Latest Blog posts from Family-Lawfirm.co.uk

Perceptions of solicitors

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

I was on a stag do the other week (yes, divorce solicitors do still get invited to weddings and the associated festivities) and I was chatting to a chap who was convinced that the only thing solicitors wanted to do in divorce cases was go to court. He was absolutely adamant that this is the norm, all cases end up before a judge and that solicitors actively promoted this because they made more money out of it. It took me some time to convince him that this was not correct.

I would guess that in excess of 95 per cent of cases at Woolley & Co are settled without the need to go into a courtroom. Of course, certain papers need to be lodged, but that does not mean a day in court for anyone. This fact absolutely staggered my new friend. But is this what most people think? Is the perception that solicitors love being in court and will go out of their way to get cases in there?

As I have said many times in these blogs, we would always try and reach an amicable solution and agree on the details of both financial settlement and contact and residence issues for the children without the need for going to court. Why? Well, firstly it is the most professional – and adult – way to do it. Shouting, screaming, trying to get revenge or washing dirty laundry in public will do nothing to help reach agreement. Getting all parties to a court date will only lengthen the process and make it more expensive.

This final point is key. If you go to court, costs go up considerably because of the time involved on all sides. If you want to keep costs down, do not go to court. But, some may say – including my new friend on the stag do – that’s what solicitors want, isn’t it? Well, we are not motivated entirely by money. An agreeable solution for the client is what we are after. We offer the best advice to help achieve the best solution for our client. Rarely does that involve a formal hearing.

However, even if we were driven solely by earning as much in fees as possible, taking cases to court would not be the most effective way to do this. I would estimate that we can probably complete three cases out of court for every one that goes to court and often with less stress and upset and hence a greater likelihood of recommendation and referral from the client.

As any family solicitor will tell you we rely heavily on satisfied clients who recommend us to others, so why would we choose court proceedings over a more straight-forward, less costly, less stressful route, if there’s a choice?

I am concerned that people are not taking legal advice in divorce because of their perception that they can’t afford it or that they will have to go to court. Spreading the message that this does not have to be the case is key to changing opinion.

Andrew Woolley
Family solicitor

Survey shows how fathers are affected by family breakdown

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

Last week there was a glimmer of hope for those dads going through a difficult divorce and struggling to reach agreement on when they can see their children. It came from an unusual source – the Queen. In her speech to Parliament laying out what legislation will be tackled in the forthcoming Parliamentary session, she confirmed that the Children and Families Bill would finally get a hearing. This has been talked about for some time and I won’t dwell on the detail of it but there is a section which addresses the issue of the right of children to a relationship with both parents. Obviously, the detail is still to come (it appears to have changed several times already) but hopefully it will give some help to those fathers – and they are not in the majority I would argue but are in a very difficult position – whose ex-partners are obstructive to them seeing their children.

I have said many times that a vital ingredient in reaching an agreement acceptable to all on divorce is for the parties involved to act like adults. That doesn’t always happen, ultimately causing upset to all involved, not just the intended recipient.

Some of the more far-reaching ways in which divorce adversely affects dads has been laid bare in a survey from the group Families Need Fathers, published through the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Fatherhood.

The Fathers' Journey is a survey of 295 separating and recently separated fathers. It found 11 per cent of the fathers who responded to the employment questions became unemployed or were signed off sick in the pre-separation year, and 22 per cent in the year after. Thirty-three percent became unemployed in the year post-separation. Half (49%) said their relationship with their children was weaker in the year after separation, though 35% said their relationship had improved. Interestingly, only 54 per cent had sought the advice of a solicitor.

While all the statistics give serious food for thought, the last one is particularly disturbing and emphasises how important it is that we make people aware of the real benefits that taking proper legal advice can bring and that the costs need not be high. I only hope that the Bill announced by the Queen can help fathers everywhere who are going through relationship break-up get the right advice and, ultimately, achieve the right agreement for all concerned.

Andrew Woolley
Family solicitor

Britain’s addiction to divorce

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

So Sir Paul Coleridge, one of the country’s leading family court judges, has launched his campaign to promote marriage. Heralded as a champion for weddings in some of the newspapers, he has lashed out at the country’s apparent “divorce addiction” fuelled by celebrity magazines like Hello! and believes there is clear proof that married couples are more likely to stay together.

He also said there was evidence that children with settled families performed better in education and went on to get better jobs, while a trend towards older couples splitting up once their children had left home was disturbing.

Good for him. We knew his new marriage support service was coming (though I’m still not sure exactly what it does) as he has spoken about it a few times in the last months, and I have commented on it, but it is fantastic to see someone in his position following words with action. Too often we see those in the loftier reaches of the legal profession talking about what should happen but very little action to make it so. It is great that he manages to encapsulate so many issues in this one crusade.

Sir Paul has been married for nearly 40 years and has three children so he knows a bit about family life. We should take note when he says things like “'Marriage is not something that falls out of the sky ready-made on to beautiful people in white linen suits. It involves endless hard work, compromises, forgiveness and love."

“In order for a relationship to last, you have to hang in there and adjust and change and alter and understand. Long, stable marriages are carved out of the rock of human stubbornness and selfishness and difficulties.”

These wise words should be handed out on cards to newlyweds who can then display them around their homes just to remind them what’s what when things get tough.

The only note of caution I would sound is that we also need to make sure though that we don’t simply make it harder to divorce for those who really cannot go on in a relationship. There is nothing for anyone to gain by trudging on in a marriage that is not working and is doomed to making all connected to it unhappy. By all means, we should promote marriage, and champion working through problems as the correct route rather than turning to divorce on a whim, but we must also support those who really are at the end of their relationship’s road.

For an additional insight into the thoughts of the population on this one, have a look through the reader comments under the Daily Mail article. Interesting points against but the majority in support of this move – though the most common comment appears to have been surprise at such common sense being spoken by a judge.

Andrew Woolley
Family solicitor

Self representing litigants need more support in divorce

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

I’ve decided to muscle in on Andrew’s blog (again) and pick up on the theme of litigants in person where he left off last week (Rise of the DIY Divorce).

The first point to flag is that, as name changes are in vogue, people who decide to represent themselves in court are no longer to be referred to as LIPs (Litigants in Person) but rather SRLs (Self Representing Litigants). I can’t quite see what purpose this serves but the fact remains that whether they are LIPs or SRLs, most family lawyers will invariably shudder slightly and roll their eyes!

As Andrew said, because of the economic climate and the changes to Legal Aid, we do seem destined to have an ever-increasing number of SRLs, so are there ways we can help those who either choose to conduct the case themselves or find they have little alternative?

Family law is probably the most emotive area of legal process imaginable. A relationship breakdown will often affect virtually every aspect of your life – from no longer being in love, to affecting your relationship and time spent with your children, your ability to function at work, financial pressures and uncertainty for the future, and even the home you live in. No-one except you can really know what is the most important thing for you to resolve. Taking active responsibility to help find the right solutions is often empowering, and as any good family lawyer will tell you, the solutions you have ownership of are the ones that are more likely to work out in the long term. Don’t forget you are the person who will have to live with the actual outcome day to day, whereas family lawyers will inevitably move on to the next case.

On the other hand the family law system has set processes and procedures – factors which a court will have to consider as more relevant than others, and a wealth of history, case law and precedent as to how disputes should be resolved. Allowing personal emotion and inexperience to overwhelm you can result in an unhappy and traumatic experience, making an already difficult situation worse.

The problem that often surfaces in such situations is that understandably, the person who chooses to represent themself doesn’t really understand the court process, how things operate, what is relevant and how to get their point across. They may feel intimidated by their former partner’s lawyer, the Judge, the endless paperwork and correspondence or alternatively they may feel they have to drill their point home at any and every opportunity regardless as to whether it is really the time or place.

It is this mismatch of priorities which can have a detrimental effect on the case being resolved efficiently and quickly.

Maybe now is the time for there to be a shift away from the traditional way that family lawyers operate so that we can still actively help those with limited financial resources. Whilst there will remain a firm place for us to continue to act as we always have done –dealing with all aspects from comforting the emotional client to negotiations and advocacy in court, I believe that those with limited finances should be encouraged to see us as a resource they can buy into as and when necessary.

We should also not lose sight of the crucial alternative option of mediation. It may be that the intention of the current protocol which expected all prospective litigants to obtain information on mediation before applying to the court has not perhaps had the desired effect.

If it is inevitable that the number of people representing themselves in family law matters will rise exponentially over the years to come, then there will need to be some radical adaptations to accommodate this or else the whole system is at risk. Those willing to take responsibility for their own situations should be encouraged and actively helped, rather than resisted.

Kate Butler

Family solicitor, Northamptonshire

Rise of the DIY divorce

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

DIY divorce is still a hot topic in family law it seems. In the current economic climate, it is no surprise that people are looking for any means possible to cut back on expenditure. Divorce is one area where they feel they can do this though I have flagged already why I feel people may be selling themselves short by doing this. Apart from anything else, the cost of the actual divorce will not include sorting out – and drawing a legal line under – a range of issues, including finance and arrangements relating to any children.

The Daily Mail picked up on this news last week, discussing, in alarmist language, how these people doing it themselves are bringing “chaos” to the courts. It picks up on the Resolution survey I mentioned last week that claims the economic climate, changes to Legal Aid and ADR (sorry, DR) are all coming together to form a two-tier divorce structure: those without funds are going it alone and doing themselves a disservice while those with money are benefitting from arbitration and using specially-trained lawyers.

As with most family law stories in the mainstream media, there is a certain amount of confusion over the terms used and them being interchangeable. It does though mention the difficulties that increased numbers of litigants in person – where a person represents themselves at any court hearing – is having a negative effect on the speed at which proceedings progress.

Again, it appears to be a money saving tactic. The problem I always have with this is that people should still seek legal advice to help with the process and to understand their options – and the vast majority of our cases do not go to court. Going down that route may actually cost someone more in unnecessary court fees.

An additional aspect to this is that we have anecdotal evidence that some judges are treating litigants in person in hugely different ways. On the one hand, some appear to be given a lot of help by the judge in a hearing as they take pity on the person. But the opposite is also true as unsympathetic judges throw document bundles back at applicants telling them to go away and fill in the paperwork properly, adding more stress, cost and time to the divorce. The reality is that delays are being caused because forms are not filled out correctly but people should not be penalised for this. There needs to be a consistent approach applied by all judges. Guidance is needed.

An experienced family law professional will still be able to act for a client effectively and economically and can do many things that a DIY divorce cannot. Off the top of my head:

Advise what course is right for you, as every case is different
Help fill in and file documents correctly with the court
Ensure arrangements are settled for the division of assets and child contact etc
Give peace of mind that no loose ends are left
Point you to additional help agencies.

Whether it is a DIY divorce or litigant in person, people need to be clear on what an experienced family lawyer brings to the table otherwise their attempt at economy could end up costing them more.

Andrew Woolley
Family solicitor

What makes a great family lawyer?

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

Finding the right lawyers to work with at a firm is a bit like trying to find the right partner in a personal relationship. Of course they need to have the requisite professional level of qualification and experience. This is perhaps something you wouldn’t ask a partner on a first date. However, beyond that, it is more down to their personal traits as to whether or not they will “fit” and so work well with the organisation. And of course what works well here may not work well elsewhere.

Woolley & Co differs significantly from many (most?) law firms you may come across. We have a team of partner-level, experienced family law specialists working from home offices across England and Wales. They have far more autonomy than in a traditional firm but are supported with both ethical and legal queries as well as benefiting from the guidance and back-up of the firm in areas such as IT, marketing and strategy. We make best use of “new” technology and can tailor meetings around the needs of clients rather than tying them to high street office opening hours.

This way of working is not for everyone though, I acknowledge that. The right person for me needs to be autonomous, a self starter and with a desire to promote themselves and convert leads in business, something perhaps less common in a high street firm.

When it comes to the core attributes we look for when recruiting family lawyers it is fairly straightforward as far as I am concerned, but, again, these points may not be the ones everyone picks:

Integrity – essential. The public at large may not automatically see this as a trait in solicitors but it should be and we need to work to improve people’s perception.

Compassion – understanding that a client is often going through the worst time of their life in a divorce and offering the right support and encouragement should be part of the package we offer.

Experience – not just time in the job but having had the right kind of experiences to allow them to best serve clients whatever the scenario.

Autonomy – work well independently without needing people to poke you. This includes mucking in on all aspects of the job such as form filling and chasing invoices, rather than waiting for someone to do it for you.

Negotiator – all cases are a negotiation which involve using experience to follow the best approach and listening properly to both your client and the other party to reach the best result.

So if you, or someone you know has all of the above, and a GSOH, and are interested in working with Woolley & Co, we’d like to hear from you.

Andrew Woolley
Family solicitor

Why can’t we stay married?

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

Three years. That’s the amount of time a modern couple are most likely to stay in marital bliss before things go wrong according to a new survey.

The study of 1,500 people for netmums found that couples are now more than four and a half times more likely to split up after three years – well ahead of the famous seven year itch.
So why is this? What has changed to turn a seven year itch into a three year one? A simple answer which was floated in the article in the Independent where I first read about these stats was that people are getting married later – but sooner after meeting – then having children quickly and then finding that they do not want to be with the person they married. Is this really a reason, a trend or a sign of the times?
In days gone by (I am not pining for them or suggesting they are any better than today, just pointing out that they are well in our past), a couple would meet, court and marry, on average, much younger than couples do today. Marriage was an essential step in the process. The most common arrangement then was that the husband would go to work and, within a couple of years, they would have children and wife would be the home maker.

These stereotypes have been eroded over time. That is not to say that this still doesn’t happen, but it is not necessarily the most probable set up. In this day and age, many couples decide to have children before marrying, others will focus on a career for a number of years before deciding to settle down and start a family.

Is it then a biological alarm clock going off (both for the man and the woman) that signals a sudden desire to rush through steps A to D very quickly and which doesn’t then leave them in the best position for a long term relationship? Could be. I merely present these thoughts as discussion points.

However, I would like to see more support for couples going through a rocky patch, whether they have been together three years or 30 years. I still believe marriage is a great institution and should be what people aspire to ultimately. I would not want people to be put off tying the knot in the light of these statistics. Perhaps it is the case though that getting married and having children later in life comes as more of a shock to the system and lifestyle than it may do for those starting out together earlier in life.

Andrew Woolley
Family solicitor

Divorce need not break the bank

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

Many people believe divorce is expensive but it depends entirely on the context. Is it expensive compared to buying a pound of potatoes? Definitely. More expensive than a trip to the doctor? Yes (unless you go private). More expensive than the dentist? Now it gets tricky. Yes, the overall bill is likely to be higher for a divorce, but if you compare the amount of time you use that professional person’s time for, to the amount of time a dentist will spend checking your teeth, and the relative cost, divorce is probably cheaper. (I’ll leave the pulling teeth analogy there).

Why am I making this point? Well, there has been a certain amount of discussion this last week about the cost of divorce and how it is going to get “even more expensive” as changes to the Legal Aid system kick in this time next year. Nearly all family law advice will be removed from the Legal Aid scheme. This means most people wanting to consult a lawyer in divorce proceedings will have to foot the bill themselves. The legislation will cut £350m from the £2.2bn legal aid scheme and this means, apparently, that divorce is getting more expensive. Of course the bills won’t change but it will mean that both partners need to find funds whereas previously, the lower or non-earner, often the wife, may have been able to get family law advice paid for.

I have talked about the potential pros and cons of this change previously so won’t go on about it again, other than to reiterate that all people should have access to good legal advice.

We have never taken Legal Aid cases at Woolley & Co so the change should not affect us. However, it is the belief that divorce is inherently expensive that I want to address. The truth is it does not have to be. Yes, there are certain stages that need to be gone through, forms to be filled, papers filed etc, and paying a professional to do this does come with a cost (check out our webpage on understanding the costs of divorce). But the reality is that a divorce can be settled relatively modestly (a little over £1,200). A fixed fee divorce will ensure you know exactly where your costs are. Our video guide to keeping down the costs of a divorce might help.

The fees only start to climb quickly when court hearings are involved and couples cannot agree on settlements. Our advice is always to do whatever you can to agree without going to court.

Andrew Woolley
Family solicitor

What does a divorce court look like?

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

From TV programmes and films to the chat down the pub, mention divorce and ‘going to court’ is so often mentioned. Although many cases don’t end up in court I understand there is still a lot of confusion.

It occurred to me that many people might not actually know what to expect when going to court in divorce or family proceedings. What does a divorce court look like? Is it akin to a boxing ring? Does the judge wear robes and a wig? Will you have to give evidence from a witness stand?

Here’s a quick guide to the divorce courts of England and Wales.

First thing to remember is that in many cases no-one actually needs to go to any hearings at all. Many divorces are uncontested and are dealt with on paper only. Keeping the settlement out of court will save time and money and so an experienced family lawyer should always be advising that you do everything possible to reach agreement with your estranged husband or wife before it gets to the stage of going to court. You are most likely to need to go to a hearing if your case is about money or children and has not been able to be resolved between solicitors or through mediation.

Court buildings vary tremendously. Some are relatively new, purpose-built buildings, others are more like suites of offices. Family court hearings are generally held in the Magistrates Court (also known as the Family Proceedings Court) or the County Court (often in the same building as the Crown Court as a “combined court centre”).

The majority of family hearings are held in private in “chambers”. This means they will be in rooms used by District Judges (in the county court) which look like offices. There will often be a large table with chairs around two or three sides, and the judge’s desk at one end. You will sit next to your lawyer on one side, the other party and their lawyer on the other. The District Judge stays in the room all the time in between hearings so there is no need to stand up for them entering or leaving as happens in other court settings.

A Magistrates or Family Proceedings court will often be a larger room, with a long desk at the top behind which the three magistrates will sit. There will be a place for the court clerk to sit and sometimes the CAFCASS officer (if it is a children’s case). These rooms are often used at different times for less serious criminal cases so don’t be put off if there is what appears to be a “dock”! You will be asked to “rise” (stand up) when the magistrates come into the room and then leave.

Always check with your lawyer whether you will be asked to say anything in a hearing. Most are reasonably informal, and generally your lawyer will do the talking for you. If you have something you need to say, whisper it to your lawyer first. Some judges are very relaxed and may ask you a few things in a very conversational way. There is a protocol that your lawyer will follow, under which the person whose application it is (or their lawyer) gets to go first.

You will almost never see judges or lawyers in wigs and gowns in family cases. The dress code is usually smart/casual. Most lawyers and judges will wear suits for court appearances.

The most important thing to remember is that the court is not there to intimidate you. It is simply a necessary part of the process if a settlement cannot be reached in any other way.

Kate Butler
Family lawyer, Northamptonshire

Mediation not working as it should

ddd, dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss GMT

It comes as no surprise to me, and I am sure many others will not be raising an eyebrow at this either. A Resolution survey coinciding with the end of the first year of mediation assessment meetings reveals they are not working as they should be. This is not news. The figures are interesting though.

It was only a few weeks ago when I gave some thoughts on the first year of mediation (A year of mediation, are things any better?). Of course it has been around longer than that but it was only at the end of February 2011 that moves to make it compulsory first surfaced, and they came into force on April 6 last year.

Mediation information and assessment meetings (MIAMs) were controversial from the start, not least because they seemed to come out of nowhere and came into force before all parties were fully briefed or courts even had the right forms. There was no clarity on who these mediators would be and what standard they would have to reach to be qualified to conduct a family mediation.

So it is fair to say MIAMs have caused some consternation – for me – but it was interesting to read a survey from Resolution last week that showed a general consensus.

The results show 56% of survey respondents said that court staff are not regarding it as compulsory that a couple prove they have attended a MIAM, 78% of respondents said their local courts are not making an enquiry at the first court hearing or even at all as to whether mediation is appropriate, and 89% of respondents reported that no more than 10% of their clients had self-referred to mediation.

The survey also revealed huge variations in how courts in different regions are interpreting the rules. Many survey respondents also said that Resolution lawyers who are trained mediators and/or collaborative lawyers can readily identify cases which will need court intervention, so see MIAMs as a fruitless additional hurdle. Others expressed concern about the cost to clients of a strategy that was ultimately supposed to save time and money.

So you have to ask the question, is this scheme really worthwhile or is it just adding another complication to the divorce process?

Andrew Woolley
Woolley & Co
UK divorce lawyers