Is Mediation of any real use? part 2

Share |

There appears to be evidence to the contrary. Robert Dingwall published some time ago in the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 32:2, 107-117 an article entitled Divorce mediation:should we change our mind?

The answer is "yes we should!!"

Is Mediation of any real use?

Share |

One of the ConDems great ideas is to force legal aid clients to go to mediation. This already happens-so its not a new idea-but some how or other this time those who are on legal aid will have to complete mediation before even thinking of litigating through the Courts.

The reason for this is that the Government has been conviced by arguments from Mediators and supporters of mediation that it is cheaper, faster and better than litigation.

If you have money then you can avoid the Mediation hurdle and all you will have to say is that you have been told about it, thought about it and rejected it as an option.

I have no problem with Mediation. In effect that is how lawyers (good lawyers) conduct a case. They try to get their client to have sensible, realisable objectives.

Mediators would tell you that clients really love mediation, that if given the chance they would only ever choose mediation and that the reason that more people don't use mediation is because lawyers convice their clients against it because the lawyer will lose a fee. If this were the case then it doesn't really explain the rise in Collaborative Law.



The truth is that many lawyers don't have faith in the ability of Mediators to reach an agreement that is lawful. Experience teaches us that mediation for legal aid clients is a waste of time and a waste of taxpayer's money. There is also a problem created by the fact that mediation training appears not to be accredited by an independent body. I remember meeting one Mediator who told me that she could mediate any dispute at all.

Mediation has its place. Parties who do not wish to mediate should not be forced to do so. Litigation may well clear the air and the ground so that mediation can take place on final minor sticking points.

Mediators keen to promote mediation as being cheaper, faster and more effective (kinder to participants) can produce no research data to support this view. The truth is that Mediators are primarily after a monopoly so they can earn fees. Indeed if Mediation is so good one wonders why Mediators don't offer No Deal-No Fee terms of engagement?



One trait of Mediators is that criticism of mediation tends to result in an "you're only interested in your fee" retort when Mediators are in fact promoting a (compulsory) "alternative" to litigation which has failed to capture the public's imagination. Mediation was discussed in Parliament in 1948 when the Legal Advice and Assistance Bill was progressing through Parliament. It is not a new concept. One imagines that if it was so good that those who had gone through the process would have shouted the Good News from the roof tops and caused Solicitors and Barristers to change their views.

All I want to see is proper, independently accredited training for Mediators, proper evaluation of Mediators and independently researched evidence that it is cheaper, faster and better than litigation.

One would have thought that the Legal Services Commission would by now have gathered data on the effectiveness of Mediation and so could release that data in a report. Indeed they have-but only about In Court mediation, not pre litigation mediation.

"The in court pilot demonstrated some real benefits to clients. Where mediation took place 71% of clients reached some form of agreement.

However, the funding model trialled proved expensive, underlyng the importance of the government's aim to encourage people to consider and use mediation before their case goes to court. We are continuing to look at ways to increase public awareness of mediation and will be consulting upon the current list of exemptions available to solicitors to exempt their clients from the mediation assessment requirement. This may be able to help more individuals to receive information about the mediation process and decide whether this would be a more apprpriate way to attempt to resolve their family dispute."

There appears to be no evidence that making people go to mediation first will be effective-it is merely an aspiration. But there has been a system in place for a long time whereby those on legal aid had to go to mediation unless exempt. Where's the data?


 
 

The Divorce/Dissolution Process

Share|

Jacqueline Emmerson, Senior Partner at Emmersons Solicitors

explains how the divorce/dissolution process works:

Even if a divorce/dissolution is going

to be straightforward I would always

allow at least seven months.

The procedure is as follows: The Petitioner, or

their solicitor, should advise the Respondent that

proceedings are about to be issued. It is considered

bad practice not to do so. The divorce/

dissolution petition is then sent to the court

together with a Statement of Arrangements for

children which sets out where the children will

live and how often they will see their other parent.

The court will send copies of the documents to

The Respondent. They then have fourteen days

to return their Acknowledgement of Service to

the court.

This is when things can slow down. The Respondent

may not be emotionally ready to be divorced

and may ignore the documents. If that is the case

then the court bailiff may be instructed to serve

the documents personally. If the Respondent still

ignores the procedure the court will be asked to

give permission for the matter to proceed without

input from the Respondent.

Sometimes the Respondent may object to the

allegations made against them and may consider

defending the divorce. This would be a very

costly option and one which the courts discourage.

If you accept that a marriage/civil partnership

is over then there is little point in defending

the petition. Why on earth would you want to

go to court and give evidence against each other

in relation to the private life that has been your

marriage or partnership? Imagine the stress and

humiliation of that! Instead ask your solicitor to

draft a short statement stating that whilst you do

not accept the allegations made against you, you

will not defend the petition.

At this stage there is often a dispute as to who

will pay the Petitioners costs. If the Petition is

based upon the Respondent’s adultery or unreasonable

behaviour then the Petitioner is going to

feel aggrieved having to pay court fees and their

own solicitor’s fees. Therefore the court is often

asked to order that the Respondent be ordered

to pay those costs.

Once the Respondent has returned the Acknowledgement

of Service to the court (i.e. their

response to the petition) the Petitioner can then

apply to the court for Decree Nisi. This is the

stage where the judge will confirm whether or

not he/she thinks that you have sufficient grounds

to obtain a divorce/dissolution. The judge will

also make an order in relation to costs and may

request further information about the care of the

children. Once the judge gives the go ahead your

case will be listed with lots of other divorces so

that Decree Nisi can be pronounced.

This is the public bit. If you haven’t informed your

family or friends that you have filed for divorce

you had better tell them now. The local press will

print the list of Decree Nisis pronounced, you are

about to be famous!

Once you have your decree Nisi you have to wait

six weeks and one day before you can apply for

Decree absolute.

A few words of warning: do not book your

next wedding until you have your

Decree Absolute in your hand!

Do not re-marry until you have sorted out

your finances using a solicitor.

Even if you think you have nothing to sort out

seek advice before remarrying.

Emmersons Solicitors

Share|
Apparently there are a million houses not fit for human habitation, owned by private landlords. This is not news. Various reports have highlighted the issue.
The Government wishes to reduce access to legal aid. People who live in such awful conditions need access to money so they can pay a Solicitor to seek redress and if necessary fight for compensation.
Here's what the Government says in its Green Paper

We also consider that funding is justified for serious housing disrepair cases where the litigant is not primarily seeking damages, but is seeking a repair of such significance that without it the life or health of the litigant or their family may be at serious risk (such as the repair of gas equipment). Given the risk to health in these serious disrepair cases, we propose too that legal aid is justified for these cases.

If The Government is intent on changing the look and feel of legal aid then instead of adding in extra hurdles before legal aid can be granted-what does "a repair of such significance" actually mean?- I would suggest taking the Government and the Legal Services Commission out of this area (ie Housing Disrepair) altogether. I would also suggest that Local Authorities be paid 50% of all fines recovered arising out of their successful enforcement of housing repair regulations (just like the Police and HMRC in POCA proceedings).

Perhaps private landlords should pay into a scheme, administered by The Law Society, which will help fund cases for housing disrepair. If a percentage of damages paid out are also paid into the fund and if fees are fixed (as in Road Traffic cases) then there is certainty for all parties.
Failure by a landlord to pay into the scheme would result in a fine and an order for contribution to the scheme. Persistent re-offending would result in a criminal charge. Landlords would then realise the importance of making repairs. If they continue so to do then I propose a forced sale of the miscreant landlord's property.

If the Government is going to cut legal aid then it has to think of new ways to fund access to Justice-not propose partial funding in certain circumstances.

There needs to be a wholesale review of the justice sytems, of how they are funded and how access to advice and representation is funded.

Never mind the offside rule in football.. what about real life?

Share | Obviously men of a certain age and men of a certain mindset still think of women as stay at home babysitters whilst the hunter gatherer goes to work, drinks beer and watches footy.

I don't watch football regularly. I played as a Scout many years ago and at Uni I played 5-a-side. I have been to two Premier League games. I found the racism, agression from the fans and the segregation overwhelming. I couldnt wait to get home.

I dont understand those supporters to whom I have talked who love the agression directed towards opposing fans and the officials on the pitch.

I do watch rugby union. I played it for many years. I refereed for a while. I love the atmposphere and friendliness of rugby-although I have noted a tendency by commentators and supporters to start the "blame the ref" approach one associates with football.

Two really important people from Sky Sports were recorded having a private conversation about a female assistant referee before a game had started. Apparently football is a man's game, played by men, watched by men, run by men and organised by men. That's proabably why England do so well in competitions?

Lots of girls and women play football as they do rugby and other "male" sports. I have to say that my one experience of a female rugby referee was that she was really very badly treated on one occasion by drunken young men at Novos when she took charge of a game.

I also don't like the way some women feel able to talk about "men" as if somehow we are all the same.

Imagine if I walked into a school and started ranting at the headmistress because she was a woman. Or what if I ran up the ailse of a plane-or church-and ranted at the pilot-or the Minister-that she was a "f------g stupid bitch who knew nuthin about flying bloody planes -or communicating with God and preaching".

Would it matter if I was at home, in the bath, thinking such thoughts? Is it acceptable for me to think racist thoughts, sexist thoughts, thoughts of jealousy, evny and hatred so long as I dont express them "publicly"?

Can women referee premier league football? Of course they can.

Can women referee international rugby? Of course they can.

Can women fly aeroplanes? Yes.


Is what the Sky Sports presenters said-even though it was a private conversation- wrong? Of course it is. It cannot be justified by calling it "banter" or by saying "well women say men cant multi-task".

It was outdated, bigoted, ill-considered, opinionated rubbish-that is all too prevalent still in sport, the world of business and in the legal world.

I have two daughters. I wish for them to achieve the best they can. I want them to be confident enough in themsleves to be able to do what they wish. If they wish to be a home maker then fine. If they wish to work and have a family fine. If they wish to have a career only then fine. What I don't want for them is to be subject to the prejudices, bigotry and hatred that is still directed at women.

I have a son. When he was born-after two daughters-some said to me how happy I must be to have a son. I was happy he was born. I was happy he was healthy and my wife was healthy. I wasn't pleased that finally I'd got a boy because I didnt view the girls as trial and error until I'd finally hit the jackpot. I wish for him to achieve as I wish for my daughters. I suspect his life in business or in sport would be a lot easier than that of his sisters, if they were to choose that path.

That for me is the worst about what the Sky Sports presenters said. Women are still not allowed to strive for and achieve what they wish to strive for and achieve. There are still barriers, unnecessary and arbitrary limitations. Those barriers do not make sense. They are unjustified. Comments which suggest a justification for such barriers and limitations are unjustifiable.

Neither of the Sky Sports presenters has yet apologised. That's been done for them by their employer. Not man enough to say sorry or to explain their views?

Female Liberation. History and Current Politics

Cant take it with you

Share | Sir Gerry Robinson explores the pain and emotion that making a will can cause by exploring the desires of the will maker with family and friends before the will is made.

There is a presumption in this country that children have the right to inherit their parents' property. They do not. A parent can make a will and dispose of property however he or she feels fit.

Discussing these issues before hand can alleveiate strife, anger and dispute after death. Thinking carefully about how property should be disposed of is essential. Talking about these issues (a very unBritish thing to do) should become the norm.


However, more important even than a will are Lasting Powers of Attorney. Our facebook page (see link to right of this post) provides information on this issue as does our website.


Whether its a will, an LPA or probate then Emmersons can help.




 

PC Mitchell Jailed

Share | I wont get very technical about the sentence given to this Police man but he has been given an indeterminate sentence. That means he could stay in prison for life.

Could he be released? Yes
When? When the Parole Board consider that he is no longer a danger to the public, after 7.5 years.
How do they assess that? By reading reports from an Offender Superviser, Probation, other prison personnel, psychologists/psychiatrists. The reports refer to his performance on various courses, his general behaviour in prison and his mental health. His attitude to women would be assessed.
So he gets out after 7.5 years? No. That is the earliest date the Parole Board can consider him for release.
But he could get out shortly thereafter? Very very doubtful. Most IPP prisoners serve at least twice the tarriff before being released. Those who are considered a danger are not released.


If you want more information on IPP sentences then  you need look no further than our Facebook page
 

It’s those January blues again and Divorce is "very popular"!

At the start of January Tim dragged himself out of bed to go back to work after the Christmas break. He had not enjoyed the holiday period as he and his wife Sally had spent the entire time arguing. Just before he left for work Sally said that she needed to speak to him. What she said next came as a shock. She no longer loved him, she had found someone else and she wanted a divorce. She also said that he was to leave the house as soon as possible but that he could see the children on a regular basis. Reeling from this news Tim arrived at Emmersons solicitors for advice.



Tim was told that he had as much right to live in the matrimonial home as Sally. They should decide whether the house should be sold and the proceeds split between them (not necessarily in equal shares). Alternatively one of them could buy out the other’s share.

Tim was advised not to move out until these issues were sorted out. Things could become very difficult for him if Sally’s new partner decided to move in before all financial matters were settled! As far as the children were concerned, it was established that Tim had been a very hands on Dad. He was used to caring for the children when Sally was at work. He was used to taking them to school. There was no reason why Sally should decide that she should be the main carer.


Tim was asked to start collecting all of his financial documentation. This included details of his pension, savings and salary and the value of the matrimonial home. Sally’s solicitor would provide all of her financial documents. Then an offer could be put forward to settle matters.


Emmersons were able to liase with a mortgage advisor with Tim’s authority. Basic details were given, the idea being to find out how much by way of a new mortgage Tim could raise either to buy out Sally or to purchase a new home for himself.


Armed with this knowledge Tim advised Sally that he would not be moving out and that he would continue to take the children to school every day as he had always done. Sally was so desperate to be with her new partner that she moved out. She was prepared to allow Tim to buy her out. Whilst this is not a happy ending story it gives a flavour of how people can be helped with the right advice.

January is the busiest time for divorce lawyers. Christmas can be a very stressful time for couples who have been struggling to get along. They often find themselves thrown together for nearly two weeks and at the end of that time one party often feels that they can’t go on with the relationship. Anyone in this position should seek advice before making any rash decisions.

And don’t dismiss Relate as “not for me.” There are many out there who have lived to fight another day together.

What about 2011?

Share |
This year was an awful year for family legal aid solicitors and for others who had to "bid" for work. Some firms took the view that there was no point and pulled out of legal aid altogether. Others took an opportunity to bid speculatively for work in areas that they had not previously had a presence. This course of action resulted in firms established in certain geographic areas not being awarded contracts because of the might of "incomers". Those incomers then advertised for people to work for them and had to find premises. 

Some companies are used to bidding for contracts with local Government and with central Government. The process adopted by teh LSC was cumbersome and didn't work very well. It is based upon the idea that catually those entitled to legal aid are 2customers" and the LSC is a commissioning body. The problem with the tender process is that the LSC cannot guarantee volume nor-as happened with family-can the LSC guarantee that Government policy wont adversely affcet the numbers of potential clients ( egthrough changes to eligibility).

The Legal Services Commission had published the criteria so late in the day that many firms were left floudering when it came to the bidding process. It was clear that Emmersons Solicitors did not meet the criteria that had been set but published only two months ahead of bidding. We had only one Family Panel member. Why? Because there had not been nor was there any need to be a member of a panel other than to fulfill supervision requirements. There was no need for all Solicitors to be on a panel. There was no advantage to us or to the clients in having all Solicitors on a panel.

Following the initial bidding process we were told we had not been awarded a contract. Other firms in Sunderland were in a similar position.

Initially I did not care. It was a relief to be shot of the legal aid contract. It is not remunerative. It involves a lot of bureaucracy and interference from the LSC.

However I eventually got angry enough to threaten Judicial Review proceedings. I got angry because of the performance of Hugh Barrett on BBC News 


The LSC maintained then and maintains now that the criteria were well known-they were not. That they were sensible and that the LSC could rely upon them-they are not nor should the LSC rely upon them. Also the LSC maintained that actually the cull of Solicitors' firms offering legal aid was NOT a bad thing and was a good thing as it maintained client choice.


I did some research. The LSC were well aware in June 2009 through the Quality Working Group that there was no evidence that accreditation was an indicator of quality. No detailed research had been undertaken on this point. So why did they use accreditation as a bid criteria? To get rid of firms.

Thankfully the Law Society undertook and succeeded in a Judicial Review, in which the LSC were heavily criticised.


The real problem is that the LSC has created a bureaucratic web that makes administering legal aid expensive. The blame for this rests with the lSC. To control costs the LSC has decided to reduce the number of Solicitors and others who provide publicly-funded advice. The LSC sets quality standards, audits files and firms, spends ages looking at how claims have been submitted. The LSC fails to recognise that it is this bureaucracy that needs to be addressed. If the systems of claiming-what is inevitably a fixed fee-were simpler and if there was no auditing by the LSC then costs would be reduced dramatically.


The Solicitors Regulation Authority regulates Solicitors. The SRA are responsible for quality. There is no need for the LSC to get involved in that.


There is no need for auditing IF a proper, simple payment regime can be created.


The LSC needs to look at how legal aid is administered and change its philosophy. 


The LSC is under pressure. For the second year the National Audit Office would not sign off the LSC's accounts. Apparently too much money was paid to Solicitors. Why? The payment sytem is disproportionately complicated when compared to the fee per case. Of course the LSC was quick to blame Solicitors.


In 2011 it would be very nice if the MoJ and LSC stopped telling me and other Solicitors why we need to do it their way and instead talked to us about how to make the system better.

The SRA wishes to introduce Outcome Focused Regulation. The main reason for this appears to be that it will make things easier for me and will be really good. The truth is that it makes it easier for the SRA to be the Regulator of  ABS's (Alternative Business Structures). OFR is unnecessary and will create chaos and disaster for clients and for Solicitors. It makes no sense. The SRA did not ask the profession if we wanted OFR. We were told it was coming and we have been consulted on delivery not principle. It is a pointless waste of time and effort.

In 2011 it would be nice if the SRA listened to what Solicitors are saying and stopped telling us how good OFR is going to be for us. 

The Ministry of Justice wishes to reform sentencing and punishment. It wishes to reform a lot of the justice systems and impose upon those who are publicly funded a requirements to use mediation to resolve divorce issues. It is with such contempt that those who receive legal aid are held that they are told what system of justice best suits them. They have no choice-unless they meet certain criteria or are prepared to pay privately.

There has been a lot of criticism this year by Judges about legislation, the Family Courts massacre and on legal issues such as enforced mediation. The MoJ, rather like Labour, does not wish to hear from dissenters. Those who oppose do so for reasons of self interest.

The MoJ and LSC know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

In 2011 it would be nice if the Government reviewed how the justice systems operate, how they are funded and how access to those systems is funded. 

My guess is that a lot of what the MoJ and Government in general proposes for Justice will not see the light of day. Towards the end of 2011 there is to be a further competitive tendering process for criminal contracts. My hope is that the ConDems realise that they meddle too much in legal aid provision and that a thorough, open and honest review is required. Competiive price Tendering is unnecessary.

I hope that the LSC/MoJ will release the research to justify the oft-made claim that England and Wales spends more per capita than any other country. One wonders if this statistic is as accurate as the data gathered on WMD in Iraq?

In 2011 I hope that the LSC/MoJ adopts an honest approach to how it conducts the "reform" of legal aid instead of lying at every cut and turn about what it aims to do and why what has been done has been done. Lying may be a strong word-but it accurately describes how the top executives of the LSC and how the civil servants in the MoJ pronounce on legal aid reform. If you watch the performance of the LSC before the Justice Committee you will see what I mean.
 
 

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

When we sit down for Christmas Dinner let us remember those people less fortunate than ourselves.

May God bless you, keep you safe and ease your trouble and help you see the beauty that there is in this world and in you.

This song may be about God??!

Ken Clarke QC before Justice Committee

Share |
Ken Clarke QC is an interesting politician. He has held high office. He appears to be "liberal" in thought and word-yet I cant help thinking his motivation is more to do with simply saving money.

It is so easy to start talking about outcomes as a tool by which to measure success. Imagine if that happened in health care where hospitals only got paid if a patient survived, or in eduaction where teachers only got paid or schools funded if a certain percentage of pupils got certain grades.

Why is criminal justice and sentencing any different?

On the other hand addressing issues through intervention stratagies that work makes sense. There would be no point having Probation courses for sex offenders that involved cleaning out canals. The core problem related to offending by the specific offender must be addressed-the problem is some don't want to be changed-so is that the fault of Probation?

Enough!

Here's Ken Clarke QC, Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary of England and Wales before the House of Commons Justice Committee.

Courts to close

Share |One of the great joys of English and Welsh Justice is the connection that a community can feel with its Magistrates' Court. Local people can apply to become magistrates and dispense local Justice in both criminal and family cases to those whpo appear before the Court.

Now some 140 Courts are to close.

Is this a bad thing? Yes. Was it inevitable? Yes, with this Government. Why? Because it is clear that price is much more important than worth. One cannot easily place a price tag on value.

The fact that people will have to travel further, that soem jobs will be lost, that the local connection will disappear is of concern. It also seems to conflict with the idea of the Big Society.

On the other hand the numbers of people coming to Court were reduced through Government policy (that is of the last Government) by allowing cautions and conditional cautions and Penalty Notices for Disorder to be issued on people who would have in the past appeared at Court. Allied to this is a reluctance-again as a result of Government policy-to charge people to Court unless they really are guilty. People who may in the past have pleaded or who may have been found guilty are not even charged with an offence. Too many people in the CPS are scared to make decisions that go against policy. Is this Justice?

Add into it the desire to reduce the numbers in custody-quite correctly-and I wonder how long it is before the ConDems start getting attacked by all sections of the community and media.

 

Justice Committe ask the MoJ Mandarin some questions on costs and legal aid

ParliamentLive.tv 
click on the Title or ParliamentLive .tv link to view the session. Better than the "X Factor"!!

Share|

A very interesting committe examination of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice by the Justice Committee.

1 hour 15 minutes may seem like a long time out of your life but if you are interested in legal aid, wish to get a glimpse into the thinking of the Permanant Secretary and his staff and understand how MPs view the MoJ and legal aid then it is worth watching.


If you are a mediator, an advice worker, a barrister or a Solicitor then it is of interest to you.

What would also be interesting would be to see the research that the MoJ has undertaken/reviewed to show that England and Wales spends £38 per head and countries such as Australia and New Zealand on £7-£8 per head of population on legal aid. Hopefully it will be disclosed.


The question was asked is it a question of volume or value. The answer seems to be that alternatives such as mediation in family cases will save money.


So family solicitors bid for contracts in relation to which the plan is to cut eligibility and to limit solicitor involvement.

A guide to ABS's

If you can get by the lengthy and noisy intro this is an interesting Introduction to ABS's provided by Birmingham Law Society and the threat that ABS's MIGHT pose to Solicitors. Whether they will pose a real threat or not is unclear. The full extent of the activity of ABS's is more limited than some would have you believe.

Well worth viewing

Please BLS, less pyrotechnics in the next one and get straight to the point.

Someone you know may need our help

Share | Does your relationship feel like a 5-1 defeat?

It can be difficult-especially at Christmas-to leave partner, children, home and start anew. You may not have to.

We encourage all clients to think about Marriage/Relationship Counselling.

If the relationship has ended that does not mean you should be cut off from your children. You can mediate, you can negotiate and, if necessary, you can litigate.
Men especially are put under a lot of pressure to keep the kids out of it and to agree with whatever contact the ex allows. In fact this behaviour by the ex-unless of course the contact is reasonable-is putting the children right in the middle of the dispute as weapons to punish and control the former partner.

Many men go along with it whilst goodness knows what is being told to the children. We have had situations where men have been so compliant with the ex partner's demands that they were unaware that the children were being told that Daddy no longer cared.

If it is at all possible both adult parties should agree contact that allows the children equal access to both parents.

Children need their parents-both parents. They too can suffer terribly if the divorce is conducted like  some horrific PS 3 war game.

“Where did it all go wrong?”

Share | Those were the words of Christina who came to see us recently. Her husband had told her that their marriage was over and that he was leaving her. She had thought that they had a strong relationship and she was very happy. Roger however, had told her that he had been unhappy for a long time.


Christina did not know where to start, she did not know where she stood legally and she now sought legal advice.Christmas can be a very stressful time for people if their relationship is already difficult. Often a couple will find themselves together for nearly two weeks when usually they do not spend much time together at all. This can exacerbate problems. In some cases one person has been having an affair and they decide to leave after Christmas. January and February are the busiest months for divorce lawyers.

If you find yourself in Christina or Roger’s position do not panic. It may be that relationship counselling will work for you as a couple. If however, you have concluded that your marriage or relationship cannot be saved then seek initial advice. We have included a list on the family pages of our web site (emmersons-solicitors.co.uk) which is designed to help you. Your solicitor will need basic financial information from you in order to give you advice in relation to a financial settlement. Different rules apply depending upon whether you are married, in a civil partnership or cohabiting.

Many people come to see us thinking that everything has to be sorted out immediately. This is a normal reaction to what is often a huge shock. My advice would be to seek initial information from a solicitor so that you will have an overview of your position. Then consider giving yourself some thinking time. If your spouse or partner is demanding that you leave the house or that the house be sold this does not have to happen today or even this week. The decisions you make now could have long term consequences. As a solicitor I see my job as being to help a client plan as far ahead as possible. Eg. What will your pension provision look like ten years from now?

If you want to know where you stand legally see a solicitor before you make any decisions especially in relation to leaving your home.

Life is a maze-sometimes you need help to get through it.

Jacqueline Emmerson
Senior Partner