You can only get legal aid in Scotland and there's barely any of that available.
There is a huge difference between the advice you will get from an employment lawyer and an HR professional. This is because in many ways because they have different objectives. Plus you have to remember that much of the law is very subjective in employment cases. What seems clear cut on face value may well not be. What I am trying to say is that what you read online about what is allowed to happen and the reality are often two very different things.
As an HR professional my job is to minimise the risk of action against the employer by an employee. This means making sure all the Is are dotted, Ts crossed and there is very little room for people to make a case (this usually means removing anything ambiguous). This is because the costs of administering and defending an action are usually more costly in terms of money and time than the settlement award if the employee won.
An employment lawyer has a different agenda because the job is different. His/her objective is to get the best outcome possible for the least outlay. Occasionally they will advise against taking a case to Tribunal because you could get more in settlement by using internal processes. Sometimes they advise you against taking a case through Tribunal because the chances of winning and cost of action will be less than any likely settlement. This is usually all good advice. The chances of winning and discrimination case or constructive dismissal case are very, very slim.
It sounds like the lawyer thought your case was not very strong. The advice you have had may well be the best in your case.
Let me give you an example to explain: Sally, takes maternity leave. While she is away a job she had expressed an interest in is advertised and filled by someone else. She finds out afterwards and is upset because she would have applied. The job was one she had been partially doing on an informal basis prior to maternity leave. She complains. Her grievance is ignored. She makes a second grievance and attaches a sex discrimination questionnaire with details of how she feels she has been discriminated against while on maternity leave. She is invited to a hearing. They address some of the points in the first grievance but not the second. She then gets a letter closing off both grievances together but the second was never heard. At this point she goes to a lawyer.
The HR manager at the company finds out about what's happened. He realises there is potential for a tribunal claim and this worries him. He takes steps to fix the problem to avoid a tribunal case by inviting Sally to a mediation meeting. His primary objective is to resolve the situation as quickly and cheaply as possible.
The lawyer Sally sees agrees she has not been treated well but thinks it will be very difficult to prove maternity related discrimination. She suggests the employer may just be incompetent and so it would be difficult to prove discrimination. She also thinks the award will be quite small because Sally still has her job and her losses are not that much. She tells Sally that in her specific case she would not advise proceeding with a tribunal claim but that she should take up the HR manager's offer to mediate. The lawyers' primary objective is to get the best outcome possible for the client. Whether she realises it or not.
That example makes several assumptions but it does make the relevant point.
Having prepared case papers before, the best thing I can suggest you do is have a clear time line of events and a second one set out with date, time, location, witness names and what happened. Also keep copies of everything and reference the documents clearly.
A good barrister will cost about £800-900 per day. That is often better value than a solicitor charging £175 plus VAT per hour.
If you want help with your case you could start another thread in a different name?