Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask that people STOP giving incorrect Legal advice!!!

241 replies

PoisonMaple · 27/04/2024 08:14

I see this time and time again.

Stop it. Especially in family matters.

I get it, some information is generic and helpful, but seriously, the details!!! Stop it. These are people who are struggling and looking for understanding, give it, but stop giving Legal advice unless you're qualified to do so.

No, you are not garaunteed spousal maintenance.

No, you cannot name the OM/OW in Proceedings.

No, you cannot delay your divorce to force the other side into financial disclosure.

No, you are not going to get to keep the house because you've been at home with children. Even if you do get the house, it'll be for a set period of time until the Courts deem that you need to sell or find an agreement which allows the other sides longterm housing needs to also be met.

No, you cannot just 'get his payslips,' get your 'ducks' in a row, screenshot the messages, and then assume that you'll get a better settlement with all this evidence. You won't.

'Custody' is not a thing. Your child(ren) will live with and spend time with.

No, you cannot ensure PR remains only yours. A Declaration of Parentage is simple and straightforward, as is the process to prove you're a parent and get PR, even abusers are entitled to that. It does not guarantee contact, but you can't stop PR by not adding to a birth certificate. Especially if the other side is persistent and wants that right.

I understand more than most how emotive a marriage/relationship breakdown is, both the human and legal aspect of it.

The bottom line is this, every matter is different. The process may start off the same, but the outcome is not the same each time and never garaunteed. A settlement that I can get for 1 client is absolutely not going to be the case for another client, even if their circumstances are the same.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
FriendlyNeighbourhoodAccountant · 27/04/2024 19:28

Notcms · 27/04/2024 19:09

'No, you cannot name the OM/OW in Proceedings'.

Incorrect - you can, and I did name OW as co-respondent in court proceedings.

Show quote history

Not anymore you can't.

IBelieveInFerries · 27/04/2024 19:18

HR Top Dog Here from FTSE 100 Company.

Well maybe not, but I do work in HR and most of the advice here that is about employment law is bollocks too.

People substitute what they think is fair, for what is legal and they are two different things.

Also, don't log things with HR. We don't keep a log. I have never had a log. Actually, I have a mental list of colleagues who don't do stuff properly and take up a lot of my time. But, this is definitely not written down.

Notcms · 27/04/2024 19:09

PoisonMaple · 27/04/2024 08:14

I see this time and time again.

Stop it. Especially in family matters.

I get it, some information is generic and helpful, but seriously, the details!!! Stop it. These are people who are struggling and looking for understanding, give it, but stop giving Legal advice unless you're qualified to do so.

No, you are not garaunteed spousal maintenance.

No, you cannot name the OM/OW in Proceedings.

No, you cannot delay your divorce to force the other side into financial disclosure.

No, you are not going to get to keep the house because you've been at home with children. Even if you do get the house, it'll be for a set period of time until the Courts deem that you need to sell or find an agreement which allows the other sides longterm housing needs to also be met.

No, you cannot just 'get his payslips,' get your 'ducks' in a row, screenshot the messages, and then assume that you'll get a better settlement with all this evidence. You won't.

'Custody' is not a thing. Your child(ren) will live with and spend time with.

No, you cannot ensure PR remains only yours. A Declaration of Parentage is simple and straightforward, as is the process to prove you're a parent and get PR, even abusers are entitled to that. It does not guarantee contact, but you can't stop PR by not adding to a birth certificate. Especially if the other side is persistent and wants that right.

I understand more than most how emotive a marriage/relationship breakdown is, both the human and legal aspect of it.

The bottom line is this, every matter is different. The process may start off the same, but the outcome is not the same each time and never garaunteed. A settlement that I can get for 1 client is absolutely not going to be the case for another client, even if their circumstances are the same.

'No, you cannot name the OM/OW in Proceedings'.

Incorrect - you can, and I did name OW as co-respondent in court proceedings.

MrsPinkCock · 27/04/2024 18:53

changefromhr · 27/04/2024 13:43

Oh yes! Especially when someone pipes up about adjustments at work, omitting to mention or even understand the word 'reasonable'. People with the 'they can't sack you if you are disabled'. I feel sorry for posters who believed this and got fired.

Edited
Show quote history

This too. See also “you’re entitled to reasonable adjustments for your pregnancy”.

No you aren’t - RAs only apply to disability cases!

MassiveChickenAtTheEveningDo · 27/04/2024 18:49

Heynonymouse · 27/04/2024 10:02

Actually, I'm with VestibleVirgin. The meaning of understate is to reduce the importance or complexity of something.

In the context of legal advice, paralegals understating a case could lead the client to believe their situation could be simply and easily solved in fewer billable hours than would actually be the case. Thus luring them in to accept a contract with a law firm they might not choose otherwise.

Since your clarification, it is now clear this is not what you meant, but understating was not 'clearly a typo' and most certainly does make sense in this context.

As a client of yours, I'd be concerned as to what other typos you'd make ...

Show quote history

Definitely not unheard of for legal professionals to make typos and pretend it's no big deal. I had one that was "x has not agreed to..." when what was intended was "x has now agreed to...."

Sweetheart7 · 27/04/2024 18:29

ProfessorSlocombe · 27/04/2024 14:33

As a lawyer, could I ask that everyone ignore the OP and continue giving really bad legal advice so I have a steady income please ?

Presumably you are in a job as a lawyer.... because people don't come on MN per say for that. They do however go on to say EX DH was knocking off with Sally down the road and then like any topic it veers off...

PinkyBlueMe · 27/04/2024 18:18

Exactly as @Familylawso1icitor says. I've been qualified as a solicitor for nearly 25 years and I practice family law. Every firm I have worked for offers free time with a qualified lawyer. It's not necessarily a fixed time, and nowadays is mostly by telephone but it is with me.
It's like a beauty parade - a lot of clients will call a few potential lawyers so giving them short shrift isn't going to win the work.
There is no entitlement to a free half hour as such, it's whatever the lawyer is prepared to give. I tend to be over generous with my time and then end up working 14 hour days, so I'm being stricter.
Sometimes the call opens with a demand for free advice and the assertion that they're doing it themselves as can't afford/don't need a lawyer. Try and get those off the call quick. People who would not give their own time freely often expect it from lawyers.

PeppaPigIsQAnon · 27/04/2024 18:03

YaWeeFurryBastard · 27/04/2024 08:41

Omg yes, the “you’re entitled to a free half hour with a solicitor” really grinds my gears! This literally never happens.

I got it. With 3 solicitors.

Saschka · 27/04/2024 18:03

AgnesX · 27/04/2024 09:35

What's one of them then. You're legally married or you're not. Shacking up with someone, regardless of whether it's for 2 years or 20, gives you no rights at all.

Feel free to disabuse me of this.

Show quote history

I think that was the joke…. many many people on here seem to believe that common law marriages exist in England and Wales when they don’t.

Fifthtimelucky · 27/04/2024 17:50

YaWeeFurryBastard · 27/04/2024 08:41

Omg yes, the “you’re entitled to a free half hour with a solicitor” really grinds my gears! This literally never happens.

A solicitor in my home town offers a free 15 minutes consultation. I accompanied an elderly neighbour a couple of months ago who wanted to change her will following the death of her husband.

The 15 minutes was used to clarify her intentions and to check a few issues. She then confirmed that she wanted him to draft a will which he did.

Obviously she paid for the will to be drafted (there was a fixed fee for a simple will) but the consultation gave her confidence that he understood what she wanted and I imagine made it easier for him to get it right first time.

OhHelloMiss · 27/04/2024 17:50

wizzywig · 27/04/2024 16:12

Actually op. Its good advice youre giving. All mn is is people giving opinions. I doubt any solicitor (except what you have just done) would give any advice for free.

But how do we know it's correct 'advice' the OP is giving??

Isn't that what the thread title is about

HollyKnight · 27/04/2024 17:46

It's annoying, isn't it. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. The ones that get me are people declaring GDPR breaches.

"The receptionist shouldn't have said your name out loud. That's a GDPR breach!"

Abitofalark · 27/04/2024 16:44

If only a person said to be a solicitor and railing against people giving incorrect advice, didn't give out incorrect advice as to the practices of solicitors.

And didn't use incorrect spelling and grammar, and obscure abbreviations such as PR and FML instead of words.

And didn't bill clients for time she spent on what she says is a waste of time, instead of obtaining what she needs from the client in an efficient and time-saving manner.

wizzywig · 27/04/2024 16:12

Actually op. Its good advice youre giving. All mn is is people giving opinions. I doubt any solicitor (except what you have just done) would give any advice for free.

missmollygreen · 27/04/2024 16:06

pictoosh · 27/04/2024 08:29

Yabu - people spouting forth their inaccurate advice comes with forum territory.
You're not wrong but you will never stop people doing it. Not ever.

And part of the fun of these forums is reading the crazy things that some people on here believe.

FriendlyNeighbourhoodAccountant · 27/04/2024 15:44

StMarieforme · 27/04/2024 15:18

You absolutely CAN name the OW/OM in a divorce. It is just recommended against as it may 'raise tensions'

For me it was a vital part. They were not happy, but it was the truth.

So maybe you should not be giving incorrect information.

In fairness to the OP I don't think you can anymore. You used to have to pick a reason to divorce (irreconcilable differences, adultery, unreasonable behaviour etc, whatever they were) but now it's a no-fault divorce so adultery doesn't even come into it.

PrincessFionaCharming · 27/04/2024 15:43

Wonderwater2 · 27/04/2024 14:42

It's much more likely that a solicitor has poor grammar then a receptionist does!

In most lines of work it's the secretaries making stuff readable!

Show quote history

Lol wut?

StMarieforme · 27/04/2024 15:18

You absolutely CAN name the OW/OM in a divorce. It is just recommended against as it may 'raise tensions'

For me it was a vital part. They were not happy, but it was the truth.

So maybe you should not be giving incorrect information.

mustwashmycurtains · 27/04/2024 15:06

I've been through divorce and would say that there is a lot of process and info to get your head around - and one free hour with a paralegal to advise on how it will work going forward would be very valuable. No need to pay a solicitor for that bit (you can pay them a LOT later on for their advice once they've got all your figures and facts in front of them)

CruCru · 27/04/2024 14:44

89redballoons · 27/04/2024 08:26

As a rule of thumb, no-one who is actually legally qualified and practising would (or should) give free legal advice on a public Internet forum about a specific case.

I was going to say this. Pretty much all professionals have it drummed into them that they are not insured to give free advice. Although it might be hard to sue a random on Mumsnet.

Wonderwater2 · 27/04/2024 14:42

PrincessTeaSet · 27/04/2024 14:34

Pretty sure from the style and bad grammar the OP isn't actually a solicitor. More likely a receptionist that has experience in a single solicitors' firm.

Show quote history

It's much more likely that a solicitor has poor grammar then a receptionist does!

In most lines of work it's the secretaries making stuff readable!

Anothernail · 27/04/2024 14:42

It also annoys me when one parent moves away and the typical MN response is always ‘the parent who moved away should do the driving for DC contact’ nope, this is not the case!!

Mmmmdanone · 27/04/2024 14:42

For my divorce I got a 'free' hour with a solicitor. What was not free was the legal advice she then sent me based on the call. Still not bad considering subsequent phone calls were £3 a minute.

WappityWabbit · 27/04/2024 14:37

@PoisonMaple

I find it hard to believe that you’re legally qualified at all, when you make no mention of the jurisdiction your ‘advice’ pertains to. 😂