Joint Tenants, Unequal Contributions

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect

Option A is incorrect because the issue isn't that Laura doesn't know what a joint tenancy means; it's that she may be agreeing under pressure. A signature confirming comprehension does nothing to address voluntariness, so it doesn't discharge the solicitor's obligation on these facts.

Option B is incorrect because this is too passive for what the facts show. "May wish to" if she "remains concerned" puts the onus on Laura to flag ongoing concern, when she's already displayed reluctance and uncertainty in the room. Once those signs are present, the solicitor should be proactively ensuring she gets the opportunity for advice, not waiting to see if she raises it herself.

Option C is incorrect because reluctance and uncertainty are signs of a risk requiring a protective step (independent advice), not proof that an actual conflict has crystallised between the spouses' interests in the transaction itself. There's no indication their interests are adverse — Laura hasn't said she opposes the purchase or the joint tenancy outright. Mandating cessation of joint retainer overreacts to what the facts actually show.

Option E is incorrect. This sounds reasonable (explain directly, stay alert) but underplays where the facts already are. "Remain alert to any further signs" treats the risk as still emerging, when reluctance and visible uncertainty have already manifested in the meeting. At that point, the proportionate response is to secure the opportunity for independent advice now, not to proceed on the solicitor's own explanation while monitoring for more red flags.