Bejasus
New member
too many barracking barrackroom lawyers, I suspect.
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
What happened to the DivorceNB thread?
- Thread starter Bejasus
- Start date
ccscott49
Active member
Cant imagine who that could have been!
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
jimi
Well-known member
Think that the rich husband had a boat and was watching the forum, when xxxx'x daughter got home he had changed the locks and the bank accounts etc so she was'nt very happy.
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
ccscott49
Active member
sounds like I missed a great thread!
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
mirabriani
New member
As the poster, I wondered where it had gone!
It was going soooo well for a non boaty post
If peeps are interested, I can update......
Like will she get the house?
Will he lose the Ferrari?
Will I have to look after the kids?
Regards Briani
<hr width=100% size=1>
It was going soooo well for a non boaty post
If peeps are interested, I can update......
Like will she get the house?
Will he lose the Ferrari?
Will I have to look after the kids?
Regards Briani
<hr width=100% size=1>
Bejasus
New member
Pity, I was sitting here with bated breath watching the arguments develop.
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
jimi
Well-known member
hardly arguments .. mair like a bareknuckle fight
<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by paul_lomax on 04/11/2004 15:25 (server time).</FONT></P>
<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by paul_lomax on 04/11/2004 15:25 (server time).</FONT></P>
paulrossall
New member
Maybee My fault
I made the last post headed "I agree with jfm & tcm" and went on to lambast a certain profession (better not repeat which one). I also used a couple of "**" in the middle of words and did wonder whether the forum was somehow programmed to pick these up automatically.
Shorty afterwards I went to see if there had been any response but could not find the thread. I looked to see who was online and that KIM-chappie who writes his name in red was lurking.
My advice was meant to be constructive but I did advocate agression rather than lots of badges!
In conclusion I suspect the thread was pulled because tcm was right again which caused a problem as there is only one GOD (allowed on this forum!).
IMHO Paul
<hr width=100% size=1>" there is nothing-absolutely nothing-half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats".
I made the last post headed "I agree with jfm & tcm" and went on to lambast a certain profession (better not repeat which one). I also used a couple of "**" in the middle of words and did wonder whether the forum was somehow programmed to pick these up automatically.
Shorty afterwards I went to see if there had been any response but could not find the thread. I looked to see who was online and that KIM-chappie who writes his name in red was lurking.
My advice was meant to be constructive but I did advocate agression rather than lots of badges!
In conclusion I suspect the thread was pulled because tcm was right again which caused a problem as there is only one GOD (allowed on this forum!).
IMHO Paul
<hr width=100% size=1>" there is nothing-absolutely nothing-half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats".
Bejasus
New member
reminded me of the liers in my divorce..........fighting each other over crap and just winding up my bill, while she was getting it free on legal aid.
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
jfm
Well-known member
Re: Maybee My fault
I missed it all. I said she needed an aggressive lawyer, was told that was "nonsense" by a nambypamby type lawyer poster, and reiterated that in a case like this you need (imho) an aggressive lawyer pref one who cut his/her teeth on Wall street. That was genuinely my view, intended as honest advice, though i might have picked a fight in the process, sorry. I missed tcm's contribution though, dang
Paul, you called it right I think. lawyers are like any other profession. If you have a seriously difficult mission then you should only ever use the top 10%. The rest are, relatively speaking, more useful if you have an easy job like house conveyancing. This is not just a lawyer comment, it applies to doctors, builders, company doctors, investment bankers, whatever. Choosing someone with a badge as you put it merely identifies the 100%, not the 10%. You got it right I think, I agree with you
I missed it all. I said she needed an aggressive lawyer, was told that was "nonsense" by a nambypamby type lawyer poster, and reiterated that in a case like this you need (imho) an aggressive lawyer pref one who cut his/her teeth on Wall street. That was genuinely my view, intended as honest advice, though i might have picked a fight in the process, sorry. I missed tcm's contribution though, dang
Paul, you called it right I think. lawyers are like any other profession. If you have a seriously difficult mission then you should only ever use the top 10%. The rest are, relatively speaking, more useful if you have an easy job like house conveyancing. This is not just a lawyer comment, it applies to doctors, builders, company doctors, investment bankers, whatever. Choosing someone with a badge as you put it merely identifies the 100%, not the 10%. You got it right I think, I agree with you
snowleopard
Active member
i suspect that the subject of lawyers and liability for publishing actionable comments may be a little sensitive at scuttlebutt central right now.
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
BrendanS
Well-known member
Re: Sorry, couldn\'t resist!
POLISH DIVORCE
A Polish man married a Canadian girl after he had been in Canada a year or
so and, although his English was far from perfect, they got on very well.
Until one day he rushed into a lawyer's office and asked him if he could
arrange a divorce for him- "very quick." The lawyer said that the speed
for getting a divorce would depend on the circumstances and asked him the
following questions:
LAWYER: Have you any grounds?
POLE: JA, JA, acre and half and nice little home, 3 bedrooms.
LAWYER "No," I mean what is the foundation of this case?"
POLE: "It made of concrete, brick and mortar," he responded.
LAWYER: "Does either of you have a real grudge?"
POLE: "No," he replied, "We have two-car carport. Don't need grudge.
LAWYER: "I mean, What are your relations like?"
POLE: "All my relations in Poland."
LAWYER: "is there any infidelity in your marriage?"
POLE: "Yes, we have hi fidelity stereo set &DVD player with 6.1 sound. We
don't all the time like the music,
but I answer yes."
LAWYER: No, I mean does your wife beat you up?
POLE: NO, I always up before her.
LAWYER: WHY do you want this divorce?
POLE: SHE going to kill me.
LAWYER: What makes you think that?
POLE: I got proof.
LAWYER: What kind of proof?
POLE: She going to poison me. She buy a bottle at the drug store and put on
shelf in bathroom. I can read-it says, "Polish Remover."
<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni
POLISH DIVORCE
A Polish man married a Canadian girl after he had been in Canada a year or
so and, although his English was far from perfect, they got on very well.
Until one day he rushed into a lawyer's office and asked him if he could
arrange a divorce for him- "very quick." The lawyer said that the speed
for getting a divorce would depend on the circumstances and asked him the
following questions:
LAWYER: Have you any grounds?
POLE: JA, JA, acre and half and nice little home, 3 bedrooms.
LAWYER "No," I mean what is the foundation of this case?"
POLE: "It made of concrete, brick and mortar," he responded.
LAWYER: "Does either of you have a real grudge?"
POLE: "No," he replied, "We have two-car carport. Don't need grudge.
LAWYER: "I mean, What are your relations like?"
POLE: "All my relations in Poland."
LAWYER: "is there any infidelity in your marriage?"
POLE: "Yes, we have hi fidelity stereo set &DVD player with 6.1 sound. We
don't all the time like the music,
but I answer yes."
LAWYER: No, I mean does your wife beat you up?
POLE: NO, I always up before her.
LAWYER: WHY do you want this divorce?
POLE: SHE going to kill me.
LAWYER: What makes you think that?
POLE: I got proof.
LAWYER: What kind of proof?
POLE: She going to poison me. She buy a bottle at the drug store and put on
shelf in bathroom. I can read-it says, "Polish Remover."
<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni
Parsonsheath
Active member
Re: Maybee My fault
Top 10%? No, what you need nowadays in every field is a specialist in that particular line.
Aggresion? Yes, of course you are there to advise and seek the best deal for your client, and yes, there are clients who are only impressed by someone who comes over as rude and arrogant ( which they see as strong and authoritarian), but at the end of the day there are clear rules, and that sort of advocate died with the dinosaurs.
Specialists like Solicitors Family Law Association will point out the couple have enough on their plate without increasing the tension.
Get good advice, lawyers for both sides will be remarkably close when they advise each of these folk, the rules and guidelines get more clear each year.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Top 10%? No, what you need nowadays in every field is a specialist in that particular line.
Aggresion? Yes, of course you are there to advise and seek the best deal for your client, and yes, there are clients who are only impressed by someone who comes over as rude and arrogant ( which they see as strong and authoritarian), but at the end of the day there are clear rules, and that sort of advocate died with the dinosaurs.
Specialists like Solicitors Family Law Association will point out the couple have enough on their plate without increasing the tension.
Get good advice, lawyers for both sides will be remarkably close when they advise each of these folk, the rules and guidelines get more clear each year.
<hr width=100% size=1>
jfm
Well-known member
The advice was specific to the case
We'll praps have to disagree. What you dont want (but very much imho) is merely a "specialist". That goes back to the badge thing. What you want (imho) is someone in the top 10% of the specialists. The other 90% are for pedestrian cases
I never recommended "aggressive" as a general rule for all cases. I agree with you that amicable is better. However, the aggressive type was recommended where one party "owns the house in his business" and is wealthy and provides the underdog with no money - the exact issue descibed in the orginal post. Yuo dont seriously recommend a softly softly approach in these specific circumstances, do you?
<hr width=100% size=1>
We'll praps have to disagree. What you dont want (but very much imho) is merely a "specialist". That goes back to the badge thing. What you want (imho) is someone in the top 10% of the specialists. The other 90% are for pedestrian cases
I never recommended "aggressive" as a general rule for all cases. I agree with you that amicable is better. However, the aggressive type was recommended where one party "owns the house in his business" and is wealthy and provides the underdog with no money - the exact issue descibed in the orginal post. Yuo dont seriously recommend a softly softly approach in these specific circumstances, do you?
<hr width=100% size=1>
AlexL
Member
Re: The advice was specific to the case
I did post on the origonal post and have to disagree with you again. You absolutely need a 'specialist' lawyer - a 'modest' family lawyer will destroy a 'top 5%' non familiy lawyer 99 times out of a 100 as experience is most important in this field. In familiy law the judges have no time for aggression / timewasting / outrageous demands etc. If you want aggressive then by all means instruct an aggressive lawyer but instruct an aggressive family lawyer.
As for your comment about wall street - that is plainly ludicrous - a) you cannot practise as a lawyer in the UK if you are qualified as a US lawyer and vice-versa.
b) even if you do have a UK practicing certificate the UK and US systems (for family law anyway - I don't know about the financial and corporate side) are about as different as it is possible to get.
EDIT
I've just re-read your last post and I think you are actually advocating what I just said! i.e use a specialist (i.e a family lawyer) BUT a good one and one with a reputation for what you want i.e aggressive or conciliatory.
I'm not sure what your profession is but (round here) anyway most specialist familiy lawyers tend to be in the top 10% anyway (i know that sounds daft but bear with me) as the ones who don't come up to scratch generally move on or do more general stuff, or work on smaller cases under a partner. If you go to a lawyer in a high st firm, who is a partner or head of their department then they will generally be one of the ones who met the grade. Its a very darwinian profession, if you don't bring in the fees then it's adios.
<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by AlexL on 05/11/2004 12:01 (server time).</FONT></P>
I did post on the origonal post and have to disagree with you again. You absolutely need a 'specialist' lawyer - a 'modest' family lawyer will destroy a 'top 5%' non familiy lawyer 99 times out of a 100 as experience is most important in this field. In familiy law the judges have no time for aggression / timewasting / outrageous demands etc. If you want aggressive then by all means instruct an aggressive lawyer but instruct an aggressive family lawyer.
As for your comment about wall street - that is plainly ludicrous - a) you cannot practise as a lawyer in the UK if you are qualified as a US lawyer and vice-versa.
b) even if you do have a UK practicing certificate the UK and US systems (for family law anyway - I don't know about the financial and corporate side) are about as different as it is possible to get.
EDIT
I've just re-read your last post and I think you are actually advocating what I just said! i.e use a specialist (i.e a family lawyer) BUT a good one and one with a reputation for what you want i.e aggressive or conciliatory.
I'm not sure what your profession is but (round here) anyway most specialist familiy lawyers tend to be in the top 10% anyway (i know that sounds daft but bear with me) as the ones who don't come up to scratch generally move on or do more general stuff, or work on smaller cases under a partner. If you go to a lawyer in a high st firm, who is a partner or head of their department then they will generally be one of the ones who met the grade. Its a very darwinian profession, if you don't bring in the fees then it's adios.
<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by AlexL on 05/11/2004 12:01 (server time).</FONT></P>
AlexL
Member
sounds like a familiar complaint, however if one party is on legal aid then this cannot generally happen as the legal aid lawyer actually has prime responsibility to the legal aid board, NOT the client and must do everything to mitigate the costs. Most solcitors will actually do this as the legal aid board won't pay otherwise and legal aid rates are pitiful anyway. Also another common misconception is that legal aid is free, it most certainly is not - it is a loan, not a benefit. The legal aid board will reclaim their costs at the back end once an award has been made, which in a divorce is almost always. If the award cannot pay the legal aid fees (i.e the spouse is awarded the property and no cash) then a charge will be made on the property and when it is sold the fees are repayable.
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
jfm
Well-known member
Re: The advice was specific to the case
Agreed. You need someone who knows family law, not some other type of lawyer. We can differ on the aggressive point, and I agree moderate behaviour might be sensible before a judge, but i still say where you have a dominant party (wealthy, owns everything, no money given to other) aggressive works best. But ok to disagree.
Hey you now judge me as "ludicrous", to add to the "nonsense". But you are quite wrong in your statement "you cannot practise as a lawyer in the UK if you are qualified as a US lawyer". There is no such prohibition
Wise up Alex. You are so small-minded that it seems not to occur to you that a lawyer could be qualified to practise in two (or more) jusrisdictions. Loads of lawyers are qualified in multiple countries - not you maybe - but loads are.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Agreed. You need someone who knows family law, not some other type of lawyer. We can differ on the aggressive point, and I agree moderate behaviour might be sensible before a judge, but i still say where you have a dominant party (wealthy, owns everything, no money given to other) aggressive works best. But ok to disagree.
Hey you now judge me as "ludicrous", to add to the "nonsense". But you are quite wrong in your statement "you cannot practise as a lawyer in the UK if you are qualified as a US lawyer". There is no such prohibition
Wise up Alex. You are so small-minded that it seems not to occur to you that a lawyer could be qualified to practise in two (or more) jusrisdictions. Loads of lawyers are qualified in multiple countries - not you maybe - but loads are.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Bejasus
New member
The legal aid board will reclaim their costs at the back end once an award has been made, which in a divorce is almost always. If the award cannot pay the legal aid fees (i.e the spouse is awarded the property and no cash) then a charge will be made on the property and when it is sold the fees are repayable.
Hopefully this is the case, since she just walked away with £100k from the sale of the house and at least £24k from an insurance policy. None of which she paid a penny for.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Hopefully this is the case, since she just walked away with £100k from the sale of the house and at least £24k from an insurance policy. None of which she paid a penny for.
<hr width=100% size=1>
gjgm
Active member
what happens to legal aid costs if an award is not made, out of interest. Is it still only a loan, not a benefit?
Havent really gone through these posts in detail, but it does seem that some are judging the " best" outcome based only on financials.
I d say that the advantage of using a good family lawyer is they ll remind you of otherwise.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Havent really gone through these posts in detail, but it does seem that some are judging the " best" outcome based only on financials.
I d say that the advantage of using a good family lawyer is they ll remind you of otherwise.
<hr width=100% size=1>
robind
New member
Forget agression and substitute "skill" try a "music business lawyer" for best results.
Rob
<hr width=100% size=1>
Rob
<hr width=100% size=1>
