an injured adult wants to reject advice, spend money differently or abandon a claim. That disagreement needs careful discussion, but it does not automatically justify appointing someone else to decide. The question is whether the person can make the decision with the relevant understanding and support, not whether relatives approve of the result.
Separate the outcome from the process. Ask what the person understands about the choices, what matters to them and why they prefer one course. A decision that appears financially unattractive may reflect a coherent wish to avoid further litigation. On the other hand, apparent agreement may be unreliable if the person cannot use or weigh the information and simply repeats the last suggestion they heard.
The statutory decision-making test in section 3 addresses understanding, retaining, using or weighing relevant information and communicating the decision. Its application requires proper assessment in context. A family questionnaire cannot determine legal capacity, and an online score should not be treated as a replacement for the assessment the case requires.
Litigation capacity and financial capacity are different questions
Conducting a claim involves more than recalling the accident
Someone may give a detailed account of an incident while struggling to understand the litigation choices that follow. A claim can involve evaluating evidence, instructing lawyers, considering a compromise and responding to developments over time. The assessment needs to address the person's ability to conduct the relevant proceedings with appropriate assistance, not merely whether they can answer questions about the day of the injury.
The Supreme Court's decision in Dunhill v Burgin is an important primary authority on litigation capacity and the protective settlement rules. Its significance for families is that capacity cannot safely be reduced to an informal impression during one negotiation. Where the issue is genuinely in doubt, the legal team should address it explicitly and obtain the evidence needed for the actual claim.
Tell the solicitor about changes in reasoning, memory, impulsivity, fatigue or awareness that may not be obvious during a brief meeting. Use specific examples and distinguish observation from speculation. If the person successfully manages some tasks, include that too. A balanced account supports an accurate assessment and respects abilities that remain, rather than constructing a one-sided picture of dependence.
Managing compensation may demand a separate assessment
A person could need assistance conducting a complex case yet retain capacity to manage a particular sum, or have difficulty managing a substantial award even where another decision is within their abilities. Do not assume the answer to one question resolves all the others. Settlement planning should identify the decisions about the fund and who will assess them.
The amount, intended purpose and practical arrangements can be relevant to the management question. A fund intended to meet lifelong care needs raises issues beyond operating a current account. Equally, an adult's inexperience with investments is not automatically incapacity. People with capacity can choose to obtain professional advice and delegate tasks while retaining responsibility for their decisions.
Ask the solicitor to record the distinction between litigation representation and money management in the case plan. If a deputyship, existing power of attorney or another arrangement is relevant, the scope of that authority must be checked. A label on a family document should not be treated as permission to sign every settlement paper, open every account and decide every care issue.
Litigation friend: choose a suitable person and define the role
Family closeness is relevant but not sufficient
A spouse, parent, adult child or trusted friend may be well placed to assist, but suitability depends on more than affection or availability. The person must be able to act fairly and competently for the claimant and should have no adverse interest. A devoted relative can still face a conflict if their own conduct, finances or claim are part of the dispute.
Under Civil Procedure Rules Part 21, a protected party requires a litigation friend to conduct proceedings. The rules provide procedures for appointment and recognise a deputy's entitlement where the relevant court order gives power to conduct the proceedings. The actual order and its scope therefore matter; the title deputy alone is not enough.
Ask the solicitor to explain the responsibilities, financial undertaking and expected time commitment before agreeing. The proposed representative should understand how decisions will be made, what information they will receive and when advice must be sought. A person who signs without understanding the role may struggle when an important offer or procedural decision later requires independent judgment.
Keep the claimant's interests central in instructions
The litigation friend should receive advice and give instructions directed to the claimant's interests. That does not mean ignoring the claimant's wishes or treating them as absent from the case. Ask how their views will be obtained and recorded, what communication support is needed and how any difference between their wishes and the proposed course will be considered.
Use a decision note for important steps. Record the question, the evidence and advice considered, the claimant's expressed views where available, any relevant conflict and the instruction given. The note need not be elaborate. Its purpose is to preserve the reasoning and avoid a later assumption that the decision was made simply because one relative preferred it.
Where several relatives are involved, agree a communication plan. A broad support network can help with appointments and records, but contradictory instructions sent to different members of the legal team create confusion. Identify the formal representative, authorised contacts and a method for raising concerns. The person who speaks most often should not become the decision-maker by default.
Discuss costs before accepting responsibility
A litigation friend's position can include financial obligations. Ask for a specific explanation of the relevant costs undertaking, the retainer and any protection proposed. Consider what happens if the claim fails, an order is made, the representative changes or funding arrangements end. A general assurance that the claimant is protected does not necessarily answer the adult representative's own financial questions.
Alexander James Solicitors' policy is private fees and no legal aid. Any proposed engagement should set out the work accepted and the charges in writing. This guide does not suggest that a conditional fee agreement, insurance or publicly funded representation is available from the firm. Ask directly about the terms relevant to the case and obtain independent advice if your personal obligations require it.
Keep the fee discussion separate from decisions about the claimant's best interests. A relative facing personal pressure to reduce costs should tell the solicitor, because that pressure can affect how options are evaluated. Transparent discussion allows the practical problem to be addressed rather than allowing an undisclosed concern about bills to drive a settlement instruction.
Existing powers of attorney and deputyship orders
Read the document before relying on its title
Families often say that one person has power of attorney without distinguishing the type, registration, restrictions or decisions covered. Provide a complete copy of the relevant document and any accompanying registration or court material through a secure channel. The solicitor should check its effect rather than assume it authorises the particular litigation or transaction under discussion.
The same applies to deputyship. The official guidance on deputy responsibilities emphasises that the court order defines what the deputy can and cannot do. A general role in managing finances should not be treated as unlimited authority over a claim, a disputed expense or a new investment arrangement. Further authority may need consideration.
Create a short authority register: document type, date, named person, relevant powers, restrictions and location of the original. Record whether the legal team has reviewed it. This helps distinguish a family understanding from an established legal position and prevents different organisations receiving inconsistent explanations about who can make a decision.
A next-of-kin entry does not resolve litigation authority
Hospitals and other services may ask for a next-of-kin contact to assist communication. That entry should not be assumed to grant a general right to conduct a civil claim or manage the adult's property. A spouse's close relationship is important, but formal authority and suitability still require assessment when another person is to act in legal proceedings.
Explain the practical support you provide without overstating your powers. You might arrange transport, preserve documents and attend a meeting with consent or appropriate authority while the formal position is clarified. Those useful tasks are different from accepting an offer or signing a statement on the claimant's behalf. Ask which actions can proceed and which need a confirmed representative.
If several organisations use different contact names, tell the solicitor. A hospital contact, benefits appointee, attorney and litigation friend may not be the same person. A simple map of those roles helps the legal team coordinate lawfully and avoids assuming that information held by one representative can automatically be disclosed to another for any purpose.
Conflicts: examine the facts that make independence difficult
The proposed representative may also be a witness or claimant
Being a witness does not automatically prevent someone acting, but the circumstances need examination. If a person's conduct is criticised or their recollection conflicts with the claimant's interests, independence may become problematic. Explain the issue openly. Do not omit a witness account or minimise a disputed role simply to preserve a convenient representation arrangement.
Separate records for the claimant and representative. A spouse may have their own injury claim, a claim for expenditure or an interest in jointly owned property affected by the award. The solicitor needs to know about these matters to assess potential conflicts. A shared household does not mean every legal or financial interest is identical.
A particularly sensitive situation arises where the proposed litigation friend was driving, supervising an activity or providing care when the injury occurred. The family may be confident that the person did nothing wrong, but allegations and evidence still require assessment. An independent representative can protect the claimant and reduce the pressure on a relative whose own position needs separate advice.
Paid care and family reimbursement need transparency
A relative providing substantial care may incur genuine costs and lose earnings. Those facts should be documented. However, decisions about paying that relative, valuing their contribution or selecting future care arrangements can create interests that need to be managed. A litigation friend should not assume they can approve their own payment without scrutiny because they are also the main carer.
Keep care records factual: tasks, duration, dates, who provided the help and whether it was paid. Distinguish ordinary shared household activity from additional support attributed to the injury. The valuation and recoverability of care are matters for the claim assessment. Accurate records allow the relevant adviser to address them without relying on inflated estimates or family recollection years later.
If a professional representative, deputy or adviser is proposed, ask about charges and any connected interests. Professional status does not remove the need for transparency. The claimant's arrangements should make clear who is being paid for which service, who approves that payment and how concerns can be raised. This is particularly useful where several professionals are involved over a long period.
Court involvement: protect the case without assuming every issue is the same
Capacity concerns arising during an existing claim
If a claimant's ability changes while proceedings are underway, tell the solicitor immediately. The procedural consequences require attention, including whether further steps can be taken and how representation should be established. Continuing to obtain signatures as if nothing has changed can jeopardise the protection the rules are designed to provide.
The solicitor should explain the evidence needed and the next procedural action. Families can assist by giving a clear chronology of changes and identifying treating professionals, but they should not diagnose legal incapacity or retrospectively rewrite instructions. Preserve earlier correspondence so the timing and nature of any difficulty can be assessed accurately.
Capacity may fluctuate or improve. A representation arrangement should therefore include review where appropriate rather than assume a permanent condition. Ask what change would trigger reassessment and who will arrange it. If the person regains capacity, the necessary court process and communication with other parties must be addressed; informal family agreement alone is not a reliable transition mechanism.
Settlement approval and management directions
A protected party's proposed settlement engages court approval requirements. The court needs an appropriate basis for assessing the proposal and the handling of the money. This is separate from simply identifying a litigation friend. The representative must understand the medical and financial evidence, the litigation risks and the proposed net outcome before supporting the settlement.
For an explanation of the protective approval process, the settlement approval guide covers evidence and fund-management questions that also arise for protected parties, while identifying where individual circumstances differ. The solicitor should explain the adult claimant's particular procedure rather than treating a child's account arrangement as automatically suitable.
Plan any required money-management application early enough to support treatment, accommodation or care decisions after settlement. A substantial award does not solve an authority gap by itself. If no one is lawfully able to operate the proposed arrangement, payments may become difficult at exactly the point the claimant needs continuity. Coordinate the claim timetable with the authority work.
The civil court and Court of Protection have different functions
A damages claim determines or resolves the civil dispute, while the Court of Protection may be involved in decisions or appointments concerning a person who lacks capacity. The same family can therefore encounter more than one court process. Ask which court is responsible for each issue and how the legal teams will coordinate their work.
Do not assume an order in one setting decides every matter in another. The wording, purpose and scope of the order must be checked. A useful case plan lists the injury proceedings, any deputyship or other application, the professionals responsible and the decisions that depend on each. This turns a confusing collection of forms into an understandable sequence of tasks.
Separate budgets and written scopes can also be helpful. Representation in an injury claim may not include every capacity, benefits, property or welfare issue that follows. Ask what the firm has agreed to handle and what requires another specialist. The purpose is to avoid a gap where each adviser assumes someone else is dealing with an urgent question.
Capacity and representation questions for the first meeting
Use this worksheet to prepare information without trying to determine the legal outcome yourself. Mark uncertain matters as uncertain and avoid collecting records that you have no right to access. The solicitor can explain the lawful route for obtaining further material.
| Question | Information to bring | Why it helps |
|---|---|---|
| What claim is being considered? | Incident, injury, defendant and known dates | Defines the litigation decisions under review |
| What difficulty has been observed? | Dated examples with context | Supports a focused assessment rather than a label |
| What support improves communication? | Aids, interpreter needs, timing and breaks | Helps preserve the person's own participation |
| Has capacity been assessed before? | Report, purpose and date | Shows what was actually assessed and what remains open |
| What authority documents exist? | Powers of attorney and court orders | Allows the solicitor to check their scope |
| Who wishes to act? | Relationship, availability and experience | Starts the suitability discussion |
| Are there competing interests? | Related claims, care payments, disputed conduct | Identifies conflicts early |
| What does the injured person want? | Their own words where possible | Keeps preferences visible in the process |
| What decisions are urgent? | Offers, hearings, treatment and evidence risks | Separates immediate protection from longer planning |
| Who manages money now? | Existing lawful arrangements and advisers | Highlights fund-management questions before settlement |
Keep observations separate from conclusions
An observation might be that the person could explain two options in the morning but could not recall the discussion after a demanding therapy session. A conclusion would be that the person can never make legal decisions. The former gives an assessor useful information; the latter may go beyond the evidence. Use concrete examples and let the relevant professionals address their significance.
Include strengths. If the person can explain a preference consistently when given a written summary, record that. A file containing only failures can create a misleading impression and undermine efforts to support decision-making. The purpose of the worksheet is not to secure a predetermined finding but to identify the arrangement that lawfully protects the person while respecting their abilities.
If family members disagree, record the differing observations and their circumstances rather than forcing one agreed version. Someone who visits briefly may see a different level of functioning from a full-time carer. The difference needs understanding. It should not automatically be treated as dishonesty or as proof that one person's view must control the legal assessment.
Identify urgent matters without assuming the limitation position
A concern about capacity does not justify ignoring the claim's deadline. The effect of incapacity on limitation depends on the applicable legal regime and facts, including timing. Overseas accidents and specialist schemes may not follow the ordinary domestic approach. Ask for a specific deadline assessment and written confirmation of who is responsible for protective action.
Evidence may also disappear independently of limitation. Footage, witnesses and business records can become unavailable while authority is being resolved. Tell the solicitor what material may be at risk and where it is held. Ask what preservation steps can properly be taken now. This keeps the enquiry useful without encouraging an unauthorised relative to sign a settlement or access confidential records unlawfully.
An automated acknowledgement or a preliminary call does not show that the firm has accepted the case. At the end of the discussion, identify the scope accepted, further information required and the next decision date. A clear responsibility record is especially important when several relatives and professionals are involved and each might assume someone else is progressing the urgent work.
Hypothetical situations that show why a tailored assessment matters
Fluent conversation conceals difficulty weighing risk
A fictional adult with a brain injury remembers the accident and speaks confidently about returning to work. During discussions about settlement, however, they repeatedly agree with incompatible options and cannot explain the consequences of either. A relative reports similar problems with unfamiliar financial decisions. Those observations justify a focused discussion with the solicitor about assessment; they do not allow the relative to declare incapacity independently.
The practical preparation includes examples, the timing of fatigue, any useful communication adjustments and relevant medical information. The guide to less visible brain injury symptoms helps families organise functional observations. The eventual representation decision must rest on the appropriate assessment, not on a polished conversational style or a diagnostic label alone.
Physical dependence is mistaken for inability to decide
In a second fictional situation, an adult with a spinal injury needs extensive physical assistance and uses communication technology. They understand the claim, weigh advice and express consistent instructions when appointments allow sufficient time. Relatives initially assume that managing every physical task for the person also means managing the legal decisions. The distinction needs correcting through accessible communication and proper assessment.
The future care guide for spinal injury addresses evidence about assistance and long-term needs. Those needs can be substantial without proving lack of litigation capacity. The case should preserve the person's own authority where they can decide, while arranging practical support that makes exercising it possible.
Recovery changes the representation question
A third hypothetical claimant lacks capacity to conduct proceedings during an early period after injury. With rehabilitation and time, their abilities improve. The family and solicitor have agreed to review the position when relevant changes occur. An updated assessment indicates that the person may now be able to take over instructions with support, so the appropriate procedural steps are considered.
This example shows why representation should not be treated as a permanent family entitlement. The litigation friend's work may have been entirely appropriate at an earlier stage, yet a later transition can still be necessary. A good handover preserves the decision record, explains current offers and allows the claimant to understand what has happened in their case.
Frequently asked questions
1. Does a brain injury automatically mean someone lacks litigation capacity?
No. The assessment concerns the person's ability to conduct the relevant proceedings with appropriate support, not the diagnosis alone. Some people with brain injuries retain that ability, while others have difficulties that are not obvious in ordinary conversation. Give the solicitor concrete observations and relevant medical information. A properly focused assessment is more reliable than either a family assumption of incapacity or an impression based on fluency.
2. Can a spouse sign claim documents as next of kin?
Being a spouse or next-of-kin contact does not automatically establish authority to conduct proceedings or sign every document for another adult. The solicitor must consider capacity, any existing powers and the appropriate representation process. Explain the support you provide and supply relevant authority documents. Ask which immediate tasks you can assist with while the formal position is clarified, rather than assuming all signatures are interchangeable.
3. Who decides whether the injured adult can conduct the claim?
The legal team must address the relevant legal test and obtain appropriate evidence, which may include specialist assessment. A disputed issue may require the court's decision. Relatives can provide valuable observations but should not treat their own conclusion as determinative. Ask what question is being assessed, who will assess it, what support will be used and how the result will be recorded and reviewed.
4. What if the person understands a choice only with help?
Appropriate support is part of the assessment, not a reason to disregard the person's decision-making automatically. Accessible explanations, communication aids and well-timed appointments may make a significant difference. The support must help the person understand and decide, rather than supply a preferred answer. Tell the solicitor which methods work and ask how they will be incorporated while preserving the actual substance of the legal choices.
5. Can someone have capacity for everyday spending but not litigation?
Yes, different decisions can demand different abilities and information. Managing familiar purchases does not necessarily establish capacity to conduct a complex claim, and difficulty with litigation does not prove inability in every other area. The assessment should identify its scope clearly. Ask for separate consideration of litigation, settlement-related decisions and management of compensation where those questions arise, instead of applying one broad label to everything.
6. Is an unusual or unwise settlement preference evidence of incapacity?
Disagreement with advice is not enough by itself. The relevant issue is whether the person can make the decision using the information and support required, not whether relatives regard the outcome as sensible. Explore their reasoning and priorities with the solicitor. A coherent wish to avoid litigation may differ from an inability to weigh consequences, even if both lead to rejecting a recommended course.
7. Can an existing attorney automatically become the litigation friend?
The existence and scope of a power of attorney need to be checked, together with the civil procedure requirements and suitability of the proposed representative. Do not assume the title attorney answers every litigation question. Provide the complete document and registration information securely. The solicitor can explain the effect of the powers and any further appointment or authority steps needed for the particular proceedings.
8. Does a deputyship order always cover an injury claim?
No such assumption should be made. A deputy's authority depends on the court order, and the relevant power to conduct the proceedings must be considered. Give the solicitor the actual order, including restrictions and later variations. If further authority is required, ask who will obtain it and how urgent claim tasks will be protected while that work is undertaken.
9. What happens if there is no suitable relative to act?
Tell the solicitor early so alternative representation can be considered through the appropriate process. A family should not nominate an unsuitable person simply to avoid acknowledging the problem. Availability, independence and funding arrangements may need investigation. The Official Solicitor can have a role in some circumstances, but involvement is not automatic; the legal team should explain the requirements and realistic next steps for the case.
10. Can the main carer also be the litigation friend?
Potentially, but the role requires a suitability and conflict assessment. Paid care, reimbursement requests or criticism of the carer's conduct may create interests that need separate consideration. Describe the care arrangement accurately and disclose any financial interest. A close understanding of the claimant's needs is valuable, but it does not remove the need for independent decisions about the claim and proposed settlement.
11. Will the injured person still be involved in the case?
They should be supported to participate appropriately and express their wishes, even where a litigation friend conducts proceedings. Ask how communication will be adapted and how preferences will be recorded. Lack of capacity for litigation does not erase the person's interests, experiences or voice. Practical involvement should reflect their abilities and needs rather than exclude them automatically from every meeting and update.
12. What if relatives disagree about the person's abilities?
Provide the differing observations and their context to the solicitor instead of trying to settle the legal question through a family vote. Functioning may vary with fatigue, familiarity, communication support or time of day. A focused assessment can examine those differences. Keep discussions respectful and avoid pressuring the injured person to demonstrate competence or failure for the purpose of supporting one relative's position.
13. Can capacity be reassessed after rehabilitation?
Yes, a relevant change in the person's abilities can justify reassessment. Ask at the outset what developments should trigger a review and who will arrange it. If a protected party regains capacity, the procedural steps for ending the litigation friend's appointment must be addressed. An informal decision by the family to switch instructions back is not a substitute for the required legal process.
14. What if capacity becomes doubtful just before a settlement is signed?
Raise the concern immediately with the solicitor and explain the facts that prompted it. The significance of the concern and any need for assessment or procedural protection must be considered before relying on the signature. Do not conceal the issue to preserve a negotiation timetable. A valid and properly informed resolution is more important than completing paperwork on an assumed basis.
15. Does the litigation friend control the compensation after settlement?
The role in conducting litigation does not automatically confer unrestricted authority over the resulting fund. The court's directions, the claimant's financial capacity and any attorney or deputy powers need separate consideration. Ask for a written explanation of who will manage the money, what restrictions apply and how payments will be approved. This should be planned before settlement rather than improvised when funds arrive.
16. Can an adult's settlement require court approval?
Yes, the protective settlement rules apply to protected parties as well as children. The court needs suitable evidence and advice to assess the proposal, including the handling of the money where relevant. The fact that the claimant is over eighteen does not remove those safeguards. Ask the solicitor to explain the applicable approval process and the information needed for this particular adult's circumstances.
17. Are medical treatment decisions covered by the litigation friend's role?
Not simply because someone is acting as litigation friend. Treatment decisions have their own legal and clinical framework, and existing authority documents may have different scopes. Identify who is responsible for each type of decision and obtain appropriate advice where uncertainty exists. A representation arrangement for a compensation claim should not be presented to a hospital as unlimited authority over every aspect of the person's care.
18. Does incapacity mean there is no urgency about a claim deadline?
No. The effect on limitation depends on the legal regime, facts and timing, and specialist or overseas claims may operate differently. Evidence can also disappear regardless of the legal deadline. Ask for a specific limitation assessment and written responsibility for protective steps. Do not rely on a general assumption that all time limits stop whenever a family believes an injured adult cannot manage their affairs.
19. What financial risks should a proposed litigation friend ask about?
Ask about the costs undertaking, the retainer, potential adverse orders, available protection and what happens if funding or representation changes. Request a case-specific written explanation before accepting the role. A relative should not infer that acting for a protected party eliminates personal obligations. If the proposed commitment affects your own interests significantly, ask whether independent advice would be appropriate before signing.
20. What information should accompany an initial capacity-related enquiry?
Provide the incident and relevant dates, the nature of the claim, concrete concerns about decision-making, useful communication adjustments and details of existing authority documents. Identify urgent offers, hearings or evidence risks. Ask whether the firm can accept the matter and on what private-fee terms. Send sensitive records only through an agreed secure method, and obtain confirmation of who is responsible for the next protective action.
Request a representation and capacity assessment discussion
Use the serious injury claims service page to ask whether Alexander James Solicitors can consider the particular claim and representation issue. Explain whether the adult already has a solicitor, litigation friend, attorney or deputy. Include any urgent date and identify the decision that currently needs attention rather than describing the person as incapable in general.
The immediate outcome should be a clear account of the work the firm will undertake, the evidence needed and the authority questions still unresolved. Proper representation combines legal protection with respect for the injured person's remaining abilities. The worksheet helps the family support that process through accurate information, transparent interests and practical communication rather than assuming that care, kinship and legal authority are the same thing.
