No foal no fee divorce solicitors?

iano086

Registered User
Messages
59
I've a neighbour going through the divorce process. Her husband is very, very well off and she's (and the kids) not got a washer as he's withholding funds in so far as he can. They're living apart these last years.

He can afford the best solicitors and is on an aggressive offensive to ensure she gets little or nothing by way of settlement. She's on free legal aid and can't afford even the most rudimentary of defences.

Given:
- her need to be fully able to defend her position whether unto outright win or to drive him to the negotiation table

- very significant funds involved

... I would have thought it would be possible to find a solicitor willing to take on (after having looked at the bones of the case to satisfy themselves that there's a decent chance of the them obtaining their slice) her case on a no foal, no fee basis.

Is this done in divorce cases as it is done in personal injury cases? Any one got a recommendation?

Cheers


 
Im aware of lady that got divorced on free legal aid, in fact her team of legal people had husbands private firm jump thro hoops and she got a great deal for child...there was no properties, savings etc.

are the free legal aid doing enough.....
 
The reason some solicitors take civil litigation cases on a "no foal no fee" basis is because of the practice in those matters that the loser pays the winner's legal costs.

Family law is different and with limited exceptions the parties are usually responsible for their own costs whatever the outcome.

That's not to say some solicitors may not be willing to act NFNF in expectation of being paid out of the settlement awarded to their client, but I'd expect them to be much harder to find.

If your neighbour isn't happy with the Legal Aid Board solicitor she can ask to be referred under the Private Practitioner Scheme.
 
What's with the baby horses?

It's an expression in legal circles to mean that if you don't win your case you don't have to pay the solicitor his costs. I assume it originally comes from farming situations, no fee for the vet if there is no live foal, or no fee to the stud farm if it doesn't work out.
 
The Legal Aid Board provide a terrific service. The solicitors do nothing other than family law, spend a lot of time in Court and are often able to offer a far superior service than your average domestic solicitor. PLUS this will go before a Judge / Court for hearing and if it as plain as is stated that the husband has loads of dosh that he is deliberately keeping from the wife, that will be clear. And the appropriate orders will be made.

In my own experience there is seldom as much dosh as the wife thinks there is - or it's not obvious, or it's not traceable, or, in fact, sometimes it just does not exist.

Which is why it might be hard to persuade any solicitor to take the case on without real proof. Plus , as stated above, since costs are seldom awarded in family law cases, often the wife will be reluctant to pay a solicitor out of her settlement.

mf
 
The Legal Aid Board provide a terrific service. The solicitors do nothing other than family law, spend a lot of time in Court and are often able to offer a far superior service than your average domestic solicitor. PLUS this will go before a Judge / Court for hearing and if it as plain as is stated that the husband has loads of dosh that he is deliberately keeping from the wife, that will be clear. And the appropriate orders will be made.

The husband having "loads of dosh" and demonstrating the fact that the husband has a load of dosh are two different things. I gather the requirement would be for a forensic accountant to tease things out and to follow leads the wife has into property ownership but which aren't clear from the declaration of means.

Stuff than can be hidden from view if preventive steps have been taken by the husband.


Which is why it might be hard to persuade any solicitor to take the case on without real proof. Plus , as stated above, since costs are seldom awarded in family law cases, often the wife will be reluctant to pay a solicitor out of her settlement.

I imagine the latter issue would be easily rectifiable by a solicitor by way of contract drawn up?
 
The Legal Aid Board provide a terrific service. The solicitors do nothing other than family law, spend a lot of time in Court and are often able to offer a far superior service than your average domestic solicitor. PLUS this will go before a Judge / Court for hearing and if it as plain as is stated that the husband has loads of dosh that he is deliberately keeping from the wife, that will be clear. And the appropriate orders will be made.

In my own experience there is seldom as much dosh as the wife thinks there is - or it's not obvious, or it's not traceable, or, in fact, sometimes it just does not exist.

Which is why it might be hard to persuade any solicitor to take the case on without real proof. Plus , as stated above, since costs are seldom awarded in family law cases, often the wife will be reluctant to pay a solicitor out of her settlement.

mf

mf

Excellent post - thanks.

I had wondered about this before. If the "public patient" was at a big disadvantage to the "private patient". But it seems not.
 
"after having looked at the bones of the case to satisfy themselves that there's a decent chance of the them obtaining their slice"

This does not sit easily with the need to have a forensic accountant trawl through assets!

The assumptions being made are that

(a) Husband has loads of money
(b) He is hiding it
(c) Wife can find it
(d) Solicitor only gets paid if assets are found.

Perhaps there is just not as much money there as wife would like?

mf
 
Perhaps. Except that there are a not-insubstantial amount of assets already disclosed (enough to support a no foal, no fee slice for a solicitor providing such a service) but that she knows of much more. It would be up to the solicitor providing such a service to satisfy themselves as to the chances of them obtaining their wonga.

I wouldn't get into second guessing mf1; assume she's correct in her knowledge and would like to figure a way to give herself the best chance of a fair settlement.

-

As an aside, it strikes me as something of an anomaly that one party in a divorce can be denied access to funds (by the one holding the purse strings) which would enable them to fight their case on equal financial footing. You would have imagined that the playing field would somehow be levelled: the court insisting that if one side can hire privately, then funds must be released from the "marriage assets" to enable the other side to do same.
 
I had wondered about this before. If the "public patient" was at a big disadvantage to the "private patient". But it seems not.

If the public patient, unlike the private patient, cannot afford to probe a declaration of assets so as to establish it full & truthful then I would see them being at an enormous disadvantage.

One fundamental act arising from the granting of a divorce is the appropriate splitting of assets afterall.
 
if you don't win your case you don't have to pay the solicitor his costs
Ok, understand now.

However in this case I don't think it applies, you can't 'fail' to get a divorce; even if you are not happy with the settlement terms as long as judge on the day is satisfied that due provision is made the divorce will be granted.

If I were a Solicitor I personally wouldn't accept such terms of engagement.

You would have imagined that the playing field would somehow be levelled: the court insisting that if one side can hire privately, then funds must be released from the "marriage assets" to enable the other side to do same
Indeed you would; but it took at court case at the European Court of Human Rights to have legal aid made available for family law cases in the first place.
 
Back
Top