⟡ “We Charge for Reading” — On the Price of Being Ignored by People You’re Forced to Pay ⟡
Or: How Legal Services Became a Billable Wall Between a Disabled Mother and Her Psychiatrist
Filed: 12 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/MERALI/LEGAL-NEGLECT-20241215
📎 Download PDF – 2024-12-15_LegalCorrespondence_SavagePsychiatristFinancialBarrier.pdf
Summary: Solicitor Laura Savage justifies non-responsiveness by citing billable hour limits, while the mother is cut off from her psychiatrist and left unsupported.
I. What Happened
On 15 December 2024, solicitor Laura Savage responded to Polly Chromatic regarding her inability to reach both her psychiatrist and solicitor Simon. Neither had replied to her emails or calls. Polly, in frustration, wrote:
“I really don’t want anything to do with anyone cuz it’s too hard to communicate.”
Savage replied that she had actually responded last week, and that all communications are technically chargeable — but she had kindly refrained from charging Polly for “reading” too many emails. The psychiatrist’s non-response was brushed aside as Simon being uninstructed on criminal matters. No effort was made to assist Polly in reaching the professionals she was desperate to contact.
Nowhere in the thread is her disability — vocal strain from muscle dysphonia — meaningfully acknowledged.
There is no apology for the difficulty of accessing life-sustaining care or legal guidance.
Only a reminder that engagement costs money.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Gatekeeping of care and representation through financial pressure
Failure to provide responsive support in known crisis context
Neglect of stated disability access needs (e.g. preference for non-verbal communication)
Reversal of responsibility: client blamed for “too many emails” while being left without medical or legal response
Exploitation of vulnerability: charging structure invoked to justify abandonment
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because silence should not be a service.
Because when a disabled mother cannot reach her psychiatrist or lawyer during active safeguarding proceedings, and the only response she receives is a billing explanation, the system has already collapsed.
SWANK archives this because refusal to read is not neutral when your job is to respond.
Because saying “we charge for reading” to someone whose life is collapsing is not administration — it’s cruelty with a subject line.
This email is not just about money. It’s about who gets to ignore whom — and call it policy.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 – Failure to accommodate a disability impacting communication
Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Code – Duty of care and professional responsiveness
UNCRPD Articles 9 and 21 – Access to support and communication rights for disabled individuals
ECHR Articles 6 and 8 – Effective legal representation and access to medical care
NHS and Legal Aid Ethical Codes – Non-abandonment of vulnerable clients in crisis
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t legal representation. It was financial dismissal disguised as professionalism.
We reject any model of care where communication becomes too expensive to be delivered.
We reject lawyers who respond not with help, but with invoices — while the mother is suffocating, isolated, and legally ambushed.
We reject psychiatric and legal abandonment repackaged as “engagement policy.”
If you will not read the emails of a woman whose voice is medically compromised,
you are not providing a service.
You are gatekeeping survival.
⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡ Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach. We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance. And retaliation deserves an archive. © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.