LONDON – THE DIVORCE CAPITAL OF THE WORLD

Rich pickings for the legal profession

  It is nothing to be proud of that, in many cases, the legal costs of resolving the finances eat up half or more of the entire assets available to a couple,  depriving their children of what should be their future stability. In a recent  case about a £30,000 annual award to a child, £295,000 of costs were    accrued. I note also the case where the husband was awarded £50,000 but was left with a bill of £490,000 in costs, and the case where the costs swallowed up the entire assets.

   ……There are also a few solicitors with a vested interest in no reform because their task of leading couples through the maze of the existing law is very well paid.

 ……This brings me to the objections to any reform at all by the family law Bar and the objections to some reforms by solicitors. It is similar to the lawyers’ opposition to the Civil Liability Bill. As Mandy Rice-Davies so famously said, “They would, wouldn’t they?” Or, as an experienced judge put it to me, the Bar is blinded by its own self-interest. It is wedded to the system, as are some judges, because it believes that it is doing a good job. It is, within existing parameters, but at a terrible cost, for hundreds of thousands of pounds— which divorcing couples need—are spent on legal costs. The Bar objects to any changes because most couples reach an agreement without going to court, at great cost and because the expense of seeking what they see as fair is prohibitive. In the local family court, I have seen those poor couples who have no legal aid and representation on only one side. “That’s £50,000 costs chalked up already,” says the genuinely helpful judge, “and if you cannot reach accord today, in the little room at the end of the corridor, it’ll be another  £25,000 if you go to another judge for further determination”. They settle  because of the unpredictability of the next judge, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, will tell you.