How to Have the Money Conversation With a Family Member You Are Helping Legally

Why This Conversation Is So Difficult

When a family member faces a legal crisis — a divorce, a contested will, a business dispute — the instinct of those who love them is to help unconditionally. Raising the question of payment can feel mercenary, cold, or even disloyal. The person in crisis is already under enormous stress. The last thing they need, it seems, is to worry about money on top of everything else.

This instinct is understandable. It is also, in the long run, damaging to both parties.

The helper who provides hundreds of hours of skilled legal support without compensation will, eventually, feel resentful — whether they acknowledge it or not. The person being helped, unaware of the true scale of the contribution, will not feel the gratitude that the helper deserves. The relationship suffers in silence, and the resentment surfaces later in ways that are harder to address than a straightforward conversation about money would have been.

The Case for Clarity at the Outset

The most effective approach is not to have the money conversation in the middle of the engagement, when both parties are stressed and the helper is already feeling undervalued. It is to have it at the very beginning — before the work starts, when the relationship is still fresh and the discussion can be framed as professional rather than personal.

A clear, written agreement at the outset does several things:

• It establishes that the helper's time and expertise have genuine value
• It removes ambiguity about what is expected from both parties
• It protects the relationship by preventing resentment from building silently
• It gives the person being helped a realistic sense of the cost of the support they are receiving

A Practical Script for the Conversation

The following approach works well in most family contexts. It is direct without being confrontational, and it frames the discussion in terms of fairness rather than financial need.

---

"I want to help you through this, and I'm committed to doing that properly. I've been thinking about how to structure this so it works well for both of us. I've done some research on what this kind of support is worth in the market — not what a law firm would charge, but what a fair direct rate looks like for someone with my experience. I'd like to share that with you and agree something in writing before we start, so there are no surprises later and we can both focus on the case rather than worrying about the financial side."

---

This framing does several things well. It opens with commitment to the relationship and the task. It positions the rate discussion as research-based rather than arbitrary. It frames the written agreement as protective of both parties, not just the helper. And it closes by returning to the shared goal — winning the case.

Using a Rate Calculator as a Neutral Reference Point

One of the most effective ways to defuse the awkwardness of the money conversation is to introduce a neutral, third-party reference point. Rather than saying "I think I should be paid £X", you can say "I used this calculator — it takes into account my experience, the type of case, and the market data — and it produced this figure. Here is the reasoning behind it."

Our UK Legal Professional Rate Calculator is designed specifically for this purpose. It produces not just a rate, but a breakdown of the methodology — the market benchmarks, the overhead adjustment, the experience weighting — that you can share with the other party as a discussion document. The conversation becomes about the data, not about you asking for money.

What to Do If They Push Back

Some family members will resist the idea of paying, even when presented with clear market data. If this happens, it is worth asking a direct question: "If you instructed a paralegal through a firm for this work, what would you expect to pay?" The answer is almost always significantly higher than the rate you are proposing. The gap between what a law firm would charge and what you are asking is itself a compelling argument.

If agreement cannot be reached on a full rate, consider proposing a reduced rate with a deferred payment arrangement — for example, a proportion of any financial settlement received. This aligns your interests with theirs and removes the immediate cash flow concern.