Barrister

rubytuesday wrote:

panda32 wrote:

I've wondered on occasion if as a man instructing a female sol whether that sol sympathises with the plight of the opposing side and is therefore not as robust in representation.

I would doubt that very much - the vast majority of sols dont get involved with the "personal" or emotional stuff that their client brings with them, sticking to the [legal]matters at hand. To turn your theory around, would a male sols with a female client sympathise with the plight of the other side?

women sols are sought by men as they have to fight harder for what a man can achieve just by being a man

Utter Poppycock. Thats like saying that man gets what he wants simply because he has a penis, and that because women dont own such an organ they have to fight harder. - certainly in English/Welsh law, the system is so skewed against men, and fathers in particular, that men have to fight to extremes often just to see their children - regardless of the gender of their legal representation. Its not a myth that men often come out of a divorce worse off financially than the women do (generally speaking).

I would suggest that gender of a sols/barrister etc is irrelevant, it is the system itself that needs changing.

I venture to say we both agree with you as it relates to English/Welsh law. That is why I put in the post she readily admits she comes from a country that is much more progressive in their family law. She comes from a state that doesn't even grant SM except for extremely short term cases. Perhaps the two countries are just that different so our debate is flawed from the beginning as I trust her knowledge of women sols where she is from and their need to fight harder. And I am, dare I say, pretty ignorant when it comes to law.

I do appreciate the discussion though and all of the information I've received from this site. I don't want to be the bloke at the end of my divorce saying it's my sols fault I got shafted. I want to be as proactive as possible and not rely on my sol for all of my info (including who else may represent me).

Almost all of us are ignorant of family law at the outset and perhaps its a mistake not to self educate at least the basics the process and the likely probability's knowledge is power as they say.

I`m not entirely sure you will need a barrister if spousal maintenance is the only sticking point - basically SM is the need of the lower earner versus the ability to meet that need of the higher earner, length of marriage and status quo is also important.

How long maintenance should be paid is also fiercely debated often people have diametrically opposing opinions even though both camps have strong arguments in support of their opinion.

Often you will read that the ethos behind SM is to help the lower earner back into the single life as it were so several factors need to be considered.

Age of the recipient.

Earning potential.

Future earning potential

Education and previous work history.

SM should not be a ticket to ride as some perceive it, it should be a way of helping a person get back on their feet.

Joint lives orders are another issue which is debated regularly here so i wont go off on one for a change.

If you want some ideas the wiki gang will help but they will need so more details so if you like just shout and we can ask a few questions.

I posted my stats here awhile ago

www.wikivorce.com/divorce/Divorce-Advice...37726-SM.html#237726

I got a few responses but would love some more input. I assume I posted it the correct place? Should I post it elsewhere to maximise exposure and responses? Thanks so much for the help!!

This is an interesting thread.

My opinion is that experience counts for a lot but experience does not imbue a person with dynamism. It is a rare lawyer who has both. Explained as follows:

A ‘painful plodder’ can make a career by being a champion to mediocrity. They won’t do a bad job but you won’t get the extra mile that one might hope.

A ‘shark’ is all mouth and no trousers. Sharp suited and promises the world but is more likely to foist work upon their trainees or bump difficult work out to a barrister.

The ‘bouncy trainee’ is more likely to know the law that the previous two (not least because they will have read it in the last couple of months) above but the lack of experience can be painful to see when they experience their first crushing in court. With no war wounds, they are likely to take things personally and will develop a sweat when asked to give advice. Their hourly rate will be lower but they will spend aeons doing the most basic task as they will insist upon typing themselves whilst chasing perfection whilst descending into a spiral of unproductivity.

The ‘newly qualified’ is the ‘bouncy trainee’ without a lead. They will always second-guess themselves even though they were right in the first place and they will frantically look to their supervisor for guidance whenever time allows.

The ‘4 years qualified’ has settled down and has a firm grip on reality. Not too expensive, a decent solicitor will quickly identify your needs and ensure you are well-catered for.

The ‘10 years qualified’ will be battle hardened and will have a skill-set covering all types of proceedings. Most likely they will have carried out legal aid work at some stage which accelerates the experience base due to the amount and type of cases that were funded before the government began to shut down the legal aid venture.

There are many sub-categories but you can tell how good a lawyer is by their diary and their response to a new enquiry. They should be keen to speak to you by telephone in the first instance (without charge) even if you have to leave a message to call you back. They should be able to fit you in for a first appointment but they will have to give you dates and times that they are available rather than the other way around.

At the first appointment they should inspire confidence and answer every question thoroughly and with examples. If “it depends” they should qualify this with a statement containing options applicable to the information you have given to them.

The above is applicable to male and female lawyers. Of the two best matrimonial lawyers I know, one is male and the other female.

Similarly, of the two best matrimonial barristers that my firm uses, one is male and the other female. Both are excellent on their feet and great with the clients. The decision to use one or the other can depend upon availability but both have different styles of dealing with the clients – one is quite amiable whereas the other is quite anodyne which suits analytic clients who think in black or white.

Charles

I can only agree with Mike.

Your respective incomes are equal as near as dam it, you are already paying a substantial amount in child maintenance which leaves you with £175 to spare per month, no judge will try and get blood from a stone its pointless - you don`t have even close to the amount being asked for so you can`t pay it even if you wanted too.

I would also say that from what i have read the request is very unreasonable.

Charles_prev.fleagal wrote:

This is an interesting thread.

My opinion is that experience counts for a lot but experience does not imbue a person with dynamism. It is a rare lawyer who has both. Explained as follows:

A ‘painful plodder’ can make a career by being a champion to mediocrity. They won’t do a bad job but you won’t get the extra mile that one might hope.

A ‘shark’ is all mouth and no trousers. Sharp suited and promises the world but is more likely to foist work upon their trainees or bump difficult work out to a barrister.

The ‘bouncy trainee’ is more likely to know the law that the previous two (not least because they will have read it in the last couple of months) above but the lack of experience can be painful to see when they experience their first crushing in court. With no war wounds, they are likely to take things personally and will develop a sweat when asked to give advice. Their hourly rate will be lower but they will spend aeons doing the most basic task as they will insist upon typing themselves whilst chasing perfection whilst descending into a spiral of unproductivity.

The ‘newly qualified’ is the ‘bouncy trainee’ without a lead. They will always second-guess themselves even though they were right in the first place and they will frantically look to their supervisor for guidance whenever time allows.

The ‘4 years qualified’ has settled down and has a firm grip on reality. Not too expensive, a decent solicitor will quickly identify your needs and ensure you are well-catered for.

The ‘10 years qualified’ will be battle hardened and will have a skill-set covering all types of proceedings. Most likely they will have carried out legal aid work at some stage which accelerates the experience base due to the amount and type of cases that were funded before the government began to shut down the legal aid venture.

There are many sub-categories but you can tell how good a lawyer is by their diary and their response to a new enquiry. They should be keen to speak to you by telephone in the first instance (without charge) even if you have to leave a message to call you back. They should be able to fit you in for a first appointment but they will have to give you dates and times that they are available rather than the other way around.

At the first appointment they should inspire confidence and answer every question thoroughly and with examples. If “it depends” they should qualify this with a statement containing options applicable to the information you have given to them.

The above is applicable to male and female lawyers. Of the two best matrimonial lawyers I know, one is male and the other female.

Similarly, of the two best matrimonial barristers that my firm uses, one is male and the other female. Both are excellent on their feet and great with the clients. The decision to use one or the other can depend upon availability but both have different styles of dealing with the clients – one is quite amiable whereas the other is quite anodyne which suits analytic clients who think in black or white.

Charles

Brilliant! So informative and thought-out. Thanks for the contribution and what you've said makes sense. I truly think it will help me and others who read it who are unsure when hiring a legal professional. By the way, I'm amiable and the girlfriend is black and white so it's nice to know there is a basis for our "debate."

dukey wrote:

I can only agree with Mike.

Your respective incomes are equal as near as dam it, you are already paying a substantial amount in child maintenance which leaves you with £175 to spare per month, no judge will try and get blood from a stone its pointless - you don`t have even close to the amount being asked for so you can`t pay it even if you wanted too.

I would also say that from what i have read the request is very unreasonable.

Thanks for taking a peek at that for me. I just can't figure out why she won't be reasonable and her solicitor appears to back her up (guess that is her job). Our tax dollars hard at work...seems we're going to court and legal aid (i.e. the taxpayer) is footing the bill for her despite my reasonable offer.