Trust us – we’re your divorce lawyers

As divorce lawyers with decades of experience and a nationally-recognised reputation (the latest Legal 500 directory praises our team of “very able and experienced lawyers”), we have a pretty good idea of what’s what when it comes to even the most complex matrimonial cases.

Our firm, Benussi & Co, employs not only first-rate divorce lawyers, but also complementary experts, such as forensic accountant Robin Cooke.

In short, we have the knowledge and the proficiency to obtain the best divorce settlements for our clients.

It is, then, extremely frustrating when clients call upon our legal know-how and ask for our advice – and then disregard what we have to say.

Perhaps due to these austere times, this is happening quite a lot: clients will come for our advice, but fail to act on it.

We can’t give cast-iron guarantees that a divorce court judge will award a certain amount or percentage of marital assets to our clients; but we can identify the scope of an award very accurately.

What we can do is to give expert counsel and experienced advice as to how to proceed. So when we advocate a course of action, we are doing so for very good reason – because it will almost certainly be to their advantage.

In short, clients need to trust us!

For example, if we recommend you pay for the services of Robin Cooke to track down assets your spouse has tried to hide, we’ll be doing so because we know that this will identify a larger marital cake for division.

Clients who come to Benussi & Co do so because they know we are good at what we do. It is somewhat perplexing, then, when they choose to ignore the advice we give them.

We know that putting your trust in someone at such a painful time may not be easy, but we are here for you – and you alone. We have your best interests at heart and we want to see you come out of the divorce process in much better shape, both financially and emotionally.

So when we steer you down a specific road, trust us that it’s the right road to get you to your chosen destination.

If a man wants “out” of a marriage, the chances are he’s “in” with someone else

Diane Benussi

In my many years as a matrimonial lawyer, only four men who have instigated divorce proceedings have claimed not to have a substitute partner waiting in the wings. Of those four, two had remarried within six months of their marriages being dissolved.

Men are famously inept when it comes to carving out a life as a singleton. They may say they want freedom from domestic responsibility, but the vast majority crave the stability that only a wife and a well-managed home can provide.

Hence, wives who sit in front of me and dismiss the idea their husband wants to end the marriage because he’s found someone else are almost always deluding themselves.

As a result of refusing to see what’s all too evident to me, women clients are often reluctant to press ahead with proceedings – sometimes in the hope their partners will have a change of heart – and shy away from litigation, not wanting to aggravate their husbands.

I realise it’s hard to accept that your partner of many years is having an affair, but the sooner you face reality, the easier it will be to move ahead with the divorce – and a new life afterwards.

So, when women say things like “we’re not getting on as we used to,” my instincts tell me there’s another reason – and that reason is adultery. Scientists may have identified no fewer than 91 ways to keep an illicit relationship secret, but the warning signs are there if you want to see them.

For women, the indicators to look out for include their husbands showering more frequently, staying at the office late, going to the gym, losing weight and dressing more snappily.

Women who believe their husbands aren’t straying, even though they want a divorce, should ask themselves this: Why would he want to leave you if he’s only going to a bachelor pad with no one to pick up his boxer shorts off the bedroom floor, iron his shirts or make his dinner?

Some women will even blame the current economic climate for their husband’s changed behaviour: “Oh, he has to work long hours because the business is struggling,” they will say. Or “he doesn’t want sex anymore because he’s stressed out at work”.

Sorry, but men will always want sex – perhaps more so during tough economic times, in order to relax – so if they don’t want it from their wives, you can bet they are getting it elsewhere.

So, ladies, please don’t kid yourselves that your husband suddenly wants out of the marriage for no other reason than you’re “not getting on” like you used to. Divorce is a difficult process and successful men stand to lose a chunk of their assets as a result, so they’re not going to break up the family for no good reason.

Take a good long look at your husband’s behaviour and rather than make excuses for it, identify the warning signs and try to accept that he’s found someone else. Because however hurtful the realisation will be, once you accept the situation, you will be in a much better position to move on with your life.

Good divorce lawyers enable clients to take equal role in the legal process

By Helen Jane Arnold

In a recent blog, I commented on the findings of the Legal Ombudsman’s report, which highlighted rising costs and poor quality legal advice in divorce cases. I emphasised that we, along with all good matrimonial legal firms, gear our legal advice to keep costs in line with the particular issues in each case and work hard to avoid litigation.

Another important cornerstone of Benussi & Co’s approach is to support clients through the process and work with them, as a team, to tailor action to the particulars of their situation.

As I mentioned in my previous blog, it may be that our clients can work with their partner directly, in which case mediation could be an option (with the benefit of our advice in the background). Or we can explore the possibility of exchanging financial information with a view to the client sitting round the table with their partner and solicitor to take the case forward.

On the other hand, a client may be more comfortable working towards a joint solution but without face-to-face contact with their soon-to-be-ex. In such cases, we and their partner’s solicitor will sit down together to arrive at an agreement.

Whatever the preferred route, the focus remains the same: to provide our clients with the information and advice they need to decide how they wish to tackle the situation to achieve the best for them and their family.

By doing this, we not only help clients to retain a working – if not amicable – relationship with their estranged partner – but we are also helping them to keep costs down by avoiding expensive court action.

When you have had a hand in crafting something yourself, you are far more likely to be happy with it. And so it is with divorce: if clients are involved in drawing up a final settlement with their ex, they are less likely to regret the way it was handled, the legal costs involved or the outcome.

One of the first things we do together with our clients is to organise an exchange of financial information with their partner. Once we understand the financial landscape, we can discuss and advise on the available options.

We explain to clients how the divorce process works and how judges direct cases, always emphasising the advantages of avoiding conflict. We also encourage clients to focus on the facts of their case and keep the emotional content out of it wherever possible.

By helping our clients to minimise hostility in the course of dealing with the divorce, finances or issues relating to children, we help them to take control in a positive way and to participate in the process. By enabling our clients to better understand the legal process, they gain the confidence to work out a solution with the benefit of our advice, even if that solution inevitably requires compromise.

Equipping our clients with information and advice at an early stage empowers them them to take control of their matrimonial situation. This helps them to avoid unnecessary costs and a stressful and protracted court process – and it also allows them to come out the other side with their dignity intact.

• Helen Jane Arnold is a partner with Benussi & Co

The consequences of being “separated” without getting divorced

By Sylvie Sarabia

Now and again, I meet clients who have come to Benussi & Co several years after separating. “We just didn’t do anything about formally ending the marriage,” is usually the reason given.

Since the current the recession began, we’ve had clients who have decided not to go ahead with a divorce and/or reaching a financial settlement until the housing market picks up.

Being separated but not divorced means you have the worst of both worlds because you’re not free or secure financially or emotionally.

At some point in the future, you will have to deal with the situation, so why put off the inevitable until tomorrow when you could do it today?

No one knows when the housing market will pick up, so if you leave things on hold, you may be stuck in limbo for a long time.

If you can’t sell the marital home at the moment – and even if you’re both still living there – you can still get divorced, settle the finances and have the court order how the assets should be divided. If the house is to be sold, you will get an idea of how much you will have when the sale goes through. This will enable you to plan for the future.

By procrastinating, you also run the risk of your estranged spouse using the time to hide assets or rearrange his or her business affairs in an attempt to reduce the assets available to you. This is a warning, too, to anyone who believes they have a good plan to “hide” assets by passing them to a third party to “hold” until proceedings are over. Do this at your peril: If the relationship with the third party ends, that person could walk away with the assets, or otherwise could make life extremely difficult for you. In any case, such transactions will be discovered during the divorce proceedings and you will be heavily penalised by the court as a result.

There are other dangers with not pressing ahead with the divorce now:

When you do decide to settle the assets, the court will need to know what assets there were at the time of separation. The longer you have been separated, the harder it is to decipher the joint assets you held at the time of your break-up and the more expensive your legal fees will be. Another difficulty is that the assets acquired or built up after you separated may be kept out of the pot for division – which may come as a shock to one or both of you.

From, typically, the husband’s point of view, a lengthy separation might mean he has been paying maintenance to his estranged wife for several years even though she wasn’t entitled to any; or that she wasn’t entitled to that amount.

If the wrong amount of maintenance has been paid pre-settlement, it can’t be taken back. You may also have set a precedent where the court might find it unfair to suddenly stop a spouse’s maintenance upon which she or he has grown dependent.

From, typically, the wife’s point of view, she may have learned to manage financially on her own by reducing her spending and simplifying her lifestyle. Had the couple divorced as soon as they split up, she may well have been entitled to more maintenance than she is now, several years down the line. If she’s managed thus far, it is difficult to argue that she needs a certain amount to maintain her previous lifestyle. She, too, will have set a precedent and may have lost her entitlement to maintenance.

These are just some of the potential problems you could encounter if you decide to separate but not divorce. So before you come to any decision, seek expert legal advice from a family lawyer.
If your marriage is over, you will want to start life afresh – emotionally and financially – and only divorce will give you finality. If you take steps at the time of separation to avoid a messy situation later on, it means not only will you help to reduce your potential legal fees, but it’s more likely you and your ex can enjoy a better relationship in the future.

• Sylvie Sarabia is a Senior Associate with Benussi & Co

Good divorce lawyers work hard to keep costs down and relationships civil

By Helen Jane Arnold

The latest report by the Legal Ombudsman for England and Wales has highlighted rising costs and poor quality legal advice in divorce cases. It shows complaints by clients in matrimonial and family law are higher than in any other category.

We don’t agree with this assessment: We gear our legal advice to keeping costs in line with the particular issues in each case and work hard to avoid litigation.

Before taking on a new client, we talk about whether the marriage has truly broken down. In a small percentage of cases, the marriage is retrievable. So that’s the first question we ask ourselves during discussion with the would-be client.

The introductory interview we offer all prospective clients – a 90-minute meeting with two of our highly-experienced lawyers – allows us to explore whether a relationship might be revived.

This meeting also allows us to explain the divorce process and what they can expect to happen if they go ahead. This equips people to consider and decide whether ending their marriage is really what they want to do.

Sometimes we suggest our clients see our Master Practitioner, Mia Hughes, whose techniques include neuro-linguistic programming, which can help people to put aside the assumption that the marriage is beyond saving and work out how to set about rebuilding it.

Only when we’re satisfied the marriage is beyond repair do we proceed.

The first stage is to decide with the client how we are going to tackle the process – and that is not by jumping to the conclusion that the only way, or the best way, is to litigate and take the case to court.

The more litigious a divorce becomes, the more it will cost in legal fees (quite apart from the damaging emotional effect that an acrimonious and drawn-out divorce can have on the parties and their families).

Wherever possible, we encourage clients to sit down with their estranged partners to discuss their divorce together and, hopefully, agree on a rough settlement. Sometimes a joint meeting with solicitors can result in early agreement of issues. In that way, the process is far less likely to become adversarial.

We also suggest mediation in cases where we think it will help prevent a case from going to court. If there is a high degree of cooperation between the two parties, we might also recommend the collaborative law process, which involves both parties sitting round a table with their respective lawyers to find solutions to any sticking points.

In all these ways, we do our utmost to prevent the divorce process becoming adversarial. If an estranged couple are able to craft, or help craft, the settlement themselves, they are more likely to enjoy a better relationship in the future, which will benefit their children and the wider family.

Yet however amicable divorcing couples might be, it is still necessary to engage a specialist family lawyer to act on their behalf: They need someone on their side who has a clear understanding of finances and how assets can and should be divided. They will also ensure that clients do not have the wool pulled over their eyes in terms of what assets are in the marital pot.

At Benussi & Co, our primary focus is what is best for our clients. In almost all cases, a negotiated settlement, with as little acrimony as possible, is not just in the client’s interest – it’s in everyone’s interest.

So we reject the idea that divorce lawyers give poor advice and the suggestion that they’re out to make a fast buck. A good divorce law firm works hard to keep costs down and relationships civil in order that clients can make as good a start as possible on the next chapter of their lives.

• Helen Jane Arnold is a partner with Benussi & Co

Why “marital coercion” is still part of modern women’s lives

The jury in Vicky Pryce’s second trial rejected her defence of “marital coercion” and found her guilty of seeking to pervert the course of justice by taking ex-husband Chris Huhne’s speeding points to prevent him getting a driving ban.

Having followed both trials closely, I believe the jury was right to reach the conclusion it did: Jurors were played a series of taped phone calls in which Pryce, swearing and screaming, tried to lure her husband into confessing his crime.

However, I have some sympathy with the somewhat archaic defence of “marital coercion”. Many people might feel it has no place in today’s legal system, but as a family lawyer of many years’ standing, I can vouch for the fact that otherwise successful, independent and clever spouses – usually women – do get “coerced” by their other halves.

We have had clients – almost all female – who have been hugely dynamic and strong-willed in their careers, but entirely under the thumb of their partners at home.

We have acted for women who are confident, assertive and brilliant in their professional field but who have confessed to being meek, deferential and unable to stand up for themselves behind closed doors.

There are a number of reasons why someone can be a boss in the office but be bossed around by their partner, but one of the main ones is family background. If a woman grew up in a patriarchal family, where their father ruled the roost, she is more likely to choose a dominant husband and feel, even if subconsciously, that her role is to submit to his wishes and demands.

That same woman can feel and behave very differently in a different setting, however, and find herself able to assert herself in the boardroom or on the conference floor.

Ironically, the more successful a woman becomes at her chosen career, the more she may feel obligated to play the “little wife” at home, if only to ensure her husband does not feel emasculated.
Vicky Pryce was the ultimate career woman – successfully juggling being a mother to five children with a series of brilliant jobs in the male-dominated world of international economics. While it is hard to imagine her being bullied by her husband, such women can find themselves in such a position.

We have acted for amazing women who wouldn’t take any nonsense in the workplace, yet were lapdogs at home. It is not uncommon for such women to wait many years before finally summoning the courage to consult a lawyer about ending their unhappy marriages. This may be because they want to keep the relationship going for the sake of the children, or that they are frightened about how their husbands will react if they ask for a divorce.

One of the most satisfying aspects of acting for clients like this is seeing them emerge from being downtrodden at home to relishing their new-found emotional independence and their realisation that they don’t have to live the rest of their lives in an unequal and sometimes abusive relationship.

Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves

Former Cabinet minister Chris Huhne’s humiliation is now complete. So, too, is his vengeful ex-wife’s. Any pleasure Vicky Pryce imagined she would get from seeing her errant husband jailed for persuading her to take his speeding points must have evaporated into thin air as she, too, was led from the dock to start a jail sentence for perverting the course of justice.

Miss Pryce, a brilliant economist, has paid a high price for hatching a plot to destroy her former husband’s stellar political career. As well as spending eight months behind bars, she has trashed her own reputation and traumatised her already-fractured family.

Widespread sympathy for a publicly-cuckolded wife trickled away with every day she allowed private grief and resentment to be paraded in open court. By the time she was convicted – despite her defence of “marital coercion” – every last vestige of dignity and self-esteem must surely have fallen away.

We have previously written blogs about how revenge is not only a dish best served cold – but a dish best served not at all.

A desire for revenge is not uncommon and is entirely natural, especially when a marriage breaks down due to one partner’s adultery, as in the Huhne-Pryce case. And certain types of revenge can be quite amusing. Lady Graham-Moon famously shredded her two-timing husband’s Savile Row suits, poured paint over his BMW and gave away the contents of his vintage wine cellar to neighbours.

Vengeful behaviour, prompted by bitterness and bile, is just not worth it in the long-term. You may not end up in jail like Vicky Pryce, but you will almost certainly live to regret your actions. At best, you will feel ashamed, embarrassed and undignified. At worst, you will lose much, much more than you have gained. One woman took great delight in shopping her fraudulent soon-to-be-ex-husband to the VAT man – with the result that there was next-to-nothing left in the marital pot for her divorce settlement after the VAT man had recovered unpaid tax..

As Miss Pryce has discovered, revenge can also have dreadful repercussions on family and friends. By her actions, Chris Huhne’s former wife wasn’t clever enough to work out that a court case would entail hanging out the family’s dirty washing in public. Perhaps the ghastliest part of her evidence was the claim that the ex-Liberal Democrat MP wanted her to abort their youngest child, Peter, now a student at Oxford. Even if that claim was untrue, how must Peter feel to hear it said in a court of law?

And how must he feel to have had his furious, expletive-laden texts to his father also made public?

And how will the couple’s other children be feeling about their parents – both now convicted liars?

How much more difficult it will be for them to come to terms with their parents’ divorce.

A desire to “get your own back” on someone you believe has deeply wronged you is understandable. But to choose the kind of route Vicky Pryce took will ruin you as much as it will ruin the person you want to hurt. As the Chinese philosopher Confucius said: “When you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.”

No matter how shabbily our clients have been treated by their partners, we always counsel against any kind of vengeful behaviour. That is because even the most amicable divorce is a traumatic process from which it can take a long while to recover emotionally.

Instead, let any “revenge” be positive: Show your ex that you can be happy and successful in spite of his or her betrayal. Resolve to be stronger, more independent and more secure in your own skin. In that way, rather than attracting your former partner’s pity, you are more likely to garner their admiration. And that is the sweetest revenge.

• Next week: Vicky Pryce’s claim of “marital coercion” was rejected by the court, but it’s not uncommon among high-flying women
• Sylvie Sarabia’s blog about the consequences of being “separated” without getting divorced, which was due to be published this week, will now appear later in the month.