Separated, how much should I provide?

HurdyGurdy

JackRS wrote: »

She asked what's going on with Mum and why I was no longer paying her/providing a car?

I'd have sent her a link to this thread, with the advice that she sets aside a good half a day, and has a good supply of paracetamol to hand.

barbiedoll

Jack, you've tried very, very hard to shield your children from this mess, you have shown consideration and courtesy to your ex and you have carried on providing for your family, above and beyond what is legally required of you, at great personal cost to yourself.

The reality is that no-one really appreciates what you have done. You are basically seen as the bad guy, for leaving and for breaking up the family. Even though you waited until your children were moving towards independence, even though you have continued supporting them, and their mother, they will probably never realise your sacrifice until they have their own families and their own relationship problems.

It's good that you have been able to speak to your daughter about some of this and that you have been able to set her straight about a few things. The comment about you only needing a small place as it's "just you", did make me cross, they obviously think that you have no right to a life outside of working and supporting them. As for her remarks about how hard it is for your ex to find "something nice on the coast", well...as you said, moving to a more expensive area was always going to be a pipe dream for her, unless she got off her butt and started to get some money together of her own.

As you pointed out, your ex is extremely lucky to be divorcing a man who has provided so well for her up to (and including) now. If my hard-working husband were to divorce me, we'd both end up with enough money to buy a caravan or possibly a small garage in London, so we'd both either have to lower our expectations or move elsewhere. Yet your ex thinks she's going to have a new car AND a coastal property, large enough for her and the kids.

To be honest, I'd rather the lawyers have the cash! :mad:

springdreams

Caroline_a wrote: »

Do you ever get the feeling you took the wrong career path...????

It is entirely possible to change career paths - I earned my second law degree at the age of 44 .... I did it whilst working full time, getting married, getting divorced, moving abroad, having a baby, death of a parent, death of a partner, etc.

And in all honesty, the hourly rate of your solicitor is actually not bad Jack. Mine is £365. Which I feel is well deserved as I spent 15 years working full time and studying in the evenings and weekends to get my qualifications. I then had to undergo 2 years of training (and for those who have questioned it, yes lawyers do still have to do 2 years of training with a law firm before being fully qualified. It is merely the name that has changed - it is now called a training contract and no longer called doing articles).

In addition people seem to be under the mistaken impression that what a lawyer charges is what they put in their pocket. It is not. Lawyers actually get paid substantially less than their billable hourly rate. Law firms have overheads that need paying, as well as the salaries of the non-lawyers who work at the law firm. The money for that comes out of the hourly rate charged for the work done by the lawyers.

I've read this thread from the day it started, and have bitten my tongue many a time over the lawyer bashing. If the legal system is so simple and easy to understand and apply, then why bother with a lawyer, just do it yourselves. No need to go rushing off to a lawyer when you get into a spot of legal difficulty. Lawyers spend many many years studying the statues, case law, etc. and also have to keep up to date with frequent changes to the law. I had to do exams in 49!! yes 49 different legal subjects (family law, criminal law, company law, etc.). I then spent a further 5 years learning the subjects of my specialist area inside and out. When you have done that then feel free to whinge about our rates. We are specialists, the same way doctors, engineers, etc. are.

It is not the lawyers job to make decisions for clients. They lay out the legal options and provide legal advice, and the client then makes the decisions based on that information. If a client does not want to behave in an aggressive manner, then it is not up to a lawyer to go behind his or her back and go against what the client wants. A Rottweiler lawyer requires a Rottweiler client - they go hand in hand. If the client is not a Rottweiler, then the lawyer cannot be. Jack could have said he wanted to go to court from the very beginning, but he did not. He wanted to try settle this in an agreeable and fair manner. Unfortunately that has caused this matter to drag on, and incur a lot of legal fees. Mrs Jackrs on the otherhand has shown Rottweiler tendencies and stuck to her guns in trying to get the bulk of the marital assets. It would not have been her lawyer's decision to reject the offers made by Jack, that would have been her decision. In case this gets misconstrued, I want to state that I don't agree with her greed, and am a firm supporter of Jack. I mentioned a good long way back in this thread that the only way this case was going to be resolved was by taking it before a judge. It was very apparent early in the game that Mrs Jackrs was never going to agree to a fair settlement.

Also, in the legal business time is money. It is a business after all, not a charitable organisation. Every minute we spend working is chargeable to someone. That is the nature of our job, in the same way as you would be charged for every minute that you spend with a private doctor. You would not work for free - you expect to get paid when you go to work. So why are you expecting lawyers, who have spent at least 8 years studying law to become lawyers, to work for free? If a client does not like being charged for every letter read, every email sent, etc., then they should not be using the services of a lawyer. We can't be dealing with some bits of correspondence for free. Would you be happy to only be paid for some of the work you do by the company you work for?

In any even, you pay a plumber more per hour for unblocking a drain or an engineer to service your boiler. I don't hear people complaining about their hourly rates ...

Anyway, back on topic .... I hope you get a fair settlement Jack.

P.S. My specialisation is not divorce law, which is why I have not added anything in the way of legal advice to this thread. You wouldn't want an ear, nose and throat specialist operating on your heart ... lawyers have niche areas that they specialise in too, and ones who specialises in company law would not provide legal advice on a conveyancing issue by way of example. It is also against the rules of the Law Society , by which all solicitors are bound, to do so. Lawyers may only provide legal advice about matters that fall within their specialist area.

Lunar_Eclipse

Spring clean:

Many people do think hourly rates charged by tradesmen are ridiculous. I pay what I consider is fair pay for fair work and won't be held over a barrel willingly.

I'm glad you feel worth £365/hour, yet if that were truly the case you might not feel the need to explain. Most fields of law are not as difficult as you make out. Personally I think the chargeable rates in civil law are too high, because I feel they take advantage. When someone seeks out legal advice and services it's usually because it's a necessity, yet the services price out the vast majority of people. It's incredibly unjust. Legally speaking, most divorces are straight forward and fairly routine, so no genius is required.

kelpie35

Also I think the price Jack is having to pay for a "professional service" that can't even get a simple thing like his name correct, is absolutly disgusting.

I have no doubt there are many good solicitors who fight tooth and nail for their clients, but in this case I think Jack has been taken for a ride.

I just hope at the end of the day Jack is able to get some of his thousands of ££££££ back for the errors that have been made.

justme111

Springdreams
So what would happen if I say sent a letter with a question to a lawyer, he/she does replies but their reply does not reply the question, you write them again asking the same, they reply finally?
What happens if I ask lawyer to do something , they do not then I have to ask again ?
If a plumber charged for unblocking the drains but water still does not flow he would come back and do it for free surely ?

I guess the reason for constant moans about solicitors on this thread is that it is impossible for a lay public to tell whether solicitor is good and conscientious or not so as a result of this , high charges (a plumber does not charge £300 an hour or even 150) and people generally feeling stressed and vulnerable when they need solicitors people feel suspicious.

I would be grateful if you as insider given me some advice on how to tell solicitor is good or not , tips and tricks in dealing with them please.

And hat off for changing a career at the age you done it

Caroline_a

Springdreams - lawyers get a bad name because for the most part their customer service is appalling. Where else would I be charged for phoning up, speaking to a receptionist/secretary/admin clerk only to be told that the person I was wanting to speak to wasn't in? Can you imagine having to pay for that for any other type of business?? No, me neither.

Other organisations class their admin staff as necessary overheads, whereas the legal profession (or at least the ones I have been in contact with over the past 5 years) just look upon it as another opportunity to fleece the customer.

(Sorry Jack for the hi-jack - I'll go back to my impoverished corner now.)

LannieDuck

springdreams wrote: »

If the client is not a Rottweiler, then the lawyer cannot be. Jack could have said he wanted to go to court from the very beginning, but he did not. He wanted to try settle this in an agreeable and fair manner. Unfortunately that has caused this matter to drag on, and incur a lot of legal fees.

Whilst I agree with a lot of what you've said, I think for at least the last few months Jack has been pushing as hard as he can to get this thing to court. He's consistently said that he doesn't want to mediate any more, doesn't want to enter into any more correspondence, he just wants to get in front of a judge. The solicitor IMO has been stalling and stalling.

He's also been very clear that he's not willing to go any higher than his current offer, but his solicitor keeps trying to encourage him to 'compromise a bit further'.

S/he doesn't seem to be acting as her client wishes.

chrissie57

Does anybody on this thread actually KNOW this man, this family? You are all quite happy that his daughter has been sent a link to a thread which brutally and comprehensively trashes her mother(and nobody here has heard her side of this story) with the full encouragement of her father, who chose to leave his family of his own volition?

LannieDuck

chrissie57 wrote: »

Does anybody on this thread actually KNOW this man, this family? You are all quite happy that his daughter has been sent a link to a thread which brutally and comprehensively trashes her mother(and nobody here has heard her side of this story) with the full encouragement of her father, who chose to leave his family of his own volition?

I don't think his daughter has been sent the link. There was one comment suggesting it, but I don't personally think it would be a good idea.