Lawyers and Legal red tape - this is why our country is fundamentally broken

[Justin Passing]

Just use AI.

Cleverer than you so STFU.
So there.

It'll make the case for both sides better than either side could, because it knows all the law and all the precedents.
Then weigh the arguments and give a decision.
In a minute or so.
Free.

That's only partly tongue in cheek.

 

[motorbiking]

The reason it shouldn't be a form is the potential for abuse. Proving a lack of intimidation, violence, impersonation etc. Etc. Etc. Would be a nightmare.

The process might have potential for simplification but that sort of decision needs oversight.

I think you might have got the wrong end of this process. Most people resolve their settlement using something called a consent order. i.e. they come to an agreement. Both disclose their finances, their needs are assessed based on their claimed expenses, children are taken into account and the money and assets are divided. The expense comes from the wide scope that the court has to award a settlement, which gives lawyers plenty of mileage to bill run arguing back and forth.

 

[IT Minion]

I think you might have got the wrong end of this process. Most people resolve their settlement using something called a consent order. i.e. they come to an agreement. Both disclose their finances, their needs are assessed based on their claimed expenses, children are taken into account and the money and assets are divided. The expense comes from the wide scope that the court has to award a settlement, which gives lawyers plenty of mileage to bill run arguing back and forth.

So you want to reduce the scope, I'd assume that sort of change is going to favour the wealthier partner overall?

 

[motorbiking]

So you want to reduce the scope, I'd assume that sort of change is going to favour the wealthier partner overall?

No it actually favours the couple trying to divorce. Let me walk you through it.

Imagine you and mrs IT minion decide to call it a day. You've been together 28 years, married for the last 10. You owned the house as you bought it before you met, the mortgage was paid off just before you got marred, there are no kids, she has a modest job with a modest pension (let's say 30k). Your earnings are inline with the industry so let's say a 120k. You have savings and investments worth 500k + a pension of 500k, she has 100k pension, 20k savings. No debts. Everything is valued net of disposal.

House 600k in your name
you 500k + 500k pension
her 20k + 100k
needs: you 55k pa net / Her 45k

£1.72M

there is a 90% chance that this will go like this:
- your lawyers will argue for ring fencing of the house.
- her lawyers will over inflate her needs to drive a spousal maintenance claim
- both will likely fail
- legal fees 50-80k split

The court will likely award:
- a pension transfer from you to her to balance them out
- everything else split 50/50
- she'll probably get spousal maintenance for 5 years £100-125k with a small discount if you pay up front.

The fact that I can work this out in 5 minutes means a computer can too. But the court has wide discretionary powers.
- it could go 60/40 either way and that is where the lawyers come in, selling their craft and bill running. They know how much you have and they target 5%.

Narrow the flexibility and everyone understands how it works. Legal fees will be around 5k. But no pots n pans lawyers will be the turkeys voting for christmas.

If you have questions about the split and award, e.g. why is your house in the pot? your pension? etc. the answer will be "because you got married".

 

[IT Minion]

No it actually favours the couple trying to divorce. Let me walk you through it.

Imagine you and mrs IT minion decide to call it a day. You've been together 28 years, married for the last 10. You owned the house as you bought it before you met, the mortgage was paid off just before you got marred, there are no kids, she has a modest job with a modest pension (let's say 30k). Your earnings are inline with the industry so let's say a 120k. You have savings and investments worth 500k + a pension of 500k, she has 100k pension, 20k savings. No debts. Everything is valued net of disposal.

House 600k in your name
you 500k + 500k pension
her 20k + 100k
needs: you 55k pa net / Her 45k

£1.72M

there is a 90% chance that this will go like this:
- your lawyers will argue for ring fencing of the house.
- her lawyers will over inflate her needs to drive a spousal maintenance claim
- both will likely fail
- legal fees 50-80k split

The court will likely award:
- a pension transfer from you to her to balance them out
- everything else split 50/50
- she'll probably get spousal maintenance for 5 years £100-125k with a small discount if you pay up front.

The fact that I can work this out in 5 minutes means a computer can too. But the court has wide discretionary powers.
- it could go 60/40 either way and that is where the lawyers come in, selling their craft and bill running. They know how much you have and they target 5%.

Narrow the flexibility and everyone understands how it works. Legal fees will be around 5k. But no pots n pans lawyers will be the turkeys voting for christmas.

If you have questions about the split and award, the answer will be "because you got married".

You use the words 'scope' and 'flexibility' but it seems you want to reduce the potential for the less well off partner to be able to make a larger claim.

 

[Notch7]

On lawyers... lawyers are one of many species of parasite sucking the life out of this country, you are bang on as usual Festo. Starmer was a human rights lawyer defender of foreign criminals and he has continued doing that now he is Prime Minister. When the deportations start there needs to be detention camps set up to hold all the human rights and immigration lawyers, lefty immigrant helping charities, labour and conservative MPs and all other commie fellow travellers who might hinder the campaign.

No

Millionaires like Farage are sucking the life out of this country

 

[motorbiking]

You use the words 'scope' and 'flexibility' but it seems you want to reduce the potential for the less well off partner to be able to make a larger claim.

by over stating her needs and burning all her savings to prove them? Your lawyers will be pointing all this out and the judge will see right through it. Same for any claim you have that the house should be yours because you bought it before you got married. The lawyers cancel each other out - expensively. The wider the scope for argument, the more expensive it gets.

I'm suggesting the sooner the two get to 50/50 the cheaper it gets.

 

[Notch7]

On lawyers... lawyers are one of many species of parasite sucking the life out of this country, you are bang on as usual Festo. Starmer was a human rights lawyer defender of foreign criminals and he has continued doing that now he is Prime Minister. When the deportations start there needs to be detention camps set up to hold all the human rights and immigration lawyers, lefty immigrant helping charities, labour and conservative MPs and all other commie fellow travellers who might hinder the campaign.

Boring tedious political tribal point scoring.

And childish.

As for Keir Starmer defending criminals....poor Spline has never heard of cab rank rule.

SPLINE please go back to your twitter echo chamber ...where you scream incoherently about commies all day long.

 

[blup]

defender of foreign criminals

Well they were presumed innocent to start with. When does that tedious part of the process disappear ? Think about it next time you want to appeal a parking ticket.

 

[motorbiking]

Well they were presumed innocent to start with. When does that tedious part of the process disappear ? Think about it next time you want to appeal a parking ticket.

could have 2 tier human rights. Citizen rights and basic rights.

 

[blup]

could have 2 tier human rights. Citizen rights and basic rights.

Either way Festive and Splineless want to get rid of the system. But It can be done within the system. Thats why burkkas are banned in France and abortion restricted (and until recently outright banned) in many countries bound by human rights. I dont want to see Affgan interpreters sent back because it will win Far rage a few votes in Crapton

 

[ellal]

Either way it makes no difference to the division of assets. If one party subsequently finds dishonest disclosure, then the judgement will be reopened and costs awarded.

Or in other words, what your suggestion doesn't do is remove the legal machinations and protections...

All arses have to be covered!

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Here is a well written item on the issue which I spotted, by a distant friend of mine. I have not asked his permission to copy it to here, but I'm sure he wouldn't object....

A long extract of the asylum seeker’s story on BBC R4’s Today programme
broadcast yesterday (28 August) and available on iPlayer for seven days.
The full interview broadcast time was mentioned in the interview. The
relevant section starts at 28m47s into the Today programme, finishing at
46m50.

One could be forgiven for forming the impression from this young man’s
story that the UK is a very soft touch compared to those countries in the
EU where he also sought asylum.

Briefly, he’s from Somalia, and fled when he was being pressed into service
with his local terrorist group. He went to Turkey. It’s not clear how long
he was there, or what happened.

He then went to Greece and applied for asylum. They only asked him why he
left Turkey, and he seemed annoyed that they never asked why he left
Somalia. He was turned down, appealed, lost the one appeal he was allowed,
and went to Austria.

He was in Austria for about two years., applied for asylum, was rejected,
appealed, was turned down, left for Germany.

Same thing in Germany, and possibly France.

When asked why he didn’t try other EU countries, he listed a few and said
that they were all the same, twenty minute asylum interview, rejection,
appeal, twenty minute interview, rejection. The countries all seemed to
want to know why he left the previous country, none were interested in his
Somalia history.

To my mind, the EU seems to take a very pragmatic approach to the economic
migrant issue, only being concerned with why he left the previous safe
country. Couldn’t we do that here?

But in the UK there seems to be well-funded accommodation, endless appeals
founded on trivia (’he has a pet cat’) funded by <cough> charities and
’human rights’ lawyers, which doesn’t seem to be the system in the EU.

Why can the UK not adopt the EU approach to solving the economic migrant
issue? What is it about the legal system here that upholds the current
interminable modus? Can it be changed? Will it change? Should it change?

In case my recollections of the young man’s story are incorrect, I suggest
listening to the extract if not the full version when broadcast.

 

[motorbiking]

Or in other words, what your suggestion doesn't do is remove the legal machinations and protections...

All arses have to be covered!

People are perfectly at will to draft these things themselves but without clear rules or tools to guide them they don't know what to do.

Here is a well written item on the issue which I spotted, by a distant friend of mine. I have not asked his permission to copy it to here, but I'm sure he wouldn't object....

A long extract of the asylum seeker’s story on BBC R4’s Today programme
broadcast yesterday (28 August) and available on iPlayer for seven days.
The full interview broadcast time was mentioned in the interview. The
relevant section starts at 28m47s into the Today programme, finishing at
46m50.

One could be forgiven for forming the impression from this young man’s
story that the UK is a very soft touch compared to those countries in the
EU where he also sought asylum.

Briefly, he’s from Somalia, and fled when he was being pressed into service
with his local terrorist group. He went to Turkey. It’s not clear how long
he was there, or what happened.

He then went to Greece and applied for asylum. They only asked him why he
left Turkey, and he seemed annoyed that they never asked why he left
Somalia. He was turned down, appealed, lost the one appeal he was allowed,
and went to Austria.

He was in Austria for about two years., applied for asylum, was rejected,
appealed, was turned down, left for Germany.

Same thing in Germany, and possibly France.

When asked why he didn’t try other EU countries, he listed a few and said
that they were all the same, twenty minute asylum interview, rejection,
appeal, twenty minute interview, rejection. The countries all seemed to
want to know why he left the previous country, none were interested in his
Somalia history.

To my mind, the EU seems to take a very pragmatic approach to the economic
migrant issue, only being concerned with why he left the previous safe
country. Couldn’t we do that here?

But in the UK there seems to be well-funded accommodation, endless appeals
founded on trivia (’he has a pet cat’) funded by <cough> charities and
’human rights’ lawyers, which doesn’t seem to be the system in the EU.

Why can the UK not adopt the EU approach to solving the economic migrant
issue? What is it about the legal system here that upholds the current
interminable modus? Can it be changed? Will it change? Should it change?

In case my recollections of the young man’s story are incorrect, I suggest
listening to the extract if not the full version when broadcast.

I wonder if they get free legal aid in those other countries to the level provided by the UK.

human rights law - one of the fastest growing sectors of the industry.

 

[noseall]

human rights law - one of the fastest growing sectors of the inindustry.

To cope with the rise in HR abuses.