Abstract

This paper argues that solicitors are required to lawyer relationally when delivering independent legal advice (ILA) to (predominantly) women set to provide suretyship for their intimate partner’s debts. Case law tells us that women providing suretyship may be entering the transaction under the coercion of their partner. Coerced debt is a form of economic abuse, which in turn is a form of domestic abuse. ILA in this context therefore provides an important intervention to potentially assist victims of abuse before entering (potentially more) debt at the hands of their abuser. To make ILA purposeful, solicitors must prioritise relational values/dynamics such as consultation, care, judgement, and empowerment; the anti-thesis of market-exchange lawyering which is characterised by the values such as objectivity and detachment. Market-exchange lawyering is also associated with ethical apathy as lawyers prioritise their client’s means-ends above all else, therefore failing to consider the broader implications of those ends (in terms of their client’s best interests and/or the public interest). Drawing on interview data with 22 solicitors, it is demonstrated that most interviewees provide tick-box ILA prioritising completion. That is, most interviewees prioritised values of commerce over values of care when acting for women who may be experiencing economic abuse.