Barrister - worth having or not?

My experience is that the detail you find important as a lay person isn''t the detail that is important in law. I got bogged down in detail, small things like chattels, proof of co- habitation, grieve at the lies my ex told and his lawyers.

I did have barristers but was stupid enough not to trust or understand what they were arguing and advising me.

A barrister is a good friend to have in court with you. If you bring up details and they say they aren''t relevant best to believe them or ask an I just making an emotional argument rather than a good legal one.

I had a barrister in court for the FA and the FDR, on reflection she gave me great legal advise and tried hard to make sure I wasn''t landed with too many costs or court dates.

I think barristers are good value for money - the important thing is to trust them. What does your solicitor sat, are they recommending a barrister for you in court?

Thanks.

I haven''t discussed it with my lawyer yet.

My query stems from the fact that my lawyer only does divorce/family law so should have enough experience to manage this. I just can''t see what ''value'' having a barrister on top could bring over and above my lawyer who by now should know the detail of my case.

I am only now posing the question as my STBX had a barrister at the FA and it looked a bit comical as the barrister looked like he hadn''t been briefed all that well. Didn''t matter in the end, but I''d imagine they wont make the same mistake at the FDR.

Family law overrides all sorts of law such as commercial and trust law- it all depends and a good family solicitor or barrister will know best.

It isn''t necessarily a handicap that your solicitor specialises in family law. Family law courts have wide ranging powers to either take into or ignore other branches of law.

It really depends upon how far apart you and your wife are in terms of settlement and what it is that you want to achieve. Just try and sort the emotional from the legal. If some of her barristers arguments went nowhere try and see what is in between and make an offer which might prevent the necessity for an FDR.

I had a phone call with the Barrister and Solicitor about a week before the hearing and we went through the case notes. He asked lots of questions and he must have an excellent memory because he was word perfect in the Court.
My Solicitor did attend the hearing but this was unnecessary.

Keijen wrote:

I had a phone call with the Barrister and Solicitor about a week before the hearing and we went through the case notes. He asked lots of questions and he must have an excellent memory because he was word perfect in the Court.
My Solicitor did attend the hearing but this was unnecessary.

Thanks -

Is your solicitor a divorce specialist or a generalist?

Would you say the outcome was better by having a barrister? what hearing did he attend?

Also did you solicitor recommend having one to you?

My Solicitor, who only does Divorces recommended the Barrister to me, they had worked together before and as I was impressed with the Solicitor I trusted her judgement.
In my case the Barrister attended the first and second hearing, we didn''t get as far as an FDR as we settled out of Court.
I believe that by having a Barrister he presented my case in a very clear and articulate manner and he was able to counter any arguments put by the other side there and then. In my case the other side also used a Barrister and as my ex''s sister was a Solicitor she was getting legal help at a much reduced rate based on family rates at her sister''s company (25% of what I had to pay). In some ways I had to "trump" the other side''s representation and my Barrister certainly achieved that.
I believe that if I hadn''t used an excellent Solicitor and Barrister the financial side of my divorce would have been unfairly biased towards my ex.

A barrister is a professional advocate and excels in court work.

Think of it like this - any football player can take a penalty but a striker is more likely to score against a good goalkeeper. The better the goalkeeper the more skilled the penalty taker needs to be.

A good solicitor can and should deal with the FDA and FDR hearings. The same good solicitor will realise that they need Luis Suárez (or someone less bitey) to deal with the final hearing - that''s where a barrister steps in.

In cases with complex assets or issues e.g. care of mentally disabled adult children, ownership or part ownership of companies, assets abroad etc. it may be necessary to call Suárez in earlier to dispense with the defence in a timely fashion and get to the goal mouth much quicker.

Apologies if the metaphors became tortuous towards the end...

Charles