A client and professional may believe they have agreed to different tasks or different ways of communicating. This editorial in the Advocates & Legal Professionals Cell reading series considers understanding the scope of an engagement through a practical question: how can we include people with different needs? It offers a perspective for discussion, not a substitute for the relevant professional or institutional process.
An approach to understanding the scope of an engagement can appear fair while assuming that everyone has the same language, time, digital access or confidence. Consider who might find the chosen format difficult and why. An invitation to participate is only the beginning; people must also have a practical way to understand the activity and make their own choices.
Ask about useful adjustments without demanding a person disclose a diagnosis or justify every difficulty. Some participants may prefer a written note, a slower explanation, a different meeting time or a supported introduction to an official channel. The appropriate adjustment depends on the task and any professional or institutional requirements. Do not promise an accommodation that you are not able to arrange.
A starting action for the brief is: Discuss the proposed scope, fees, communication process and limitations clearly. Test whether the way this action is presented works for the intended participant. Check understanding through an open question instead of asking only whether everything is clear. Give room for a person to disagree or choose a different lawful option.
Reflect on this indicator: Whether the written understanding matches what both parties believe has been agreed. Inclusion is not demonstrated by treating every person identically. It is demonstrated by recognising relevant barriers, responding proportionately and preserving dignity. Review the format if the same people repeatedly remain outside the conversation.
