It is a Wednesday lunchtime. She has driven to the far end of the office car park because it is the only place she can make this call without being overheard. She has your number saved under something innocuous. She has been looking at it since March.
She dials. She gets a recording. She hangs up before the beep, because leaving a message means a callback she cannot control the timing of, to a phone that is not always hers alone.
She does not call back today. She may not call back this month. And unlike almost every other area of law, the person who wins that caller is frequently nobody — she goes on as she was, the situation deteriorates, and when it finally becomes unavoidable she is dealing with a worse version of the same problem, often with less money and fewer options.
That is what makes family law intake different, and it is why the usual framing of "leads" sits badly on this practice. The caller has usually been thinking about this for months. She has rehearsed a version of it and it will come out in the wrong order. She may be ringing from a work break, a friend's kitchen, a supermarket car park. Some of your callers hang up when a person answers and try again the next day.
Against that, a recording is not a neutral outcome. It confirms the thing she was already afraid of — that this will be difficult, impersonal and slow — at the precise moment her courage was at its highest.
So the argument for answering here is only partly commercial. It is that the first thirty seconds is the one part of this process your firm controls completely, and right now it is being handled by whoever happens to be free, or by nobody.