Is AUTHOR wrong in the post ? POST : I work at a legal assistance office, an entity that provides free legal care for people that can't afford it, and have an immediate need for some sort of action or consult. We have very objective (specially financial) parameters that define whether one fits into the definition of "requiring assistance". It's voluntary work and we deal mostly with people that have their financial and social needs barely - or not at all - satisfied.

So, come today, in comes a guy in his apparent 30's.

Nothing stands out about him, and his situation is rather interesting - for legal nerds, in comments.

As we spoke, some eyebrows began to raise. He was a very highly educated man, with a masters in microbiology (pretty much the right guy for the job), and a teacher. Unfortunally, grossly underpayed teachers are not a complete rarity in my country, and he stated he was completely supporting his mother who lived with him. And the free public higher edu is a partial reality here.

Those parameters do take into consideration higher income people who support others, like family. It's not the point to exclude whomever, but to guide the service (that we already cannot provide to all that need) to those in most dire need.

In the end of the conversation regarding his case, as we were lining up what we were going to do, we started asking the regular questions like: "do you have your tax declarations from the last years?" "can you bring us your bank statements?" *and his answers were reaaaally shady*. 

We're used to dealing with very poor people. People that don't have bank accounts, that have never made a tax statement in their lives, some that can barely afford to take the bus to the office. We do our absolute best within our capacity to be the smallest strain possible on those people, because, bottom line, **they really fucking need it**. But this guy starts saying things like "but my older tax statements have bigger salaries" and "i have large ammounts (70k ish!!!) in investments". This was a biig no no for me. Last week we were discussing a lady whose home lot was being invaded by her neighbor and she couln't afford to raise a small fence between their lots. This guy has thousands in money stored?!

**We do not turn away people who had money, and became impoverished**. But *HAD* is the defining word in that sentence. In the past! Regardless of him supporting his (small) immediate family, to me he has absolutely left our criteria. He's brought us a paycheck from a job that would clearly put him inside that financial criteria, but that doens't seem to be relevant, considering he still has those large reserves.

He's returning next week bringing the documents we asked, his bank statements, etc, proof of his financial situation.

&amp;#x200B;

So, AITA for recommending our supervisor that he doen't get aid, and we move on to other cases?