Barrister or solicitor?

MXW

I have posted on here before.......a very long winded saga, so I won't bore you with all the details! In a nut shell I separated and divorced from my husband five and a half years ago, he had an affair and left and as at the time I wasn't working (was on career break) I was left penniless with a 2 and 5 year old. He refused to pay anything at all and I ended up in debt and couldn't even afford nappies for my youngest. All this was going on whilst he was taking his new girlfriend and her children on holidays abroad etc! Anyway, things were eventually sorted out in court and he was ordered to pay child support under a court order. He has taken me back like I was a piece of elastic since that time trying to avoid paying it, but to no avail and the judge backed me up. The latest thing is he has reduced the payments by half, without telling me and has taken me to court stating that he cannot afford to pay it. In the meantime he has bought a new four bedroomed detached house, built a new conservatory, bought a new bmw (with private plate) and holidays abroad at least 3 times a year! My position now is that I am in debt and worried sick! He can reduce his income if he reduces his hours, which I suspect that he has done, to make it look like his income has gone down.........he does not see the children (his own choice) and does not buy them xmas/birthday presents........there are lots of other things but I won't bore you. The bottom line is my dad has paid for me to get a solicitor and he is doing a great job up until now collecting the information need to go to the final hearing which is 28 August. The solicitor has sent me a letter today saying that he is in another court with another client on the morning of the hearing and is possibily going to be delayed so he has employed a barrister to represent me. This case has been going on for years and my solicitor knows everything there is to know and I have every confidence in his ability to conduct the hearing, however this is no longer the case and I am so worried and upset! The barrister will know the case only by a briefing from my solicitor and I feel that he may not be able to bring up points in court that my solicitor knows. If I lose this case I will have to sell the house and don't know what I will do as I am at the bottom end of the property ladder as it is. Am I worrying for nothing? Could it be more of an advantage to have a barrister?. Any opinions will be appreciated before I go out of my mind with the stress and worry.
Thanks

wendym

I'm not legal expert, but a barrister is senior to a solicitor.

My best friend, in very similar circumstances, spent hours with her solicitor, but was represented in court by a barrister.

The court wiped the floor with her ex-husband, and although it was all unbelievably stressful, she came out of it with the law on her side, and the threat to her ex that if he didn't pay, the money would be taken direct from his salary, and that would mean informing his employers.

I am sure you will be OK, but I know how miserable the whole thing is.

Edited to add : he was found liable for all her costs, too!

MXW

wendym wrote: »

I'm not legal expert, but a barrister is senior to a solicitor.

My best friend, in very similar circumstances, spent hours with her solicitor, but was represented in court by a barrister.

The court wiped the floor with her ex-husband, and although it was all unbelievably stressful, she came out of it with the law on her side, and the threat to her ex that if he didn't pay, the money would be taken direct from his salary, and that would mean informing his employers.

I am sure you will be OK, but I know how miserable the whole thing is.

Edited to add : he was found liable for all her costs, too!

Thanks for that, you have no idea how much better that makes me feel! x

bunty109

I'd say you're really lucky to have a barrister dealing with this. It's his job to be well-briefed by the solicitor. I really hope he kicks butt for you!

Poodlecrazy

Hi

As a solicitor I thought I would put your mind at rest.

Barristers are trained in advocacy; i.e. the actual performance and court proceedings, many are also specialists in certain types of law i.e. family, corporate etc. Solicitors are typically trained in a particular area of law.
Solicitors are not junior to Barristers but they do not have the advocacy training. It's a bit like comparing the script writers with an actor! Having said this, many solicitor's, myself included will conduct court hearings as if you are a specialist in a particular area (in my case tax) this is often preferable to someone who is an expert performer but simply does not have the expertise in that particular area of law.

In your case the actual legal concepts are reasonably straightforward, particularly for an experienced family Barrister and therefore his or her experience in advocacy will stand you in a fantastic position.

Hope that makes sense!

P
x

Emma37

MXW, you would be better with a barrister representing you. It is common for barristers to be handed a brief at the last minute before they represent a client in court. Don't worry that the barrister won't know the nuances of your case, the important thing is that he/she will know the relevant parts of the law and will be able to address the judge to your advantage.

An analogy to a solicitor and barrister would be think of a G.P and a consultant. A G.P knows a bit about everything, whereas a specialist knows a great deal about one particular subject. Think of your barrister as the specialist. He'll have much more knowledge on Family Law than the solicitor,that's what's important here, not the extra details that your solicitor knows.

You're fortunate to have a barrister and your solicitor will make sure he knows all the relevant details. Good luck.

MXW

bunty109 wrote: »

I'd say you're really lucky to have a barrister dealing with this. It's his job to be well-briefed by the solicitor. I really hope he kicks butt for you!

Thank you, I hope so too! x

MXW

Poodlecrazy wrote: »

Hi

As a solicitor I thought I would put your mind at rest.

Barristers are trained in advocacy; i.e. the actual performance and court proceedings, many are also specialists in certain types of law i.e. family, corporate etc. Solicitors are typically trained in a particular area of law.
Solicitors are not junior to Barristers but they do not have the advocacy training. It's a bit like comparing the script writers with an actor! Having said this, many solicitor's, myself included will conduct court hearings as if you are a specialist in a particular area (in my case tax) this is often preferable to someone who is an expert performer but simply does not have the expertise in that particular area of law.

In your case the actual legal concepts are reasonably straightforward, particularly for an experienced family Barrister and therefore his or her experience in advocacy will stand you in a fantastic position.

Hope that makes sense!

P
x

Yes it does make sense, thank you for your reply. x

Nicki

wendym wrote: »

I'm not legal expert, but a barrister is senior to a solicitor.

As a solicitor I would take issue with that comment! Barristers and solicitors do exactly the same law degree and the same length of post degree training (though this is different in content).

However, where barristers tend to differ from solicitors is that they are much more experienced (and in general are better) at advocacy. It is really not at all unusual for a solicitor to do all the preparatory work, then hand the matter over to a barrister to argue the case in court. The solicitors skill is in briefing the barrister properly (which we have lots of practise at) and the barrister's skill is in arguing the case in the best possible way. Often, because the barrister hasn't been involved in gathering the evidence, they are able to present things in a much clearer and dispassionate way, which the court likes. As most judges are themselves former barristers rather than solicitors they tend also to get a bit more respect in the courtroom.

When I was practising, I would always have passed anything which was likely to be hotly contested in court on to a barrister to argue, as they are in court most days of the week whereas I would only be there arguing my case every now and then. I would also have either attended court myself so I could keep the barrister straight on the detail, or sent someone from my office who was very familiar with the case. Your solicitor is by the sound of things planning on being there himself.

I really wouldn't worry about this in the slightest. I am sure you will be very well represented on the day. If you are also attending the hearing, there is nothing to stop you passing notes to your barrister if you feel he has missed something important and if he agrees he will incorporate this into his arguments. They are well used to this happening.

MXW

Emma37 wrote: »

MXW, you would be better with a barrister representing you. It is common for barristers to be handed a brief at the last minute before they represent a client in court. Don't worry that the barrister won't know the nuances of your case, the important thing is that he/she will know the relevant parts of the law and will be able to address the judge to your advantage.

An analogy to a solicitor and barrister would be think of a G.P and a consultant. A G.P knows a bit about everything, whereas a specialist knows a great deal about one particular subject. Think of your barrister as the specialist. He'll have much more knowledge on Family Law than the solicitor,that's what's important here, not the extra details that your solicitor knows.

You're fortunate to have a barrister and your solicitor will make sure he knows all the relevant details. Good luck.

Thanks, I feel much better already! x

MXW

Nicki wrote: »

As a solicitor I would take issue with that comment! Barristers and solicitors do exactly the same law degree and the same length of post degree training (though this is different in content).

However, where barristers tend to differ from solicitors is that they are much more experienced (and in general are better) at advocacy. It is really not at all unusual for a solicitor to do all the preparatory work, then hand the matter over to a barrister to argue the case in court. The solicitors skill is in briefing the barrister properly (which we have lots of practise at) and the barrister's skill is in arguing the case in the best possible way. Often, because the barrister hasn't been involved in gathering the evidence, they are able to present things in a much clearer and dispassionate way, which the court likes. As most judges are themselves former barristers rather than solicitors they tend also to get a bit more respect in the courtroom.

When I was practising, I would always have passed anything which was likely to be hotly contested in court on to a barrister to argue, as they are in court most days of the week whereas I would only be there arguing my case every now and then. I would also have either attended court myself so I could keep the barrister straight on the detail, or sent someone from my office who was very familiar with the case. Your solicitor is by the sound of things planning on being there himself.

I really wouldn't worry about this in the slightest. I am sure you will be very well represented on the day. If you are also attending the hearing, there is nothing to stop you passing notes to your barrister if you feel he has missed something important and if he agrees he will incorporate this into his arguments. They are well used to this happening.

Thanks for your reply, from what my solicitor has said in his letter, I doubt very much that he will be there, he has said if he is late coming back from his other client, someone from his office will take me to the court and introduce me to the barrister. Thanks again x