Building Referral Relationships with Solicitors, Financial Advisers and Will-Writers · Lesson 5
How to approach a solicitor without sounding like you want their clients
This lesson shows the first-contact strategy, meeting request and opening conversation that earns a solicitor’s professional interest without implying that the charity wants access to the firm’s clients.
Hidden ask
When a fundraiser approaches a solicitor, the words may sound polite, but the solicitor is listening for the hidden ask.
Do you want client names?
Do you want the firm to distribute your brochure?
Do you want the solicitor to recommend your charity?
Do you want access to older clients?
Do you understand that the client relationship is not yours?
That suspicion is not hostility. It is professional caution.
A solicitor working in wills and estates is dealing with capacity, instructions, family provision risk, independence and confidentiality. A charity that opens with its pipeline need sounds like another party trying to enter a protected client relationship.
The first approach has to lower that risk before it makes any case.
The evidence gives you a legitimate reason to ask for a conversation. Australian sources cluster around 6.5–8% of wills containing a charitable gift, while roughly a third of Australians say they would consider one. Include a Charity attributes part of that gap to solicitors and will-writers rarely raising the charitable option when wills are drafted. UK Behavioural Insights Team research found that routine, low-pressure solicitor asking increased charitable gifts in wills from about 5% to around 10–11%, though this remains UK evidence rather than an Australian trial.
That is enough to justify a professional conversation. It is not enough to justify asking a solicitor to promote your charity.
So the first approach should not say, “Can we talk about referrals?”
It should say, in effect: “We are trying to understand how charitable giving can be raised safely when it is relevant to a client, and we want to make sure our information is accurate and useful if your clients ever ask.”
Warm introduction
The warm introduction that could easily go wrong
Daniel is the gifts-in-wills manager at Harbour Refugee Legal Service, a mid-sized charity with a loyal older supporter base. A board member offers to introduce him to Amelia Grant, a partner in a suburban wills and estates firm. Amelia is known for careful work with blended families, older clients and contested-estate matters.
Daniel wants three things from the relationship.
He wants Amelia to understand the charity’s work.
He wants the firm to feel comfortable raising charitable giving when clients mention values or causes.
He wants Harbour Refugee Legal Service to be easy to find if a client asks for the correct details.
Those are legitimate aims. But if Daniel says them badly, Amelia may hear something else: “Please identify clients who might leave us money.”
The channel is a warm email introduction, followed by a 20-minute meeting if Amelia agrees. No donor is involved yet. There is no gift on the table. The risk is reputational: Daniel can either establish the charity as a disciplined professional resource, or confirm Amelia’s fear that charities are trying to get inside the client file.
Weak and better
The approach that creates defensiveness
Daniel replies to the introduction with this email:
“Dear Amelia,
It is lovely to be introduced. Harbour Refugee Legal Service is currently growing our gifts-in-wills program, and we are hoping to build relationships with solicitors who work with clients who may be interested in leaving a legacy.
We know many people do not realise they can support a charity in their will, and we would love to discuss how your firm might help suitable clients consider this option. We have brochures, suggested wording and information about the impact a gift can make.
Would you have time for a coffee? I would be keen to explain our work and explore how we might collaborate.
Warm regards,
Daniel”
At the meeting, Daniel opens with:
“Thanks again for making the time. We are trying to become more proactive with professional referrers because gifts in wills could make a major difference to our future income. I would love to understand whether your clients ever talk about charity, and whether there might be a way for us to provide material for them.”
The weak version is courteous, but it makes the wrong thing central.
“Growing our gifts-in-wills program” tells the solicitor the charity’s internal goal. It does not tell Amelia why the conversation is useful to her clients.
“Clients who may be interested” sounds like prospect identification. The solicitor may hear an expectation that she should notice wealthy, older or childless clients and move them toward the charity.
“Help suitable clients consider this option” is too close to client steering. It does not make clear that Amelia’s role remains neutral and independent.
“Suggested wording” appears before Daniel has established boundaries. A solicitor may worry that the charity treats its wording as a shortcut around proper drafting.
“Professional referrers” is the worst signal. It frames the solicitor as a source of leads rather than a professional adviser with duties to the client.
The problem is not warmth. The problem is role confusion. Daniel has made the solicitor carry the charity’s fundraising objective before he has earned any professional purpose for the meeting.
The approach that earns a proper conversation
Daniel replies to the introduction with this email:
“Dear Amelia,
Thank you for being open to an introduction.
I work with supporters of Harbour Refugee Legal Service who are thinking about gifts in wills. I am not looking for client names or asking your firm to promote our organisation.
I would value 20 minutes to understand how charitable giving tends to arise, if at all, in your wills and estates work, and to check what information from a charity is actually useful rather than intrusive.
Where a client has already raised our organisation, we can provide accurate details — legal name, ABN, DGR status where relevant, plain-English information about our work and the right staff contact. We would not expect your firm to recommend us or rely on our material as legal advice.
If useful, I would be glad to meet briefly at your office or by video.
Kind regards,
Daniel”
If Amelia agrees to meet, Daniel opens the conversation this way:
“Thank you for making time. I want to be clear about the purpose of this conversation. I am not here to ask you to refer clients to us, identify prospects or distribute campaign material.
We are trying to do two things better. First, understand how the charitable option can be raised neutrally when it is relevant to a client’s own values. Second, make sure that if a client ever names our organisation, the information available to you is accurate and easy to use.
It would help me to understand how these situations usually arise in your practice. Do clients ever mention charities or causes when giving instructions? And when they do, what information from the charity is actually helpful to you?”
If Amelia asks, “So what would you want from us?” Daniel answers:
“Only a professional conversation at this stage. Longer term, the most useful outcome would be that your team knows charitable giving is a normal option to raise where it fits the client’s instructions, and that our organisation can provide accurate details if a client asks. We would not want client information without consent, and we would not ask you to recommend us.”
The better version earns trust because it removes the solicitor’s predictable objections before making the case.
“I am not looking for client names” deals directly with confidentiality. It signals that the charity does not see the solicitor’s client base as a prospect list.
“I would value 20 minutes to understand…” puts learning before pitching. A solicitor is more likely to meet when the charity is not arriving with a predetermined demand.
“Useful rather than intrusive” shows Daniel understands the risk of overstepping. It invites Amelia to define what professional usefulness looks like.
The list of organisational details is practical and bounded. Legal name, ABN, DGR status where relevant, purpose and staff contact are legitimate charity information. Daniel does not offer to advise on estate structure, tax result, family provision risk or wording validity.
The meeting opening also matters. Daniel does not begin with the charity’s mission story. He begins with role clarity. That gives Amelia permission to keep listening.
The final answer — “Only a professional conversation at this stage” — is deliberately modest. It resists the fundraiser’s urge to turn a first meeting into a partnership. That restraint is commercial. A solicitor who feels safe in the first conversation is more likely to take a second one.
Four moves
Write the solicitor approach in four moves
Use this structure for a first email or first meeting with a solicitor. Keep it short. The aim is not to win the relationship in one message. The aim is to make the conversation safe enough to begin.
Write:
Write“I am not asking for client names, referrals or for your firm to promote our organisation.”
Why it worksIt removes the fear that the charity is trying to enter the client relationship through the side door.
Do not write“We would love to explore how your clients could support our work.”
Why notThat centres client access before professional purpose.
Write:
Write“I would value a short conversation about how charitable giving tends to arise in your wills and estates work, and what information from a charity is useful when a client raises a cause.”
Why it worksIt treats the solicitor as the expert in the client process.
Do not write“I would like to present our gifts-in-wills program and discuss partnership opportunities.”
Why notThat sounds like the charity has already designed the solicitor’s role.
Write:
Write“If a client asks about our organisation, we can provide our full legal name, ABN, DGR status where relevant, a short description of our work and the right staff contact.”
Why it worksIt gives the solicitor a practical reason to keep the charity’s details available without implying advice or endorsement.
Do not write“We can provide all the wording your clients need to include us in their wills.”
Why notIt risks treating charity wording as a substitute for legal drafting.
Write:
Write“Would a 20-minute conversation be useful? I would be glad to learn what is helpful from your perspective and leave you with a simple information sheet if appropriate.”
Why it worksIt asks for a professional exchange, not a referral channel.
Do not write“Could we arrange a meeting to discuss how your firm can help more clients leave a legacy?”
Why notIt makes the solicitor responsible for the charity’s fundraising result.
Before sending the message, check whether every sentence would still sound appropriate if the solicitor forwarded it to their firm’s risk partner. If it would make the charity look as though it wants client access, rewrite it.
A solicitor is more likely to hear the bequest opportunity when the charity first proves it respects confidentiality, independence and the solicitor’s duty to the client.
What this changes
You now have the first-contact discipline for solicitors.
A good approach does not start with the charity’s pipeline, impact story or need for referrals. It starts by removing the solicitor’s reasonable concerns: client confidentiality, independence, role confusion and legal-risk leakage.
The first meeting is not a pitch meeting. It is a professional listening conversation. The charity’s best early move is to ask how charitable giving arises in the solicitor’s practice, what information is genuinely useful, and where the solicitor would want the charity to stay out of the way.
The next lesson will move from first approach to adviser briefing: how to equip solicitors, financial advisers and will-writers with language and prompts that raise the charitable option well without turning them into advocates for one charity.