‘Shoddy’ £250 Legal Advice Leaves Workers Muzzled, Warns MP
Employees facing harassment, discrimination, or unfair treatment at work are being forced into silence by inadequate legal support and exploitative settlement agreements, MPs have warned.
In a powerful Westminster Hall debate yesterday, Sarah Russell MP, a former practising employment solicitor, shed light on the misuse of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in workplace disputes. Russell argued that vulnerable employees are being pressured to sign complex legal documents with little more than £250 offered to pay for independent legal advice — a sum she called "woefully insufficient."
The requirement for employers to fund independent legal advice for employees signing settlement agreements is enshrined in the Employment Rights Act. However, in practice, this obligation is often fulfilled with a token payment that doesn't cover the cost of proper legal representation. The result, said Russell, is that many workers — particularly those in low-paid roles — are being silenced without ever understanding what they’re signing.
"Totally Stuck" with Shoddy Advice
Russell painted a bleak picture of the current system:
“The reality of the legal market is that no specialist employment lawyer will explain a potentially 20-page legal document to the person, send them follow-up written advice and renegotiate the terms for £250.”
She added that when reputable lawyers decline to act for such a low fee, desperate employees often turn to "shoddy solicitors" — lawyers with no employment law expertise who are willing to sign off on legally dubious agreements without challenge.
“This payment structure is enriching for non-compliant solicitors at best,” Russell said, warning that the practice leaves individuals "completely stuck", unable to revisit or challenge the agreement later.
NDAs Still Rife, Despite Regulation
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has issued guidance warning solicitors against using or proposing unenforceable clauses in NDAs. These might include clauses that attempt to prevent whistleblowing, reporting crimes, or discussing unlawful conduct. But according to Russell, such clauses remain “extremely widespread.”
She criticised not only the inadequate legal support but also the origin and circulation of the NDAs themselves. Many agreements, she said, are reused versions of outdated legal documents:
“At some point, they will have been given a precedent settlement agreement by a solicitor — we might be talking 20 years ago — and those agreements contain NDAs, so they are still in widespread use.”
Another concern raised by Russell was the increasing number of unregulated HR consultants facilitating settlements. These individuals are not bound by the same professional standards as solicitors and are contributing to the continued use of legally flawed NDAs.
A Two-Tier System of Protection
The debate was called by Louise Haigh MP, who criticised the piecemeal legislative reforms surrounding NDAs. She pointed to recent government action banning NDAs in universities in cases of sexual harassment, discrimination, and bullying — a move hailed by campaigners but which has exposed glaring inconsistencies in the law.
“We now have the absurd situation where students and workers in universities are protected, but a cleaner, who works on a university campus but for an outsourced company, would not enjoy those same protections,” Haigh said.
This has created what she called a “two-tier system” in which the protections depend more on the employer’s status than the seriousness of the offence or the vulnerability of the victim.
What Does the Law Currently Say?
Under current UK law, employers asking staff to sign a settlement agreement — which often includes an NDA — must ensure the individual receives independent legal advice. While the employer must contribute to the cost, there is no legal minimum, and in practice, £250 has become the norm.
However, with hourly rates for experienced employment lawyers far exceeding that amount, most legal professionals cannot afford to provide more than a cursory explanation — or they decline the instruction altogether.
The result is a legal system skewed against lower-paid workers, especially those already facing distress or trauma due to the circumstances surrounding the agreement.
Government Response: Proceed with Caution
Justin Madders, business minister, acknowledged the concerns and indicated that the government is considering further reforms. However, he warned that legislative changes must be carefully drafted to avoid creating “new loopholes for clever lawyers” to exploit.
Madders also emphasised that not everyone is pressured into silence — some workers choose to sign NDAs as part of a mutually agreed resolution and may value the confidentiality they provide.
“We must be careful not to legislate in a way that denies individuals their agency or ability to enter into agreements if they so choose,” he said.
Campaigners Call for Nationwide NDA Reform
The debate reflects growing pressure on the government to take a more unified and assertive stance on NDAs across all sectors. Campaigners have long called for laws banning their use in cases involving harassment, discrimination, and abuse — not just in education, but across all industries.
This demand follows a series of high-profile cases in recent years where powerful individuals or institutions used NDAs to conceal misconduct, fuelling a broader conversation about the ethics and legality of such clauses.
“NDAs are meant to protect commercial information, not predators,” said one employment lawyer speaking anonymously. “Using them to cover up harassment or systemic discrimination is a gross misuse of legal tools.”
What Happens Next?
The momentum for NDA reform is clearly growing, but what shape that change will take remains uncertain. Options being discussed include:
- Capping or standardising employer contributions for legal advice, ensuring workers can access proper representation;
- Banning NDAs in settlement agreements involving discrimination, bullying, or harassment;
- Mandating stronger oversight of unregulated HR consultants and their role in drafting settlement agreements;
- Introducing statutory templates for settlement agreements to prevent misuse of boilerplate or outdated clauses.
In the meantime, MPs like Russell and Haigh are continuing to push for a fairer legal framework — one that supports victims, upholds legal standards, and doesn’t reward employers for cutting corners with legal advice.
Final Word: Power Imbalance at the Heart of the Issue
At its core, this issue is not just about bad contracts or shoddy lawyers — it's about power imbalance.
Employees who are vulnerable — because of their pay grade, their legal knowledge, or the trauma they’ve endured — should not be forced into silence by flawed systems. Russell’s intervention in Parliament makes clear that the current system is not just inadequate — it’s complicit in that silencing.
Until meaningful reform arrives, £250 advice will continue to buy silence, not justice.
Need help with employment law?
Call us: 0207 183 4547
Or email: thelegalteam@parachutelaw.co.uk
Related Reading:
Does Employment Law Apply to Independent Contractors?
