Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Neurodiversity in Capacity Assessments: Protocols for Solicitors Handling Clients with ADHD and Autism

· 20 min

Executive Summary

An estimated 15% of the United Kingdom population is neurodivergent, with prevalence likely higher among court users according to the Family Justice Council.1 For solicitors conducting capacity assessments, neurodivergent clients—particularly those with ADHD and autism spectrum conditions—present distinct challenges that demand protocol adaptations rather than modified thresholds. The current legal framework compounds this complexity: Banks v Goodfellow (1870) remains the authoritative testamentary capacity test following Leonard v Leonard [2024], while the Law Commission's May 2025 Modernising Wills report recommends transitioning to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 functional test.23 Until Parliament legislates, practitioners must navigate both frameworks whilst discharging Equality Act 2010 duties to make reasonable adjustments. This article provides a protocol framework for neurodiversity-informed capacity assessment, integrating the Family Justice Council's SPELL framework with private client practice requirements.

1. Introduction: The Hidden Prevalence Challenge

The intersection of neurodiversity and legal capacity assessment represents a significant yet underaddressed area of professional practice. Neurodivergent individuals—those whose neurological development and functioning diverge from what society considers typical—include persons with ADHD, autism spectrum conditions, dyslexia, and related conditions. These are not disorders requiring remediation but rather neurological variations that may affect how individuals process information, communicate, and demonstrate understanding.4

The Family Justice Council's January 2025 guidance identifies that approximately 15% of the UK population is neurodivergent, though this figure likely understates true prevalence given widespread underdiagnosis, particularly among women and older adults.1 More significantly for practitioners, the guidance notes that neurodivergent individuals appear at higher rates among those involved in legal proceedings—a finding with direct implications for private client solicitors conducting capacity assessments for wills, lasting powers of attorney, and other testamentary instruments.

The challenge for practitioners lies not in whether neurodivergent clients possess capacity, but in how assessment processes can be adapted to enable fair demonstration of that capacity. Conflating presentation differences with capacity deficits exposes practitioners to dual risks: discriminatory practice under the Equality Act 2010 and potential negligence liability if wills are later challenged on grounds that reasonable adjustments were not made during instruction-taking.

2.1 Banks v Goodfellow: The Enduring Testamentary Standard

The test for testamentary capacity established in Banks v Goodfellow (1870) remains authoritative following the High Court's confirmation in Leonard v Leonard [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch) that the test has "stood the test of time."5 The four-limb test requires the testator to:

  1. Understand the nature of making a will and its effects
  2. Understand the extent of the property being disposed of
  3. Comprehend and appreciate the claims to which they ought to give effect
  4. Suffer from no disorder of the mind that perverts their sense of right or prevents the exercise of natural faculties

Crucially for neurodiversity-informed practice, Banks v Goodfellow is presentation-neutral. The test addresses whether the testator possesses certain cognitive capacities, not how those capacities are demonstrated. A neurodivergent individual who communicates understanding through written rather than verbal means, or who requires additional processing time, may fully satisfy all four limbs provided assessment methods are appropriately adapted.

2.2 The Law Commission's MCA 2005 Recommendation

The Law Commission's Modernising Wills report, published in May 2025, recommends replacing the current dual-test anomaly with a single Mental Capacity Act 2005-based test for testamentary capacity.3 This recommendation addresses the present inconsistency whereby personal will-making is assessed under Banks v Goodfellow while court-authorised statutory wills under the Court of Protection apply MCA 2005 criteria.

Key Law Commission recommendations include:

  • A single capacity test based on MCA 2005 functional criteria should apply to all wills
  • A code of practice on testamentary capacity should be issued
  • The MCA 2005 presumption of capacity (section 1(2)) should apply to testamentary decisions

The Government's response, published May 2025, welcomed the report as "an important and timely review."6 However, as of January 2026, no legislative timetable has been confirmed, and no Wills Bill has been introduced to Parliament. The Law Society has urged the Government to "act now to modernise wills," but practitioners must recognise that Banks v Goodfellow remains the applicable test for assessing testamentary capacity.

2.3 MCA 2005: The Functional Test Framework

While the MCA 2005 does not currently govern testamentary capacity for personal will-making, its framework informs best practice and applies to related capacity decisions including lasting powers of attorney. The Act establishes a two-stage test:7

Stage 1 (Functional Test): Can the person make this specific decision? Section 3 requires that the person can:

  • Understand the information relevant to the decision
  • Retain that information
  • Use or weigh that information as part of the decision-making process
  • Communicate their decision

Stage 2 (Diagnostic Test): Is any inability caused by an impairment of, or disturbance in, the functioning of the mind or brain?

The Supreme Court in A Local Authority v JB [2021] UKSC 52 confirmed that there must be a "causative nexus" between any impairment and the inability to decide.8 This causative requirement is particularly significant for neurodivergent clients: the mere presence of a neurodevelopmental condition does not establish incapacity; there must be a demonstrated causal link between the condition and specific decision-making inability.

2.4 The Five Statutory Principles and MCA Code of Practice

Section 1 of the MCA 2005 establishes five principles that, whilst not currently binding for testamentary capacity, represent best practice for all capacity assessments:7

  1. Presume capacity unless established otherwise
  2. Take all practicable steps to help the person decide
  3. An unwise decision does not mean incapacity
  4. Best interests must guide decisions made for those lacking capacity
  5. Least restrictive intervention

Principle 2 carries particular weight for neurodivergent clients. Before concluding incapacity, practitioners must demonstrate that all practicable steps—including reasonable adjustments to assessment methods—have been taken to support decision-making.

The MCA Code of Practice, last substantively updated in 2007, does not address neurodevelopmental conditions in the context of capacity assessment.7 The Government consulted on a revised Code of Practice, but as of February 2026 the updated Code has not been published. When issued, the revised Code may provide additional guidance relevant to neurodivergent individuals; practitioners should monitor its publication and incorporate any neurodiversity-specific provisions into assessment protocols.

3. Executive Dysfunction and Capacity: Critical Distinctions

3.1 Understanding Executive Function in ADHD and Autism

Executive functions comprise the cognitive processes that enable goal-directed behaviour: planning, organisation, task initiation, sustained attention, behavioural flexibility, and cognitive shifting. Research identifies executive function difficulties in both ADHD and autism spectrum conditions, though with differing profiles:9

ADHD presentations typically involve difficulties with planning, organising, task initiation, and sustained attention. These may manifest in capacity assessments as tangential responses, difficulty recalling previously discussed information, or apparent inconsistency across sessions.

Autism presentations commonly involve difficulties with behavioural flexibility and cognitive shifting. These may manifest as preference for structured questioning, difficulty responding to open-ended queries, or apparent rigidity in considering alternative testamentary scenarios.

Both conditions may affect the MCA section 3(1)(c) criterion: the ability to "use or weigh" information as part of decision-making. However, this potential impact requires careful analysis rather than assumption.

3.2 Executive Dysfunction Does Not Equate to Incapacity

The courts have clarified that executive dysfunction is a clinical concept requiring translation into legal criteria. In Warrington Borough Council v Y & Ors [2023] EWCOP 27, Hayden J stated that "executive dysfunction and frontal lobe paradox is... not to be regarded as synonymous with the functional test for mental capacity," emphasising that clinical phenomena must be assessed against MCA 2005 criteria on a case-specific basis.10 Executive dysfunction does not automatically satisfy the diagnostic threshold, nor does it necessarily prevent the functional capacity to decide.

The Community Care practice note on executive functioning and the MCA 2005 further identifies the "frontal lobe paradox": some individuals can articulate understanding of information and consequences in structured assessment settings yet experience difficulty translating this into real-world implementation.11 For capacity assessors, this means evaluation should consider real-world decision implementation—not solely verbal articulation in controlled environments.

For solicitors conducting testamentary capacity assessments, the practical implication is clear: difficulty with executive functions does not preclude testamentary capacity. An individual may require support to organise their thoughts about testamentary wishes, may need information presented in structured formats, or may demonstrate capacity more effectively through written communication—yet still fully satisfy the Banks v Goodfellow criteria.

4. The SPELL Framework: Adapting Family Justice Council Guidance

4.1 Framework Origins and Application

The Family Justice Council published comprehensive guidance on neurodiversity in the family justice system in January 2025, establishing the SPELL framework for professional interactions with neurodivergent individuals.1 While developed for family proceedings, the framework's principles transfer directly to private client practice:

S -- Structure: Provide clear, predictable processes. Neurodivergent individuals often benefit from knowing what to expect. For capacity assessments, this means providing written agendas in advance, explaining the assessment process before beginning, and maintaining consistent meeting formats.

P -- Positive attitudes, approaches and expectations: Approach assessment from the presumption of capacity rather than suspicion of incapacity. Avoid framing adaptations as accommodations for deficit; position them as optimising the assessment environment for accurate evaluation.

E -- Empathy: Understand the individual's perspective. Recognise that assessment environments—unfamiliar offices, time pressure, formal questioning—may be particularly challenging for neurodivergent individuals without reflecting underlying capacity.

L -- Low arousal: Minimise sensory and emotional overload. Assessment environments should consider lighting, noise levels, seating arrangements, and temperature. Avoid scheduling assessments during periods of high practice activity.

L -- Links: Connect with support networks and appropriate specialists. This may include involving family members as communication supporters (whilst maintaining appropriate boundaries around undue influence), or consulting specialists for Golden Rule compliance.

4.2 Masking and Its Assessment Implications

"Masking" refers to conscious or unconscious strategies neurodivergent individuals employ to make signs of their neurodivergence less visible in social situations.1 For capacity assessors, masking presents specific challenges:

  • High-functioning presentation may obscure genuine difficulties that require accommodation
  • Masking is cognitively exhausting; capacity may appear to fluctuate as masking fails under stress
  • Successful masking may lead assessors to underestimate support needs, potentially resulting in inadequate documentation
  • The effort of masking may itself impair the ability to use or weigh information effectively

Practitioners should be alert to signs of masking effort: unusual fatigue, declining engagement across sessions, or marked differences between structured questioning responses and unstructured conversation. Assessment should allow sufficient breaks for cognitive recovery and should avoid attributing masking failure to capacity deficit.

5.1 Equality Act 2010 Duties

Solicitors are service providers under section 29 of the Equality Act 2010. The duty to make reasonable adjustments under section 20 applies where a disabled person would otherwise be placed at substantial disadvantage.12 ADHD and autism spectrum conditions may constitute disabilities under the Act regardless of whether the individual self-identifies as disabled—the statutory definition focuses on long-term impairments that have a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities, not on self-identification or diagnosis status.

Failure to adjust capacity assessment methods for neurodivergent clients may constitute discrimination under the Act. The anticipatory nature of the duty means practitioners cannot wait for clients to request adjustments; they must proactively consider and implement appropriate accommodations.

5.2 Three Categories of Reasonable Adjustments

The Family Justice Council guidance identifies three categories of adjustments, each applicable to capacity assessments:1

Communication Adjustments:

  • Provide additional response time; avoid interpreting processing delays as uncertainty
  • Offer written as well as verbal communication options
  • Supply questions in advance where possible
  • Use clear, concrete language; avoid idioms, metaphors, and ambiguous terms
  • Break complex questions into component parts
  • Confirm understanding through demonstration rather than verbal confirmation alone

Environmental Adjustments:

  • Consider sensory factors: lighting (avoid fluorescent), noise levels, room temperature
  • Offer familiar settings where appropriate and where conflicts of interest permit
  • Minimise visual distractions; consider plain backgrounds for video consultations
  • Ensure clear sightlines and appropriate seating distances
  • Remove time pressure cues (visible clocks, repeated time checks)

Structure and Timing Adjustments:

  • Build in regular breaks; do not interpret break requests as avoidance
  • Schedule shorter sessions rather than single lengthy meetings
  • Provide predictable agendas and maintain them
  • Avoid end-of-day appointments when cognitive fatigue is highest
  • Allow for fluctuating capacity across sessions; do not penalise inconsistency that reflects fatigue rather than incapacity

5.3 Documentation of Adjustments

Detailed attendance notes recording adjustments made and client responses serve dual purposes. They provide evidential value if wills are later challenged—demonstrating that the assessment was conducted with appropriate adaptations—and they protect against discrimination claims by evidencing compliance with Equality Act duties.

Documentation should record:

  • Adjustments offered (whether or not accepted)
  • Client preferences regarding communication and environment
  • Observations of engagement, fatigue, and masking indicators
  • Assessment of capacity against each relevant criterion with supporting evidence
  • Rationale for conclusions reached

6. Modernising the Golden Rule for Neurodivergent Clients

6.1 The Kenward v Adams Guidance

The Golden Rule established in Kenward v Adams (1975) recommends that when doubt exists about testamentary capacity, a medical practitioner should assess the testator's capacity, witness or approve the will signing, and record their findings.13 This guidance—prudent but not legally mandatory—provides evidential protection but presents challenges for neurodivergent clients.

6.2 Limitations of Traditional Medical Assessment

Standard Golden Rule implementation may inadequately serve neurodivergent clients for several reasons:

GP competence concerns: General practitioners may lack specific expertise in neurodevelopmental conditions. Assessment by a practitioner unfamiliar with ADHD or autism presentations risks conflating neurodivergent communication styles with capacity deficits.

Assessment environment issues: Clinical settings may exacerbate masking behaviour or sensory overload, resulting in assessments that do not reflect the client's capacity in more supportive environments.

Historical test orientation: The Banks v Goodfellow test, with its reference to "disorder of the mind," reflects nineteenth-century psychiatric concepts that may not map effectively onto contemporary understanding of neurodevelopmental conditions.

6.3 Specialist Assessment Recommendations

For neurodivergent clients where testamentary capacity requires medical verification, practitioners should consider:

  • Whether the assessing medical practitioner has documented competence in neurodevelopmental conditions
  • Whether a specialist assessment (clinical psychologist, psychiatrist with neurodevelopmental expertise) is more appropriate than GP assessment
  • Whether assessment should be conducted across multiple sessions to account for fluctuating presentation
  • Whether the assessment environment can be adapted in accordance with SPELL principles
  • Whether the medical assessor has been briefed on the specific Banks v Goodfellow criteria requiring evaluation

The Law Society's guidance notes that medical evidence should address the specific capacity questions at issue, not simply confirm or deny capacity in general terms.14 For neurodivergent clients, this specificity is essential: assessors should be directed to evaluate each Banks v Goodfellow criterion with reference to how the client's neurological profile may affect demonstration of that criterion.

6.4 Training and Specialist Pathways

Solicitors seeking to develop neurodiversity-informed capacity assessment competence may consider training through several established pathways. The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP) offers advanced certificate modules addressing capacity and vulnerability. The Law Society's Mental Health and Disability Committee has contributed to vulnerable client guidance, and its publications provide a foundation for understanding intersections between neurodevelopmental conditions and legal capacity frameworks.14 The British Psychological Society has published guidance on psychologists' roles in capacity assessment that addresses neurodevelopmental presentations. Practitioners instructing medical assessors should verify whether the chosen professional holds specific credentials in neurodevelopmental assessment—such as membership of relevant Royal College of Psychiatrists faculties or demonstrated clinical experience with ADHD and autism in adults—rather than relying solely on general medical qualifications.

7. Risk Management and Professional Practice Considerations

7.1 Record-Keeping Protocol

Comprehensive record-keeping serves as the primary risk management tool for capacity assessments involving neurodivergent clients. Attendance notes should include:

  • Pre-appointment communication regarding adjustments and client preferences
  • Environmental conditions of the assessment (location, lighting, noise, timing)
  • Adjustments implemented and client engagement observations
  • Specific questions asked and responses received, with sufficient detail to enable later reconstruction
  • Assessment against each Banks v Goodfellow criterion with supporting evidence
  • Areas of uncertainty and how these were addressed
  • Rationale for capacity conclusions reached

7.2 Professional Indemnity Considerations

Claims related to testamentary capacity assessments represent significant professional indemnity exposure. For neurodivergent clients, potential claim vectors include:

  • Failure to make reasonable adjustments, resulting in incorrect incapacity finding
  • Failure to identify neurodivergent presentation, resulting in inadequate adjustment
  • Inadequate documentation of assessment process
  • Reliance on medical evidence from practitioners lacking neurodevelopmental competence
  • Failure to consider fluctuating presentation across assessment sessions

No published data currently isolates neurodiversity-specific capacity disputes as a distinct claims category within professional indemnity reporting.15 The SRA's annual enforcement data and the Legal Ombudsman's complaints statistics do not disaggregate capacity-related complaints by the client's neurodevelopmental status. This data gap means practitioners cannot quantify the frequency of neurodiversity-related claims, but the absence of statistical evidence does not diminish the underlying risk. Given the prevalence data—15% of the population neurodivergent, with higher representation among court users—and the rising rates of adult ADHD and autism diagnosis, the probability that neurodivergent clients feature in testamentary capacity disputes is increasing.1 Insurers assessing claims involving challenged wills are likely to scrutinise whether reasonable adjustments were considered, particularly where the testator's neurodevelopmental profile was known or reasonably discoverable.

Practitioners should ensure their file demonstrates that reasonable adjustments were considered and implemented, that capacity conclusions are supported by documented evidence against specific criteria, and that medical evidence (where obtained) addresses the relevant legal tests with appropriate specialist input.

7.3 SRA Guidance Gaps

The SRA's guidance on accepting instructions from vulnerable clients confirms that apparent capacity deterioration does not automatically mean incapacity and that solicitors must take steps to determine capacity if reasonable doubt exists.15 However, the guidance does not specifically address neurodiversity, autism, or ADHD—a notable omission given prevalence data.

Practitioners operating within this guidance gap should draw on the Family Justice Council framework and Equality Act obligations to inform their approach. The absence of specific SRA guidance on neurodiversity does not diminish the duty to make reasonable adjustments or to conduct capacity assessments in a manner that does not discriminate against neurodivergent clients. The Family Justice Council's guidance, while directed at family proceedings, represents the most authoritative professional framework currently available for adapting legal processes to neurodivergent individuals, and equivalent guidance for Chancery and probate matters has not yet been issued.

8. Implications of MCA 2005 Adoption for Neurodivergent Clients

Should Parliament implement the Law Commission's recommendation to adopt MCA 2005 criteria for testamentary capacity, neurodivergent clients would benefit from several features of the statutory framework:

Presumption of capacity: Section 1(2) establishes that capacity is presumed until the contrary is demonstrated. This shifts the burden from the testator proving capacity to any challenger proving incapacity—a significant protection for neurodivergent individuals whose presentation differences might otherwise be interpreted as capacity concerns.

Practicable steps requirement: Section 1(3) requires that all practicable steps be taken to help a person make a decision before concluding incapacity. This codifies the reasonable adjustments approach already required under the Equality Act and provides explicit statutory grounding for neurodiversity-informed assessment.

Decision-specific assessment: The MCA's focus on specific decisions rather than global capacity aligns with neurodiversity-affirming practice. An individual may have capacity for some testamentary decisions while requiring support for others, or may demonstrate capacity when appropriate adjustments are made while appearing incapacitated in unadapted settings.

Until legislative reform occurs, practitioners should document their assessments in a manner that would satisfy both Banks v Goodfellow requirements and MCA 2005 principles—future-proofing their practice against potential retrospective scrutiny.

Conclusion

Neurodiversity-informed capacity assessment requires protocol adaptations, not modified thresholds. The Banks v Goodfellow test is sufficiently flexible to accommodate neurodivergent presentations when assessors understand that the test addresses whether a client possesses certain capacities, not how those capacities are demonstrated. Solicitors who adapt their assessment methods to enable fair demonstration of capacity—through communication adjustments, environmental modifications, and structured approaches—protect both their clients' autonomy and their own professional position.

The regulatory framework is evolving. The Law Commission's MCA 2005 recommendations, if enacted, would provide explicit statutory grounding for the reasonable adjustments approach already required under the Equality Act 2010. In the interim, practitioners can draw on the Family Justice Council's SPELL framework to inform neurodiversity-aware practice.

Professional bodies have an opportunity to address the current guidance gap. Specific SRA or Law Society guidance on neurodiversity in capacity assessment would support practitioners navigating this complex intersection of disability law, capacity assessment, and professional standards. Until such guidance emerges, solicitors should ensure their practice integrates the principles identified in this article: presumption of capacity, reasonable adjustments, specialist medical input where appropriate, and comprehensive documentation that evidences how capacity conclusions were reached.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 25 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Private Client, Wills and Probate, Capacity Assessment, Equality and Human Rights

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Distinguish between the Banks v Goodfellow testamentary capacity test and the MCA 2005 functional test, explaining the current dual-test framework and proposed reforms
  2. Apply the SPELL framework to capacity assessments with neurodivergent clients, adapting communication, environment, and structure appropriately
  3. Evaluate whether a neurodivergent client's presentation indicates capacity deficit or requires assessment adaptation
  4. Identify reasonable adjustment obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and implement a documented adjustment protocol for capacity assessments

SRA Competency Mapping

  • A2: The principles of professional conduct (client care, equality and diversity)
  • A4: The rule of law and duty to the court (accurate capacity assessment supporting testamentary autonomy)
  • B3: Act in the client's best interests (ensuring capacity assessment does not discriminate against neurodivergent individuals)
  • D1: Manage themselves and their own work (implementing compliant assessment protocols)

Reflective Questions

  1. How would the assessment protocol at your practice need to adapt to implement the reasonable adjustments identified in this article for neurodivergent clients?
  2. What additional training or specialist input might be required at your practice to ensure Golden Rule compliance for clients with neurodevelopmental conditions?
  3. How might your current attendance note templates be enhanced to document adjustments made and capacity conclusions reached for neurodivergent clients?

Professional Disclaimer

The information presented reflects the regulatory and legislative position as of 2 February 2026. Regulations, case law, and professional guidance are subject to change. Readers should independently verify all information before acting and seek advice from appropriately qualified solicitors, medical practitioners, or other professionals for their specific circumstances.

Neither WUHLD nor the author accepts liability for any actions taken or decisions made based on the content of this article. Professional readers are reminded of their own regulatory obligations and duty of care to their clients.

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. Family Justice Council, Guidance on Neurodiversity in the Family Justice System for Practitioners (January 2025). https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Family-Justice-Council-Guidance-on-Neurodiversity-in-the-Family-Justice-System-for-Practitioners.pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  2. Leonard v Leonard [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch). https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2024/321.html ↩

  3. Law Commission, Modernising Wills Law (LC 393, May 2025). https://lawcom.gov.uk/publication/modernising-wills-final-report/ ↩ ↩2

  4. Royal College of Psychiatrists, ADHD in Adults: Good Practice Guidelines (CR235). https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-source/improving-care/better-mh-policy/college-reports/cr235-adhd-in-adults---good-practice-guidance.pdf ↩

  5. Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549; Leonard v Leonard [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch). ↩

  6. Government Response to Law Commission Report Making a Will (May 2025). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-to-law-commission-report-on-making-a-will ↩

  7. Mental Capacity Act 2005, sections 1-3. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/contents ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  8. A Local Authority v JB [2021] UKSC 52. https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2021/52.html ↩

  9. NICE, Autism Spectrum Disorder in Adults: Diagnosis and Management (CG142). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg142; NICE, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Diagnosis and Management (NG87). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng87 ↩

  10. Warrington Borough Council v Y & Ors [2023] EWCOP 27, para 45 (Hayden J). https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2023/27.html ↩

  11. Community Care, "Executive Functioning and the Mental Capacity Act 2005: Points for Practice" (December 2023). https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2023/12/19/executive-functioning-and-the-mental-capacity-act-2005-points-for-practice/ ↩

  12. Equality Act 2010, sections 6, 20, 29. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents ↩

  13. Kenward v Adams (1975); Re Simpson [1977] 121 SJ 224. ↩

  14. Law Society, Working with Clients Who May Lack Mental Capacity. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/en/topics/client-care/working-with-clients-who-may-lack-mental-capacity ↩ ↩2

  15. SRA, Accepting Instructions from Vulnerable Clients or Third Parties (2024). https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/accepting-instructions-vulnerable-clients/ ↩ ↩2