It is common nowadays for people to represent themselves in divorce financial remedy applications in order to avoid incurring legal fees, but sooner or later, they may have to use a solicitor.
Going to court is an expensive process and, not surprisingly, many people cannot afford to incur the cost. Instead, they represent themselves as Litigants in Person (LiPs), and will often struggle throughout the court process. Eventually, in most cases, they will reach an agreement, probably at a Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) appointment where the judge gives them an informal indication of the likely outcome in order to persuade them to reach an agreement.
The agreement is usually reached after many months of delays and often after more hearings than should be necessary. Where solicitors represent one or both parties, they will do their utmost to ensure that hearings are effective. Everything necessary will be done before the hearing, which will maximise the chances of successfully concluding matters. It is rare for hearings to be ineffective.
However, where solicitors are not involved, then the odds that progress will not be made are much higher. Important documentation will not be prepared properly, if at all. One or both parties may fail to produce the necessary financial evidence. The court may find itself unable to make any progress at the hearing and must then order the parties to do what they have failed to do, and it will list the case for a further hearing. I have seen cases where clients have represented themselves drag on for months and years because the parties did not get their ducks in a row for a hearing.
The Family Court suffers from terrible delays as a result; LiPs are the primary cause of delays in family proceedings. At the moment, in the Family Court at Chelmsford Justice Centre, there is usually a gap of about nine months between hearings. Before LiPs starting dominating the court list (before the government withdraw legal aid in most cases), the gaps between hearings were usually only 3 or 4 months.
I have seen numerous cases with LiPs where the first appointment is an utter waste of time due to non-compliance by the parties with the court’s directions. One of the parties then instructs me to act for them to sort out the mess into which their case descended. It can cost more to sort of out the mess than it would have cost had they instructed me to act for them in the first place.
At the FDR appointment, the court will, if it has all the information that it needs, give an indication of what it thinks the financial outcome should be. The court cannot impose a financial order at that stage, but it can tell the parties what it thinks that a judge at a final hearing will order. The judge will usually give the parties a little speech explaining that it would be much better if they reached an agreement today, because if they do not, then the next step will be a final hearing before a judge who will make an order that provides for this, that and the other. The final hearing judge will not know what has been suggested by the FDR judge, but odds are that it will be the same or similar.
Most cases end at the FDR stage as it takes a brave or foolhardy party to carry on litigating where the FDR judge has told them that they are not likely to get what they want. But then what?
Once there is an agreement, the parties must ask the court to make a financial consent order setting the agreement in stone. This is absolutely essential. Unless the agreement in incorporated into an order, it may not be legally binding, it cannot be enforced, any pension sharing cannot be implemented and there is a danger of further financial claims because the court will not have ordered a clean break.
The court does not usually have the time or inclination to draft the financial order for the parties. They will be sent away from court with a direction by the judge that a draft financial order must be submitted to the court for its approval. The only order made by the judge at that stage will contain at most a very brief summary of the agreement, but that is not the same a properly formatted, enforceable and well-drafted financial consent order. They may also be encouraged to instruct a solicitor to do it for them.
At this stage, at least one of the LiPs may decide to instruct a solicitor to do it for them. Or, if they are unwise, they will get AI to draft it.
The arrival of AI is causing challenges to the legal profession. This is not thus far the challenge of AI replacing trained and experienced solicitors and barristers. AI is not that good yet, although that day may be close. The challenge facing the legal system is that it is now increasingly inundated with AI generated documentation, much of which is not very good.
I was recently consulted by a LiP who had used AI to draft a financial consent order. The client very sensibly decided he should get a solicitor to check it. While the AI had managed to recite the agreement clearly, it had utterly failed to draft the order in a way that was enforceable and binding. The court would never have approved it. The AI used by the LiP was simply no match for an experienced, trained, regulated and insured solicitor.
A financial consent order prepared by a solicitor is a highly technical, structured and well-crafted document. It will be a bespoke creation, crafted to reflect the terms of the parties’ agreement in a legally binding format. Many solicitors would agree to prepare the order for a Pay As You Go fixed fee.
Going it alone may be tempting, but it can often be a false economy.
3 October 2026
If you would like to arrange a consultation, please call 01206 848426 or click here.