I don't want a "soft" solicitor

Sometimes I get enquiries where people are looking for a fierce or aggressive lawyer. I understand it - it is a worrying time, and people are concerned that if their ex's lawyer is more fearsome, their ex might do better than them.

To be clear. A lawyer who advocates alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation, to avoid court, is not "soft". They are taking an approach, which, if shared by the other party, would very likely lead to reduced costs and reduced stress.. In other words, your best interests. It is not the same as laying down and accepting a poor outcome.

Put another way. Which lawyer do you think will be more likely to get you the best outcome with the lower stress and legal fees? (a) The lawyer who gives sensible and realistic advice, and stands their ground; or (b) the lawyer who adopts an unreasonable approach (meaning not even close to the likely outcome based on the law and guidance), and stands their ground. Most people will know the answer is the (a) type of lawyer. The (b) type of lawyer will most likely cause frustration for the other party, an increase in costs and acrimony, and chances are the case will not settle without help from an arbitrator or Judge. It does not matter how loudly the (b) type lawyer shouts or throws his/her weight around, if their position is unreasonable, this approach will not get their client the outcome they are arguing for if a court or arbitrator is deciding.

My approach is to give sensible and realistic advice, and try to resolve matters with non-court solutions, as set out here. However, it is also important to recognise where a client is throwing good money after bad, and the voluntary route is looking doomed - this might be where the other party has a (b) type lawyer as mentioned above and, after some attempts, it is clear they are not going to agree a reasonable settlement.

I went around 2 and 1/2 years without issuing a court application on financial remedies (Form A) or receiving one. I felt I was "on a roll" However, in the second half of last year, I filed two applications. Were they necessary? Absolutely. Those cases were never going to settle along any sort of reasonable lines for my client, and the other party was failing to engage in any sensible process or negotiations. The court is there, to my mind, as a last resort, and for those cases it was and is needed.

Proportionality is always important, but sometimes one party simply will not engage at all. They might be very content with the situation as it is, or they might have wholly unreasonable expectations. Even where there are no assets at the time, it is still important to get a final order, to protect against claims in the future.

In those cases, which should be rare, where a court application is an unavoidable necessity, or an assertive approach is needed, never assume that your lawyer who advocates a non-court/conciliatory approach, won't be up to the job. Do however beware of a lawyer who makes little or no effort to settle your case and is encouraging you to the court process without good reason. My firm view remains that the non-court approach is the best way and in a client's best interests, but it is not always possible as it does take two to tango.

If you would like to get in touch, you can do so here.