Those of you who read the Daily Telegraph may have come across this depressing article by Cristina Odone. She complains that when her parents divorced when she was 13, they wanted to be amicable, but their lawyers felt cheated out of their fees and her parents spent most of the time arguing with their lawyers. She goes on to castigate divorce lawyers as investors in broken marriages, along with plastic surgeons, estate agents and cosmetic dentists.
Cristina, I simply don’t recognise the picture that you are painting. I assume that your parents’ divorce happened in the eighties, sometime before I became a solicitor. I’m sure that things were different back then and that things have changed a lot. They’ve certainly changed massively since I began practising family law in 1996.
Viewing divorce lawyers as parasites determined to benefit from their clients’ misery is an absurdly outdated view. I doubt that it was ever really like that, but if it was, it certainly isn’t now. The vast, vast majority of solicitors, barristers and other lawyers do their utmost to encourage their clients to approach a divorce in a constructive manner. Most divorce solicitors are members of Resolution (formerly known as the Solicitors Family Law association), which was set up in 1982 in order to encourage a less aggressive way of resolving family disputes. In the last 30 years, its membership has reached over 65,000 – an overwhelming majority of the lawyers engaged in family work in England & Wales.
Resolution members abide by its Code of Practice which compels them to approach disputes in a constructive and non-confrontational manner. Over the last three decades, this has transformed the practice of family law. The Rottweiler divorce lawyers of the past (who in any event were a minority anyway) have faded away and become replaced by a more modern, more positive type of divorce solicitor.
A solicitor I know recently told me that he was involved in an unmarried couple case recently where, because the relevant law is civil rather than family law, he found himself dealing with a civil litigation solicitor on the other side. The civil litigator hadn’t a clue about how to approach matters in a constructive manner. The contrast with the usual cases where both sides are represented by family lawyers was striking.
Many solicitors have also trained as collaborative lawyers, learning how to conduct negotiations where both sides work together to find a solution they feel is fair. One spin-off is that the same solicitors, even when not using the collaborative process, have learned to work together with the other side in a much more co-operative manner.
Many others have trained as mediators. (To be fair, Cristina actually seems to like mediators, but for some reason they are not considered by her to be investors in divorce). Mediators are impartial and independent third parties whose job is to help a couple work together to find a solution.
There are of course still a few Rottweilers out there, as well as some solicitors who put their fee targets before the best interests of their clients. However, they are a tiny minority; all professionals contain a few unprofessionals. The vast majority of solicitors give their clients the right advice, regardless of the effect on their billing.
Look at it another way, Cristina. I don’t want to in any way to be disparaging about your parents. I am pleased to hear that they were able to keep things amicable. But I have lost count of the number of times that clients have told me that everything is agreed and there is nothing for me to do. I then have to explain to those clients that things are just not that simple. A deal reached directly between the parties may not achieve a fair outcome that meets their needs (or their children’s needs). Or the parties may have agreed that the husband might get less capital in return for not paying child support; I have to point out that this is impossible in law and there is nothing to stop the wife from seeking child support later. Or one party may not have provided evidence of the value of an assets so it is impossible for me to advice if the deal is fair. I am duty bound to point this out. If I did not, I would not be doing my job properly.
If the client wants to proceed despite my advice, then so be it, but there is still a lot of paperwork to be sorted out. It takes time and money to do it properly. Clients don’t always feel it is necessary, but it’s vital.
Calling solicitors silly things like investors in broken marriages makes good copy, but it does not reflect the facts. Would you call a doctor an investor in ill health?
When you get divorced, you need a solicitor, even if everything is agreed. Especially if everything is agreed. It’s as simple as that.