There is a different way to divorce while still having the safety net of solicitors on board - collaborative law. You and your ex pick solicitors who are trained in collaborative law and all sign an agreement not to threaten court proceedings. You work together as a team to achieve a result that you want, not imposed by the Court. All meetings are with both parties and solicitors and advice is given in front of all of you. Very few letters back and forth and any misinterpretation can be cleared up on the spot. Control with the clients, not the lawyers, not the Court. Is not necessarily cheap but can be quick and is a good team working approach for families that want that.

Carol, Nottingham, UK

I totally agree with DIY when it comes to the negotiating - letters/e-mails back and forth between the solicitors are undoubtedly what costs the money leading up to a final hearing. My ex went straight to a solicitor when he couldn't force me to sell the house as I had our younger son living with me there. I just corresponded directly to them - when it came to the hearings (he was determined to take it to a final hearing) I had a barrister - it's them I admire - not the solicitors - I had no advice which was worth anything it was all admin. I put together my own case, which both barristers (one at the FDR and the final said they had not seen done before but said I had handled it admirably. It was really really hard work but I saved myself at least £7,000, still had a legal bill of £7,000 even so! After the final order was made my solicitor said they would try and keep my costs down - promptly charged me £600 for 23 one-line e-mails, one 36 minute phone call and 5 incoming letters!

Dee Towns, Heathfield, e sussex

My partner represented himself as we had no money to employ a barrister. His ex had a friend who was a barrister to help her (gratis). The judge was no help whatsoever and just sided with her barrister, so my partner was taken to the cleaners with spousal maintenance awarded FOR LIFE even though she had the house and he is on an average wage. He now has a court order that is interpreted in 2 completely different ways by different barristers and we have to pay to go back to court to get it clarified. Nice work if you can get it.

JJ, Leics,

Gerlis is right - to a to a point.

I made my ex an offer she rejected. So I did a DIY job on most of the leg work required to get the case to trial. When it got to Court the Head of Chambers representing me looked at the case papers for five minutes (never having seen any of them before) and said, "50% - I'll just go and tell your ex's Barrister that it's clear it should be that and get her to agree to it".

And sure enough he did... Voila... a consent order. Which meant that my ex accepted slightly less than I'd offered her two years prior. But, the two year delay cost her £10K in solicitors costs.

Conclusion? - Solicitors (not Barristers) are useless in divorce cases. They'll spin things out with no real desire to save time or money. When my bosses split I stopped them from getting Solictors involved. "what's the point?" You both know what you want and what you are going to give so do you really want to pay someone £20K to write letters for you? They listened and saved...

Ted, Cheshire,

I agree in larger trials it's a disaster to represent yourself, however that's not my experience with run of the mill joe public cases.
I successfully obtained a divorce (ironically on St Valentine's day just passed) by doing the process my self. It didn't take long, wasnt that expensive, and pulled the rug from under the other party's lawyers forcing them into doing somthing for a change.

If you are fed up with inactivity, it is an option worth exploring!

John, Belfast, N. Ireland

The many anti -lawyer comments given show a failure to appreciate the complex and sometime contradictory nature of English law and paint the majority of good lawyers with the same brush as the bad ones.

When you cannot manage the plumbing yourself you call a specialist why is instructing a solicitor to manage difficult cases any different.

Barristers have different skils to solicitors whis why they are sometimes called upon. This is often similar to the referal from a GP to a consultant.

Walk a mile in their shoes before being so disparaging.

Ellen Cox, Yeovil, Somerset, UK

Business promotion - nothing more and nothing less

shaun O'Connell, portsmouth, UK

A DJ promoting lawyers and denigrating people who cannot afford to throw away their assets on lawyers fees and/or who have had a bellyful of the many incompetent Solicitors & Barristers in Family Law.

Point 10 & 6 in particular reveal this Judges shallow prejudices and how he may struggle to provide a fair and impartial hearing, rather he will be easily smitten by expensive advocates who look the part.

The sooner the secret Family Law hearings are thrown open to scrutiny the better as it will ensure the cosy cartel of judges and lawyers will be forced to account and made to take matters before them seriously, rather than focus on presentation and froth as this article plainly alludes to, despite the authors other intention.

Jeff, Surrey,

The District Judge is correct I am afraid as far as disputed cases are concerned. However where cases are not disputed ( sensible), you can do your divorce and get a consent order from the internet these days completely bypassing the Solicitors office. Why pay £200.00 per hour for procedural documents?

Mark, Swindon, UK

It is inaccurate to portray all lawyers as being profit-driven. It is true that some are, they practice commercial law. No-one practices family law to get rich, those that practice family law tend to be those that do the job because they want to do some good.
As for racking up costs and dragging out proceedings, it is often the client who is to blame. It is unfortunate but even the most level-headed individual becomes irrational when going through a divorce. Arguments over possession of shower curtains are not unheard of!!
Fianlly, DJ Gerlis is correct in that a non-lawyer would be at an extreme disadvantage if facing a lawyer in proceedings. A certain emotional detatchment is required to successfully argue a point to a judge, an emotionally involved non-lawyer cannot hope to acheive this. Further, without the legal resources available to lawyers a non-lawyer will not be aware of what the exact law is much less make any arguments regarding it.

Dan, Nottingham,

Solicitors do not have any interest in making a case run on and on. They, like everyone else, derive satisfaction from doing a job well and achieving a good result for their client: often getting personally involved in cases. There is little money to be made in doing family work and none from matters which become protracted; in cases where matters are unusually protracted (and expensive) your Solicitor will have, more than likely, “written off” many hours of time that they have spent (often including their evenings and weekends).

When things go wrong people blame their Solicitor... usually because they do not understand the, often extremely complex, subtleties of the law or have an unrealistic expectation of what can be achieved. If there is a good reason for blaming your Solicitor there are ways of lodging complaints and gaining recompense.

Solicitors are great advocates for arbitration/mediation schemes which encourage the parties to sit round and come to an agreement.

Mark , Lancaster, Lancashire

Absent either or both parties seeking a scorched earth divorce best try to work things with divorce mediator. Lawyers working on an hourly fee will just bleed their clients dry. Adam's advice above to guys is on target. Marriage and children for men in these times is like placing your entire economic and emotional future on the red or the black.

MARK KLEIN, M.D., OAKLAND, CA

"A false economy"? Where one household's income suddenly has to stretch to cover two there normally isn't the liquidity to afford lawyers. Sure, the house could be sold (if there is one) and money borrowed so that a lengthy administrative procedure can be followed by public servants while the public they serve has to subsequently struggle in penury.

DJ Gerlis, divorcing couples are real people with real difficulties and they look to the court as a last solution to ease their problems and not compound them.

J. Gabrielczyk, London,

This is another thing. Unless you really go for top laweyrs in the UK (and they cost absolute fortune only worth in huge cases like McCartney) the rest - maybe with very few exceptions - are only competent in getting money out of their client. Usually they do not care about the law and outcome but only about their fees.

There is also The Law Society that protect completely incompetent lawyers and makes sure that they always get their fees.

Apart from top ones - lawyers in England are incompetent fantasists.

Quentin FitzClarence, London, UK

I acted for myself in the County Court and was successful at trial in giving my feckless, violent husband a quarter share of our property, despite his lawyer insisting he was entitled to a half share. Solicitors waste time and money stringing things out and in my experience are incapable of common sense, courtesy and literacy. My advice, litigate for yourself.
DZ, Newcastle

D Zimmerman, Newcastle upon Tyne, England

My wife divorced her ex-husband with the aid of a solicitor. She was advised by her to reject the husband's first financial offer without the solicitor understanding the likely financial outcome of a court case.

It was only when I sought independent advice on her behalf on what guidelines were employed in these cases that her lawyer took advice herself from a barrister. My ex-wife ended up 12000 pounds worse off then if she had accepted the initial offer.

A lot of solicitors are ignorant people who do not understand any branch of law outide their own narrow specialism. Do they advertise their own ignorance, do you think?

Professionals? Don't make me laugh.

John Sherban, Hunwick,

The influence submitted by opposing advocates should have very little bearing on a presiding judge, who is deciding the outcome of a family law dispute. Though this only applies, if the Judge is any good at his job.

Did Charles Dickens `hit the nail on the head when he stated: The one great principle of English law is to make business for itself?

Alan Newbolt, Leeds, Yorkshire

I represented myself at the High Court on the Strand when re-negotiating the childrens maintenance and it went ok. The judge was good at identifying the real issues and cutting to the chase as it were. The previous time i was there with lawyers representing both parties was a total waste of time and money. Nothing was achieved . The Lawyers know what to do to achieve maximum earnings from each case. The are good at just letting the issues ramble along and never actually settling anything.
I learnt very quickly that they will happily prolong the legal matters until either the money runs out or the parties cotton on to them. Also I realised that the Lawyer is 100% useless at determining the eventual monetary settlement. The Barrister is the one who advised on that. So really the Lawyer is just an extremely expensive secretary. And a secretary that has no initiative at that ! So to short circuit the Lawyers grit your teeth and reestablish communication with spouse and do a deal.

Howard Sheldon, Elstree, Herts

Oh look - a lawyer saying we should all use lawyers. What a surprise.

There seems to be an assumption in this article that all divorces must end in court. And if both parties appoint lawyers, you can bet your last dollar (that being what learned counsel is after) that it will. It pays lawyers to write letters to each other. It pays them to be antagonistic to the other party. And it pays them well. Don't think for one second that "your" counsel acts only in your best interest. He or she has a vested interest in making this business run and run.

If both parties aren't actually at each other's throats, then surely a far simpler solution will be to use some sort of independent service which can come up with a solution fair to both sides, which both parties can sign up to, without wasting the time of the courts or making lawyers any richer.

It'll be interesting to see how "disadvantaged" Heather Mills is when it comes to a final settlement. Or has Stephen Gerlis already made his mind up

Tim Turner, Leeds, UK

Simple, don't get wed in the first place... that way whats your will remain yours!! If you are a man with children and you divorce you will loose with or without representation.

Andy, Plymouth,

Isn't there atleast one strong point in favour of representing oneself?

Andy, Rotherham,

Judge Gerlis (who would have been Mr Registrar Gerlis before fancy titles were handed out in the county court) would make a pr man for lawyers. He is basically saying that if you are to poor to be represented in matrimonial proceedings you have virtually no chance of sucess.He knows that is basically twaddle or should do or some 'judges' are not doing there jobs properly. He could easily clarify the position by explaining just exactly what he thinks his function is in matrimonial proceedings. In all other civil matters except those involving children "he who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer"

j.s. SIERZANT, nelson, England