Gary Lineker’s claims that lawyers manipulate divorce in order to cost their clients money has outraged family solicitors.
The ex-footballer and TV presenter and crisp salesman has divorced without using a solicitor. Speaking to the Radio Times, he claims that “we know that lawyers try to manipulate it to make you spend more money and basically end up hating each other.”
The Daily Telegraph says that he made use of a new government website that allowed him to divorce without a solicitor for only £400. Unfortunately the Telegraph has got its facts wrong. The Times reported (not entirely more accurately) that it cost him £400, although the fee has now risen to £550. That tells me immediately that what he has done is issue his own divorce proceedings; the court fee for doing that was £410 (not £400) until recently when the Ministry of Justice increased it to £550. He hasn’t used some clever new government website, he’s just issued a divorce petition.
And if that’s all he’s done, he’s not sorted his divorce out properly. He won’t have a financial clean break order preventing his ex-wife from making a financial claim against his £20 million fortune.
There is a new government website designed to help people who cannot afford a new lawyer to navigate the divorce process. It doesn’t cost £400, it’s free. While it may help litigants in person in straightforward cases, it’s nowhere near as good as having a skilled and experienced family solicitor acting for you.
I am pleased to note that Gary Lineker and his wife have resolved their differences without the need for a costly and bitter court battle, but I cannot agree with his slur on family lawyers.
This is his second divorce. I have no idea what happened in his first divorce. He may very well have had a torrid time that put him off divorce lawyers for life. However, getting divorced once or twice does not make him an expert in divorce, any more than the time I watched Ipswich Town beat Man City one-nil in 1999 makes me an expert on football.
Most family law solicitors are members of Resolution (formerly known as the Solicitors Family Law Association). Its code of conduct compels its members to conduct cases in a constructive and conciliatory manner. Resolution has pioneered alternatives to court, such as mediation and collaborative law, which help divorcees to reach agreements that they can both feel are fair and more importantly to allow them to both work together in the best interests of their children. These aren’t alternatives to using a lawyer, they are alternatives to using the court. Resolution constantly promotes the importance of negotiation over litigations, wherever possible. Its aim is always to allow people to divorce with dignity. It is the very antithesis of the cliched venal legal Rottweilers who are supposed to prey on those who are divorcing.
In my experience, the vast, vast majority of family lawyers, whether they be solicitors, barristers, legal executives or paralegals concentrate on reaching an agreement. They will recommend court proceedings only if it is in the best interests of their clients. They recognise the benefits of a negotiated agreement over one that is imposed by the court after a long painful and expensive legal fight. They work with the other side to help resolve matters. They use negotiation, mediation and collaborative process to reach agreement. Gary Lineker’s view is depressingly cynical and simply does not reflect the profession of which I have been a member for 20 years.
There are some lawyers who enjoy the fight more than the resolution, lawyers who are only interested in racking up a big legal bill. They are a tiny minority. All professions, lawyers and footballers included, have members who let the side down, but almost all of the lawyers that I have dealt with throughout my career are conscientious, professional and aim to reach agreement wherever possible.
Lineker’s other comment was that there should be a mathematical equation that decides who gets what. The trouble with that is no formula is ever going to provide the flexibility that is necessary to properly achieve fairness and meet a couples’ needs. You only have to look at the child maintenance formula to know that it is very blunt instrument that, while it has the virtue of simplicity, does not necessarily achieve a fair outcome.
A formula might be able to sort out the straightforward cases. However, in a case where the husband has a pot of assets worth £20 million, that formula is going to be hopelessly inadequate. Gary Lineker is much luckier than many people who cannot afford a lawyer. If you are worth £20 million and you are not prepared to incur legal fees to pay for a solicitor to formalise your agreement in a clean break consent order, you are running a huge risk; if Mrs Lineker decides that she wants to make a financial claim against him after all, Gary may end up as sick as a parrot.
26th April 2016