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

[PoisonMaple]

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.

Posted this morning, Mumsnet

advanced search is your friend

Its quite easy to find and is on mumsnet.

Oh OK, the format just looked unfamiliar but maybe it's because I'm on browser not app :)

Not how we run it in my firm and I’m a partner in one of the largest family teams in the country (so I say, but I could also be anyone). I’m surprised you think it’s the same in so many firms. Different firms do things differently and there are regional differences. Anyone who calls us gets some time on the phone with a senior solicitor who is at least 3 years PQE. If we can’t help we will signpost, to a free resource or legal aid firm if our fees are an issue or another firm if it’s not a family issue or a conflict. I’ll often give some nuggets of generic advice in that call particularly if I want the client, I’m selling us. If we can’t help it’s a quick call, if it’s a high net worth case I want it’s going to be a longer call. It’s part of our marketing strategy as are the cross-referrals to other firms. I do know of a local firm who gives a free initial meeting, it’s the only marketing they do and they’re very successful. We don’t do that but I give some value in the first call, at least in explaining how we work and whether it’s worth booking for a full consultation, and how to make the most out of that meeting, what information gathering to do beforehand etc. Other local firms do a reduced price fixed fee initial meeting, we don’t do that either.

Our paralegals are great but they don’t do front facing client contact.

I would, if I ruled MN, ban the use of the particular phraseology that ends with 'here'.

'GP here'
'Consultant here'
'Practice nurse with 20 years experience here'
'Top barrister here'
'University professor here'
'Hereditary monarch of a small European state here'

Given that loads of it is made up bollocks, it's irritating, unhelpful and sometimes dangerous. Also irritating are unnecessary apostrophes in plurals. Just saying.

The work board is terrible for this, all the "I've been off sick for 4 months and work now want a welfare meeting" followed by "they can't do this, youre off sick, refuse and speak to a union/ACAS" type posts.....

I just cringe for the person at the thought of them rushing off making themselves look either very combative or just plain silly.

Most of the offers I have seen specify that the time is with a lawyer

Lawyer is an umbrella term that covers a wide range of experience and qualifications though.

Lawyer doesn't necessarily mean qualified, experienced solicitor.

@PoisonMaple I do agree but the problem for many women is that the law is just not accessible anymore. When I went through my first divorce in 2001 I qualified for legal aid. When I went through my second divorce in 2016 when in actually much worse financial/ disability/ abusive situation I did not. I had to apply for a credit card to cover all the thousands of pounds of solicitors fees. It took me years to repay. So these days people try to find out all they can from whoever they can because they can’t afford a solicitors time.

I don't doubt it. Lawyer isn't a protected term, and a paralegal is just as entitled to use it as a solicitor, legal exec or barrister would be. Meaning the use of the term 'lawyer' is usually telling!

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.

Agree!

And for the last time you do not ‘press charges’ in England/Wales. You make a complaint to the police and the state decides whether to proceed with a prosecution. Even if the complainant pulls out they can still prosecute. It drives me nuts!

You have completely missed my point, which is very worrying in a solicitor.
You stated that 'a paralegal will understate your case...'
The point is, understate is the incorrect term; the paralegal point is nothing to do with it.
I hope you aren't based in London just in case I need legal advice. Bit rich to tell people to stop gettimg legal advice from MN when you cannot explain correctly!

It's ALWAYS a way to get clients through the door. None do it out of the goodness of their hearts. That's not a criticism, you wouldn't accept anyone in business to give freebies unless they perceived a benefit to them.

I do have a recent law degree so sometimes chip in on things I have studied.

But I will always try and link advice or case law to either a government website or the site of a proper law firm who has written an article on the subject.

But that applies to most subjects -always good to back up your facts with a link to a reputable source.

I definitely had half an hour's free advice with an actual solicitor as I then went on to use her for my divorce!

Clearly a typo: understating was supposed to say UNDERSTANDING.
Understating a case makes zero sense in this context. But let's not apply common sense.

Would you like some help with that stick?

I know of at least 2 women who have half an hour free with a solicitor recently.
I wish people would just just stop spouting ill informed opinion as though it were fact.

I have seen people advising this "free hour" as if you can get an hour with one firm, then go next door to a different firm and pick up where you left off....working through all the local solicitors until you are sorted 😂

The free hour is obviously mostly a loss leader/intro to get new clients in, as well as letting both teh potential client and the firm assess what options there are.
I would choose which firms you go to for this "free advice" carefully because you want to trust it and if you proceed ideally it will be with one them.

“A fee earning Solicitor will not sit there and talk to people who they are not instructed by, legal aid or not as their time is chargeable.”

That simply wasn’t true in my case. It was 30 mins not an hour. And it was hardly detailed free legal advice - more a sense check that you weren’t asking about a divorce having misunderstood what legal process you needed for a fence dispute 🤣 It was 5 years ago. The person I met with (small town satellite office of a medium sized firm) was definitely a solicitor who then went on to handle my case.

You are right that most of what is posted on here is bollocks - but that’s the fun of it sometimes!

Yep, typos fine, but then to not bother reading my response, but to rant about using a solicitor compunded the issue.
Which as I said, worrying from a solicitor.

YANBU. I work in HR and the amount of times I see people on here saying “oh they can’t sack you for that” or “disability related sickness can’t count to triggers” or “you can’t be sacked if you’re pregnant”, “get a union rep and they’ll change their minds” and all sorts of nonsense.

The actually advice in nearly every case is “it depends”. It depends on your contradict, how long you’ve worked there, what’s gone before, the actual circumstances not the paragraph you’ve shared on MN and thousands of other things. But people spout forth.

Also “ ring ACAS” which should be good advice but they are bloody useless

People in desperate situations never having instructed a solicitor before turning to an online forum isn't to be unexpected. Of course they get bad advice, same as doctors have to deal with Dr Google, same as every profession has to deal with this now.
You can not stop it. Your profession should be adjusting to dealing with it as start of the process when you are instructed. It's part of life now for professionals.

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 ...

100% this. People have to take their own responsibility. If you ask on mumsnet and take the advice of random unvetted strangers as the truth of the matter then that's on them.

I agree with you. But loads of people post all sorts of shit on here about things they know nothing about - think it goes with the territory!

Posters should not be relying on what is said on here as literally posters can they're all sorts of qualified and there's no way of checking.