Tag Archive for: Family Law

You are here: / / Family Law

Posts

Creating A Co-parenting Plan: Tips For Unmarried Parents

/in /by

Imagine a situation where you and your co-parent aren’t on the same page about important decisions for your child. It can lead to disagreements, chaos, and emotional distress for everyone involved. An effective co-parenting plan can help prevent these issues.

The National Center for Health Statistics in the US reports that about four to five million people marry each year. Sadly, about 42–53% of these marriages end in divorce, meaning many co-parenting arrangements are on the horizon. So you’re not alone.

Creating a co-parenting plan as an unmarried parent helps you navigate the unpredictable journey of parenthood. It provides a sense of direction, minimizes conflicts, and, above all, ensures consistency for your child.

A co-parenting plan isn’t just a document; it’s a tool for better communication. It helps you and your co-parent align your parenting strategies and expectations, reducing potential misunderstandings and disputes. Ultimately, it’s all about providing your child with a stable, nurturing environment.

Below are five practical tips to help you create one.

  1. Seek professional legal help

While creating a co-parenting plan can seem overwhelming, remember that you don’t have to do it alone. Seeking professional legal help can make a world of difference. It provides the assurance of having an expert guide you through the process. A lawyer operating in your locality may significantly help as they understand your jurisdiction’s laws in and out. For instance, someone versed in Colorado custody laws should be your go-to option if you live in the area.

Why should you consider legal help? Well, a legal expert understands the intricacies of family law. They can advise you on your rights and responsibilities, ensuring your plan meets legal requirements. It not only helps you avoid potential legal pitfalls but also ensures that your plan is fair and balanced.

Additionally, a legal professional can provide objective input, helping manage sensitive situations that could otherwise escalate into conflict. They can also ensure that your plan is enforceable, providing security for both parties.

  1. Prioritize the child’s best interest

When creating your co-parenting plan, your child’s best interest should be your top priority. It’s about putting your child’s needs, welfare, and happiness above your interests or convenience.

Consider your child’s age, school schedule, extracurricular activities, and overall mental health. For instance, if your child is in grade school, consider how splitting time between two homes may impact their schoolwork and social life. You’ll need to find a balance that minimizes disruption while ensuring that both you and the other parent get meaningful time with the child.

You may also want to consider typical parental worries cutting across many families. A Pew Research Center survey found that mental health is a top worry for parents. About 40% fear their child might struggle with depression or anxiety. Being bullied is a concern for 35% of parents. They also worry about physical threats, drug and alcohol dangers, teen pregnancy, and legal troubles. Your co-parenting arrangement should ensure your kid is safeguarded from these ills.

Remember, a co-parenting plan isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. It should be tailored to suit your child’s unique needs and circumstances. Flexibility is key. As your child grows and their needs change, you’ll likely need to adjust the plan accordingly. After all, a successful co-parenting plan revolves around your child’s evolving world.

  1. Set clear and consistent communication guidelines

As you embark on your co-parenting journey, remember this: clear, consistent communication is your lifeline. It helps you and your co-parent stay on the same page and avoid misunderstandings. More importantly, it fosters a healthier environment for your child.

Try setting regular meetings, preferably in a neutral location. During these meetups, discuss matters related to your child—school performance, health issues, behavioral changes, and more. Remember, these aren’t sessions for personal arguments. Keep the focus on your child.

Additionally, consider written communication or co-parenting apps. They provide a record of your interactions, which can help prevent disputes later on. Always keep your messages respectful and concise. Avoid discussing sensitive issues in front of your child, as this could make them uncomfortable. Co-parenting isn’t always smooth sailing, but you can weather the storm together with clear communication guidelines.

  1. Specify decision-making responsibilities

In the world of co-parenting, decision-making can become a tricky terrain. Who decides on your child’s schooling, healthcare, or other major life events? Clearly defining these responsibilities in your co-parenting plan is crucial.

Firstly, determine who will make decisions in crucial areas like education and healthcare. This doesn’t mean one parent holds all the power. Instead, it’s about defining areas of responsibility to prevent confusion or disputes down the line. For example, one parent could handle decisions about school and extracurricular activities, while the other could manage healthcare decisions.

However, remember that effective co-parenting involves collaboration. Even if one parent is assigned a particular decision-making responsibility, both parents should discuss significant decisions. Respect for each other’s parental rights is vital.

When you collaborate and respect each other’s roles, you model a healthy relationship for your child—one based on mutual respect and teamwork.

Steer clear from conflicts at all costs. Parent fights can hurt kids’ happiness and how they act socially. A study examined how often parents fight and how this links to issues with kids’ friends and being helpful.

The study found that when parents fight more, they show less warmth and more negative talk. This leads to kids having more peer problems and decreased prosocial behavior.

Conclusion

Creating an effective co-parenting plan is a step toward providing your child with a stable, nurturing environment. This plan is your roadmap, guiding you through the challenges of shared parenting.

Above all, stay positive. Co-parenting can be complex, but with the right plan and mindset, it can also be an opportunity to model healthy relationships and mutual respect for your child. Seek additional resources, join support groups, and lean on your community. You can turn co-parenting challenges into victories with the right tools and support.

 

A Comprehensive Guide to Prenuptial Agreements in the UK

/in /by

When it comes to planning a wedding, most couples focus on the excitement of the big day, but often overlook the importance of discussing their financial future together. One way to ensure that both parties are protected is by signing a prenuptial agreement. In this guide by family law specialists, we will delve into the world of prenuptial agreements in the UK, exploring their legal implications, benefits, drawbacks, and emotional aspects.

What is a Prenuptial Agreement?

A prenuptial agreement, commonly referred to as a “prenup”, is a legal document outlining how a couple’s assets will be divided in the event of a divorce or dissolution of their marriage. It can also include provisions for spousal support and other financial arrangements. The primary purpose of a prenup is to provide clarity and security to both parties entering into the marriage, as well as to minimise potential disputes in case the relationship ends.

How Do Prenuptial Agreements Work?

In the UK, prenups are not automatically legally binding. However, since the landmark case of Radmacher v Granatino in 2010, courts have been more inclined to uphold prenuptial agreements if they meet specific criteria. To increase the likelihood of a prenup being considered valid, it should:

  1. Be drafted by a qualified solicitor.
  2. Be signed by both parties at least 21 days before the wedding.
  3. Clearly outline the assets and liabilities of each party.
  4. Be fair and realistic, without putting either party in a financially vulnerable position.
  5. Include a clause stating that both parties have received independent legal advice.

It’s essential to keep in mind that the court retains the final say in determining the division of assets, and may choose not to enforce a prenup if it is deemed unfair or if the circumstances have significantly changed since the agreement was signed.

The Benefits and Drawbacks of Prenuptial Agreements

There are several advantages to having a prenup in place. These include:

  1. Protecting pre-marital assets and inheritance.
  2. Providing financial security for both parties.
  3. Minimising the potential for conflict during a divorce.
  4. Saving time and money on legal fees if the marriage ends.

However, there are also some downsides to consider:

  1. The emotional strain of discussing a potential divorce before marriage.
  2. The possibility that the court may not uphold the agreement.
  3. The perception that a prenup indicates a lack of trust in the relationship.

Opting Out of a Prenuptial Agreement

If a couple decides to opt-out of their prenup later on, they can do so by drafting a new agreement or a “postnuptial agreement” that nullifies the previous one. Both parties must agree to the changes, and it is advisable to seek legal advice to ensure the new agreement is valid.

Addressing the Emotional Side of Prenuptial Agreements

Discussing prenups can be emotionally challenging, as it requires couples to confront the possibility of their marriage ending. However, honest communication is crucial for building a strong foundation in any relationship. It’s essential to approach the topic with sensitivity and understanding, addressing any misconceptions and fears surrounding prenuptial agreements.

In conclusion, while prenuptial agreements may not be the most romantic aspect of wedding planning, they can provide a sense of security and clarity for both parties entering into a marriage. By understanding the legal implications, benefits, drawbacks, and emotional aspects of prenups, couples can make an informed decision that best suits their individual needs and circumstances.

 

Changes To Family Law Must Come From Practitioners, Not Politicians

/in /by

Lawyers can sit around waiting for parliament to make its recommendations and legislative updates, but it is more important for family lawyers to change the culture around divorce and related disputes.

Practitioners across the spectrum have been quick to criticise the newly announced parliamentary inquiry into the family law system, but change has to come from within the profession and those who deal with clients going through separation and divorce, argues one divorce coach and mediator.

Why mediation is needed

In conversation with Lawyers Weekly, Anne-Marie Cade, who is the founder of mediation coaching firm Divorce Right, said that one of the biggest issues is that there are many cases caught up in the court system that should not be there to begin with.

Most lawyers you speak to will tell you, she noted, that around 85 per cent of cases settle before going to trial.

“Most of those cases need not have been filed to begin with if clients were educated on their options at the preliminary stages of their matter and a different approach was adopted by the lawyers. There needs to be a bigger focus on early intervention strategies,” she posited.

“Processes like mediation are very effective if done early in the process. Clients need to be educated on the process of mediation and coached and prepared, so they are in the correct mindset before they attend mediation.”

However, this does not happen, Ms Cade said.

“In most cases, they are referred on to mediation at the early stages with little or no guidance and most mediations then fail as the parties go in ill-prepared. Papers then get filed in court and mediation is used in the later stages of the process as a last-ditch effort after all the nasty allegations have been made and the matter has become so acrimonious that parties are entrenched in their positions,” she said.

“An evaluative form of mediation is then used wherein they are forced into an agreement to avoid going off to court. Most often neither party is happy with the agreement and it is a recipe for disaster because they come out of the system with no skills on how to manage their co-parenting relationship which only leads to more conflict which in turn damages the kids.”

The onus is on the profession to act

“We can all sit around waiting for the politicians to make changes. None of the changes made will be ideal,” she continued.

“We are all quick to criticise but I think change has to come from within the legal profession as well as from other professionals who deal with clients going through separation and divorce. We need to change the culture around divorce and how it is done.”

Legal professionals in family law need a better understanding of conflict, how it can be resolved and better client management, Ms Cade surmised.

“There is no single method. It is necessary to create enduring solutions to conflicts, not just adopt a bandaid approach. It is necessary to think in non-traditional ways about possible solutions,” she explained.

“This involves an understanding of human behaviour and neuroscience, it involves shifting mindsets of both lawyers and clients and for this to be effective some of these changes have to come from within the legal profession.”

There is a social urgency, she espoused, to incorporate and develop transformative peacemaking practices into the work lawyers do in the family law space.

“We also need to work on ourselves as lawyers, so we see things differently. We can’t be that effective adviser beyond our own level of personal development,” she said.

“We are helping people who are embroiled in conflict and as lawyers we need a certain awareness of our own biases and engage in skill building, so we are equipped with the tools to deal with these issues so we can help our clients better.

“We can then integrate these learnings into how we deal with our clients. It may involve simple interventions at the very early stages. It’s important that we incorporate 21st century learnings into our work. Everything about the Australian family is changing but the way we approach divorce is still hopelessly outdated.”

Better understanding trauma

The trauma of divorce is not understood well enough, monitored or managed, Ms Cade added.

“There is a plethora of new service offerings available now to help clients manage even the toughest issues and make them more bearable and workable so they can reach resolution with minimal conflict,” she reflected.

“It’s necessary to embrace these new and different approaches to lead to better outcomes for our clients. Clients may be resistant to spending their money at the initial stages of the process to get this kind of help so it’s incumbent on lawyers to educate clients about the benefits of adopting these approaches so clients get the help they need and are able to sort their issues out in an amicable and peaceful manner instead of having to resort to litigation.”

It’s necessary for lawyers to look for big picture solutions and be peacemaking problem solvers, she concluded.

“Clients expect a gladiator approach when they see a lawyer so it’s up to us to show our clients that there are more constructive ways in which to resolve their matters. There is a collective responsibility on us as legal professionals to lead the change and make the difference.

“If we adopt this approach it will help clear the decks for the more complex cases that do belong in the court system and hopefully those cases will get resolved in a timelier manner.”

Family lawyers need to replace billing targets with new business model

/in /by

Family lawyers should scrap billing targets and develop a new business model, a senior practitioner has said, while criticising the profession’s failure to continue pushing collaborative law.

Gillian Bishop, co-founder of pioneering London firm Family Law in Partnership (FLiP), also said the legal regulators should introduce compulsory supervision for “all lawyers working in fields of law concerning the lives of individuals”.

Even as the family law sector goes through evolution, so is the way businesses, including law firms, are set up and managed. Flexible and cost-effective legal services, like those offered by LegalZoom, are increasingly popular. However, there’s a whole host of legalzoom competitors offering competitive advantages and innovative solutions for setting up and managing your legal needs. As a modern law firm seeking to optimize and diversify its business model, exploring these competitive alternatives could open the door to new possibilities.

Ms Bishop said: “Targets are a dead weight around the necks of many, many practitioners. The temptation to pad out time spent in order to make target is huge.

“Targets lead to many young lawyers working longer and longer hours each day in order to hit them. I have heard so many times that to record five hours chargeable a day you routinely have to be in the office twice that time. Just crazy.”

Writing for The Review, published by family law association Resolution, Ms Bishop went on: “This means we have to develop a new business model for this work. A less stressed workforce and more satisfied clients are a good place to start.

“I appreciate that there is more to it than that. I appreciate that we do have to run profitable businesses but I am sure there are other models if we start to think about them.”

Ms Bishop said a number of commercial firms now operated without a billing target model, showing that “it can be done”, and the challenge was to create a variation of that model or “another model altogether” that worked for the family law sector.

She suggested “a co-operative model where the money made in a firm is shared more evenly and there is more carrot than stick”.

Collaborative law is a form of divorce resolution that sees the two parties negotiate around a table with their lawyers, who agree not to continue acting should the case end up in court.

Ms Gillian said it was “introduced to great fanfare” in 2003 but efforts to increase its use had failed, with the decline starting in 2010 following the economic crash.

“Suddenly, and this is perhaps the cynic in me, collaborative practice was no longer as popular because it did not bring in as much money as litigation and there was a fear that lawyers would lose clients.

“Many trained practitioners were ready with all the reasons why collaborative practice wouldn’t work when it was proposed, yet the alternative was to lead their clients into a court process which we have known for years does not work.”

Ms Bishop added that the profession had to “stop paying lip service” to dispute resolution methods and seriously embrace them.

“Yes, they may not pay as much as litigation does but they are, generally, much better for their clients.

“I acknowledge that sometimes in the mad, bad and dangerous cases, court is the only option, but those cases are really few and far between. In other words we have to start putting our clients before our billings.”

FLiP launched three years ago what it said was the first training scheme in psychologically based supervision to help family lawyers manage work-related stress, and Ms Bishop said at the time that supervision should be compulsory for family lawyers.

She now said legal regulators should insist on “supervision for all lawyers working in fields of law concerning the lives of individuals”.

The solicitor went on: “As a profession we are right in the firing line of vicarious trauma. And we are doing virtually nothing about it.

“A fair number of firms/chambers are addressing this for their younger members but many more are doing nothing at all, or think that free gym membership ticks all the boxes. It doesn’t.”

Ms Bishop said family lawyers should have “properly reflective practices”, where they were alive to what “the toxicity of this work” did to their minds and bodies.

“I know of one young lawyer who has persistent migraines and is losing her hearing through the stress of the job.”

What are the Best Practice Areas for Solo Attorneys?

/in /by

So, you’ve decided to take your practice solo, congratulations! You’re taking the steps to tackle your legal career goals on your terms, and that’s something to be excited about. Before you get too ahead of yourself, have you considered what are the best practice areas for solo attorneys?

Whether you’re moving away from a law firm, beginning your LSAT prep, or starting out solo, there are several business decisions you must consider if you want to be successful. If you haven’t done so already, you’ll want to get a goo grasp on the practice areas you will focus on. This will determine your services, marketing, and entire business model.

Motivation and values

A good starting point when deciding what areas your solo practice will specialize in is finding your ‘why.’ In fact, all attorneys (solo or firm-based) should understand their ‘why’ for going into the legal industry.

This is your main motivation for wanting to practice solo law and will be your driver towards a fulfilling career. Some attorneys look to practice solo because they have more control over their billable hours and greater earning potential. Other attorneys are passionate about a specific practice area and feel they can make a bigger impact on their own. Neither option is better than the other, but it’s important to understand your motivations and values behind your practice. You’ll find more fulfillment and come across more genuine.

Practice areas

Bankruptcy law

This area of law is perfect for solo attorneys who are good with numbers and financial literacy. Many of your clients will owe money to another entity and have declared bankruptcy. For this reason, you’ll need to be comfortable evaluating financial documents to best represent your client. Additionally, if you don’t love going to court, bankruptcy law is for you. Most cases are settled outside of the courtroom. 

Civil litigation law

Litigation attorneys or trial lawyers are people who are quickly adaptable and enjoy a busy environment. Civil litigation typically involves disputes between parties seeking monetary damages or judgement based on non-criminal accusations. Since civil litigation law is broad, It’s best for solo attorneys to specialize in specific areas, like family law or medical malpractice.

This area of law is best suited for solo attorneys who can handle being pulled in many directions while also maintaining organization. Civil litigation often involves working very closely with clients, being in court, and out-witting your opposing counsel.

Employment law

Employment attorneys spend most of their time assisting the employer-employee relationship. This involves reviewing employment contracts, discrimination suits, termination, lay-offs, settlements and more.

Employment law is a great area of practice for solo attorneys who enjoy advocating for the rights of their clients. To best represent your clients, you’ll need to stay up to date on employment and labor legislation and be ready to have difficult conversations. The employee-employer relationship can be sensitive and guiding a client through legal proceedings while also maintaining a sense of empathy can be difficult to manage.

Family law

Cases within family law are almost always sensitive, especially when child or separation of a household is at stake. Adding in these factors on top of upholding the law can create a stressful work environment for solo attorneys. On the other hand, family law can also be very rewarding when you are able to better your client’s lives.

Similar to employment law, solo attorneys practicing family law must be able maintain a level of empathy while also helping their clients make difficult legal decisions.

Real Estate law

Real estate attorneys assist their clients with legal property matters. This could include assisting a lender with the sale of property, drawing up contracts, titles, and litigation of tenant-landlord relationships.  This area of law is great for solo attorneys who have a knack for attention to detail. Depending on the client, real estate contracts can be long and must include specific language to protect the clients assets surrounding the property.

Solo attorneys who prefer transactional work are a great fit for real estate law. Once a contract is in place, the client will likely only contact you or need your services when there is a breach or conflict that arises.

Choose what’s best for you

At the end of the day, the practice area for solo attorneys comes down to what you want. Figuring out what you’re passionate about or what motivates you is a great first step in finding the best practice area. Next, evaluate your skill set and how you can separate yourself from the pool of solo attorneys.

Article by;

Kamron Sanders
PracticePanther

‘Stubborn, wrongheaded’ approach to family law will fail

/in /by

The federal government’s approach to family law will see it advocate again for a “bad law” to be passed by parliament, which it failed to pass in the last term, argues the Law Council president.

Speaking on Monday night at the Newcastle Law Society’s Annual Members’ Dinner, LCA president Arthur Moses SC said that we are “on the eve” of the government reintroducing the “fundamentally flawed merger bill”, which will see the abolition of the specialist Family Court.

“The government’s stubborn and wrongheaded approach to family law will see it advocate again for a bad law to be passed by parliament – a law which it failed to pass in the last parliament. This approach is not only irrational but is extremely disrespectful to the views of the significant stakeholders in the family violence services sector,” Mr Moses said.

“These dedicated professionals who understand this area better than any member of the government have made it clear that this policy will hurt children and families. As lawyers and members of our community, we all have a stake in this, regardless of where and what we practice.”

He reiterated that “specialisation matters” when it comes to addressing the inherent issues with the family law system.

“There is a dire need to resource and reform the family law system. We do not accept, though, that the way the government has sought to go about this would deliver meaningful reform,” he said.

“Last year, the Attorney-General announced in May a proposal to merge the specialist Family Court into the generalist Federal Circuit Court. There was no consultation with the community or the profession over the proposal – only with three heads of jurisdiction.

“The Law Council vehemently opposed the merger last year, and we will continue to oppose it because we do not support bad policy that will hurt children and families. With or without further amendment, we remain concerned that the merger will result in the loss of a standalone, dedicated Family Court as we know it, to the detriment of those in need of specialist family law assistance.

“Further, we do not accept the purported efficiencies it has been claimed the merger will produce. Rather, we are concerned it will further increase cost, time and stress for families.”

The merger fails, Mr Moses continued to alleviate the “fundamental problems plaguing the system”, including the risk of victims of family violence falling through the cracks.

“Abolishing a standalone specialist family court, whether directly or by abeyance, is no fix. Refusing to inject desperately needed funds and resources into a crippled system unless the parliament votes for the government’s plan is certainly no fix,” he argued.

“We are not alone in holding these concerns – they are shared by stakeholders and family violence support providers including Women’s Legal Services Australia, Rape and Domestic Violence NSW and Community Legal Centres.

Instead, the profession needs to retain a specialist, standlone family court, there must be “alternative holistic structural reform of the system”, and the government must adequately consult with stakeholders and carefully consider their recommendations.

“To suggest any one of these propositions is ‘radical’ is a fake argument. There should be nothing radical about the concept that critical social justice infrastructure should not be irrevocably altered without informed consultation and discussion with those who use the court, work in the court, or whose lives are irreversibly shaped by its decisions,” Mr Moses said.

Legal aid as important for economy as hospitals and school

/in /by
Increasing access to justice can be a ‘win-win’ for businesses, IBA-World Bank report claims

Improving legal aid services is as important for economic growth as providing functioning hospitals, schools and roads, the International Bar Association (IBA) and World Bank claim.

The jointly produced report, A Tool for Justice: A Cost Benefit Analysis of Legal Aid, looked at more than 50 cost and benefit studies of legal aid programmes and found that increased access to justice can be a “win-win” for businesses, the economy and society at large.

The report, launched this week at the IBA conference in Seoul, South Korea, argues that failing to provide adequate legal aid does not save money, but simply shifts the financial burden to other areas of government spending such as healthcare, housing, child protection and imprisonment.

For example, the report cites a study in Canada which estimated the costs of unequal access to justice on public spending in other areas (employment insurance, social assistance and healthcare) to be roughly 2.35 times more than the annual direct service expenditures on legal aid.

The latest comments from across Legal Cheek

“Unaddressed legal needs affect individuals, their families, the justice system, the economy and society as a whole,” commented Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, a member of the IBA Access to Justice and Legal Aid Committee. “As a profession we must continue to champion legal aid programmes and ensure that everyone has the opportunity to access justice.”

The report further claims that around 5.1 billion people — roughly two-thirds of the world’s population — lack “meaningful” access to justice, the result of which can lead to people becoming trapped in “vicious cycles of poverty, inequality and marginalisation”.

Georgia Harley, senior governance specialist at the World Bank, added: “Legal aid is undeniably good economics. Strengthening legal aid and related services increases access to justice and ensures that the rule of law is upheld. Most importantly, improving legal aid programmes saves government money and strengthens the economy in the long term.”

The report’s release follows the Labour Party’s pledge to provide free legal training for 200 lawyers specialising in areas such as benefits, debt, housing, employment and immigration.

By Legal Cheek on

Cohabitation Laws Are Under The Spotlight

/in /by

As Boris Johnson and his partner were due to move into No. 11 Downing Street, they join the 3.3 million couples currently cohabiting within the UK. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has found that, one in eight people aged 16 and over in England and Wales are currently cohabiting, of this population, half of cohabiting couples own property and nearly half have financial assets including cash, shares and trade investments.

Around 53% have assets worth £100,000 – while 15% have up to £500,000. More than half also own financial and property assets between them – which are now co-owned. Weighted by financial commitments to each other, a staggering third of the nation incorrectly believes that co-owning, co-parenting and cohabiting means far more than it actually does on paper.

According to a nationally representative study from will specialist Farewill, the nation’s misconceptions of our loved one’s welfare post-death is severely skewed:

  • 29% of Brits believe that couples who have been together for more than 5 years should have the same legal rights as a married
  • 16% of Brits believe that that owning a house with their partner out of wedlock means that if they die their partner will get the estate
  • 24% of Brits stated that if they were co-owning a property with their partner who they were not married to, upon their partners passing they would expect their partner’s ownership of the property would pass to them
  • 20% of Brits state that if they were a relationship (but unmarried) and had been cohabiting for over five years, they would assume that if they were to pass their partner would inherit the entirety of their estate or assume executor status

With the average house price in the UK hovering around the £227,000 mark according to Halifax, failing to put appropriate measures in place during the relationship could throw up all sorts of problems further down the line, should you lose a loved one.

COHABITING VS MARRIAGE RIGHTS:

  • If one cohabiting partner dies without leaving a will, the surviving partner won’t automatically inherit anything. This includes any share of the house, unless the couple jointly own property as a “joint tenant” (not “tenants in common”). A married partner would inherit all or some of the estate
  • Cohabiting partners cannot access their partner’s bank account if they die, unless they’ve been named specifically as a beneficiary in their will, whereas married couples may be allowed to withdraw the balance providing the amount is small
  • An unmarried partner who stays at home to care for children can’t make any claims in their own right for property, maintenance or pension-sharing
  • If you are the unmarried partner of a tenant, you have no rights to stay in the accommodation if you are asked to leave – but each married partner has the right to live in the “matrimonial home”

Dan Garrett, CEO and Co-Founder of Farewill is of the opinion:“There’s a huge myth that, when you die, the person who you’re in a long-term relationship with, or even own a house with, will automatically inherit your estate. Unfortunately, this simply isn’t true. In the UK, the law only applies this type of automatic protection to married couples or those in a civil partnership. Being together for a long time doesn’t count, and means, legally speaking, you and your partner are entitled to nothing. For cohabiting couples, this is a particularly important issue. Millions of unmarried couples in the UK who have no protection, potentially stand to lose everything, unless they and their partner outline their wishes in a will. Without a will, the estate will often go to a parent or parent in law. The law as it stands isn’t set up for the modern family, so it’s important to take what you want to happen after you die into your own hands by making a will.”

High Court kills off special rule for lawyers

/in /by

In a surprise decision on Wednesday, the court said the “Chorley rule” adopted from England for solicitors should not apply in Australia and refused to extend it to barristers.

The verdict is a crushing end to the 10-year fight involving Sydney barrister Janet Pentelow and Bell Lawyers, which briefed her in a family law case in 2008 but then refused to pay a bill of $25,988.55.

She took them to court and won, with the assistance of a solicitor and senior counsel. But when she tried to claim the cost of the work she did on the case – almost $45,000 – Bell objected.

Ms Pentelow lost twice before the NSW Court of Appeal held in 2018 that barristers could also take advantage of the “Chorley rule”, which was adopted from the common law of England via an 1884 case.

‘Anomaly’

“The majority of the Court held that the Chorley exception should not be recognised as part of the common law of Australia because it is an anomaly that represents an affront to the fundamental value of equality of all persons before the law and cannot be justified by the considerations of policy said to support it,” the court said in a statement.

“In addition, the anomalous nature of the Chorley exception is inconsistent with the statutory definition of ‘costs’ in s 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).”

The majority judgment explained that the reference to “costs payable” in the act “is an indication that an order for costs may be made only in respect of costs payable by the party in whose favour the order is made to another person for services rendered”.

“On this view the Chorley exception is inconsistent with the statutory definition of costs and, costs being a creature of statute, the Chorley exception has been displaced by the Civil Procedure Act.”

They suggested the rule had given rise to an “undesirable” practice.

Self-interest

“A self-representing solicitor, lacking impartial and independent advice that the court expects its officers to provide to the litigants they represent, may also lack objectivity due to self-interest. That may, in turn, result in higher legal costs to be passed on to the other party in the event that the self-representing solicitor obtains an order for his or her costs.

“Importantly, the view that solicitors should be encouraged to act for themselves is contrary to the modern orthodoxy that it is undesirable, as a matter of professional ethics, for a solicitor to act for himself or herself in litigation.”

Justice Geoffrey Nettle agreed with the orders in relation to Ms Pentelow, but said he did “not consider that there is need or justification to decide as part of this matter that the Chorley exception should be abolished”.

Alleged perjury during ‘in camera’ hearings

/in /by

High Court declaration comes after man alleged he was perjured in childcare proceedings

A man involved in childcare proceedings who wanted to allege perjury against witnesses in his case has secured a declaration from the High Court that alleged crimes that may have occurred during in camera hearings can be investigated.

The solicitor who acted in the case, Clifford Sullivan, of LawPlus solicitors, said the declaration was an important clarification of the law and that up to this there was a doubt in the minds of members of An Garda Síochána that they could investigate what happened during in camera hearings (hearings from which the public are excluded).

“The man felt that perjury had been committed and that that perjury caused the judge in his case to make a decision against him,” Mr Sullivan said.

Following his case the man, who cannot be identified, sought to bring criminal proceedings at District Court level as a “common informer”.

When this was refused, the man, acting as a lay litigant, lost a challenge to the decision in the High Court. He then appealed to the Supreme Court, at which point Mr Sullivan became involved.

Draft application

The Supreme Court then helped draft an application which was sent back to the High Court, where the man asked for a declaration that “a prosecution for a criminal offence allegedly occurring during the course of civil proceedings heard in a court of law otherwise than in public (in camera) is capable of being investigated and prosecuted as prescribed by law”.

The application was not opposed by the State and the declaration was made by Mr Justice Séamus Noonan late last month. It has not been reported before. The man received legal representation from Mr Sullivan and barristers Dervla Browne SC and Brendan Guildea.

Mr Sullivan said the declaration could be relevant to cases of allegations of perjury – intentionally lying in court – or attempts to pervert the course of justice, which arose from in camera proceedings.

He said it was now clear, as a result of the declaration, that people who felt that a possible crime had been committed during proceedings that were held in camera can go to An Garda Síochána and that gardaí can investigate the complaint.