Baroness Deech – Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill [HL]
Second Reading: 27 January 2017
“At the crux of the issue is the value of judicial discretion in every case versus plain rules, as contained in the Bill.”
“….A couple of prominent family judges will no doubt say they are opposed to reforming the law to bring in clear and understandable firm rules, but they are the ones whose intricate judgments have aggravated what is already obsolete. Their preference for individual tailor-made solutions is unaffordable. Judicial objections amount to saying that there should be no Marks & Spencer because we all look better in a Savile Row suit tailored in the latest style. A senior judge wrote recently to warn of what he called,
“the crude and amateurish reform of the delicately calibrated law of financial provision following divorce, which is currently attracting some support in the House of Lords”. That is a very narcissistic comment. It is Parliament’s job to make policy in the interests of the entire country. It is the judges’ job to apply it, not to determine the legislation. That is a reminder of the separation of powers.”
Extract from The Law Commission (No. 192) 1990 – Family Law – The Ground for Divorce
"In the end it became clear that it could not do so without relying to an unacceptable and even more unprincipled extent upon the value judgments of the particular judge trying the case.”
Extract from The Law Commission Report No. 343 (2014) – Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements
1.26 Transparency in the law is a necessity, not a luxury. It is not realistic to insist that lack of clarity about financial needs is acceptable because the term is well understood by lawyers, as many lawyers have told us.
“the one great principle of the . . . law is to make business for itself”
Charles Dickins
Quotes from “Picking Up The Pieces: Marriage and Divorce Two Years After Information Provision” – March 2004, Newcastle Centre for family Studies
“I found the solicitors −the way they acted −to be disgraceful, to be honest. Having operated at a fairly senior level I was able to deal with these people with a degree of authority. But people who are not used to dealing with solicitors would be manipulated stupid. The way they behaved was outrageous. My wife, who wasn’t experienced at that level, was led astray and her legal bills were almost double mine, simply because I gave very precise instructions, even though my lawyer’s rates were higher than my wife’s lawyer’s … The solicitors were writing letters between themselves without reference to my wife or myself and charging her £25 a letter and me £67 a letter. They weren’t conferring with us, just stating things on their own. When I found out about that I ripped my solicitor’s head off and she said ‘Oh, I’m sorry, I won’t do it any more’ … It’s a licence to print money, and she’s driving around in a £90,000 Mercedes … I interviewed ten different firms of solicitors before I chose one and each one gave a different set of answers to the questions I had prepared … they were legal questions and every firm got them wrong, bar one. I was given incorrect information and I didn’t need to do a lot of the things I was being told to do – but you only know this with hindsight … The biggest thing I would draw people’s attention to is, don’t believe everything your lawyer tells you.”
“My solicitor was very thorough, too thorough in fact. I ended up spending about £10,000 on legal fees. The divorce process took much longer than necessary and I ended up with a worse financial deal than was first offered.” (F)
“It was no use at all and cost £4,600. I wasted 12 months of my time and I had to go back to court and represent myself.” (M)
“The costs were out of all proportion to the service offered. ‘Astronomical’ comes to mind; ‘rip-off’ is another. These people are the biggest deterrent to anyone getting divorced.” (M)
“The solicitor did not act on my instructions, made several blunders and proved to be useless. After a year of anxiety, I changed solicitors.” (M)
“He was useless and lost me my house and any pension rights.” (F)
“I feel that their main objective was to earn as much as possible from their involvement, with my and my family’s interests secondary to that.” (M)
I again make reference to the article: “Divorce lawyers are greedy, malevolent and second rate” by an anonymous divorce lawyer as published in Mail on Sunday on 20th June 1999. The article endorses the views expressed by the interviewees above.