Litigation Loans to fund divorce

[Highlandheath]

Any views, experiences, recommendations please, or do these contribute to what Mostyn describes in JvJ as "gross leaching of costs" and solicitors charging for nothing but time?

I certainly find a lot of men don't pay what they should - I paid my husband on the divorce and he doesn't pay a penny. I dont' think a lot of them even realise what it costs on a daily basis either for children.

;-D Boat seems to have sailed on by..... If you've done the Freedom Programme you will have identified some classic "Headworker" boat traits, he jumps on Mums net to bully and insult women, and on a litigation loan thread, which he claims he knows something about because his ex wife had one, then denies she had one... Complains she represented herself, and then complains she got lawyers, suggests posting a thread on legal, and then jumps on that thread to try and impress the lawyers he's been so damning about in the other thread, nothing is his responsibility, and he runs away when his lies are confronted... Classic narc, I'm sure by now his ex is celebrating the fact that he left her, he must have been hell to live with, lucky to have children, certainly doesn't deserve them, this sort of skank shouldn't have any PR, lucky any woman would touch him with a barge pole! (vomits in mouth a little bit!)

Xenia you are so right, what is their problem? I spend £30 a month on milk alone, we live so frugally, and the father, who doesn't deserve that name, pays zilch, just like Boat he has "unearned income" sufficient to purchase the classic midlife crisis convertible sports, we see you.... oh we see you and your sad desperation to cling on to your long gone youth! We also remember men like you from our teens and twenties, and how grossed out you made us feel.... and all his earned income is diverted to pensions he doesn't need and hidden in the self employment loophole. Gah!!!! There are good lawyers and good men, but I have nothing but contempt for the likes of Boat and collaborate... sorry, but that's the way it is!

I'm gutted.

In reality, this rant of yours should be moved to AIBU. Because that's all it is. A rant.

To Highland

Now ion MN have I indicated that ex took out a litigation loan or even applied for such a loan. She applied for a legal services order, but was rejected twice.

Ex initially had representation, but after the first failed MPS hearing that resulted in a cost order in my favour she decided to self represent. That resulted in a second failed MPS hearing and another cost order in my favour. So ex then realised self representation was not working out and went through two more law firms before final hearing. 4th law firm’s advice was suspect as they quoted the recommendations made by FDR judge.

I am not self employed. CMS are looking at a tax return for a tax year when I was operating through a Limited Company. First CMS Assessment did not take into account unearned income as that is the way CMS work at present.

If you look on some of my other posts you will see I list what I consider to be the shortcomings in the current CMS system. The need to apply for a Variation for unearned income being an example.

Suggestion to post on legal made as you and HiddenTruth seemed to be challenging how litigation loans are administered and how they could go undetected by the other side? Those that post on the Divorce/Separation board unlikely to be able to answer.

As for comments about paying into a pension and buying a convertible car I have no idea where that came from?

Legal should be confined to legal issues that need an input from a legal person, some of whom give advice on here because legal aid doesn't exist for so many people, and because they believe in justice. I believe that information empowers people. Which is why I give advice on this forum and another forum.

It is pretty unpalatable to have this area of the forum given over to a rant and a wholesale solicitor/barrister bashing. The sad fact is that many many people are unhappy with the outcome of their litigation. Usually around 50% of them are unhappy. The other fact is that unsurprisingly most judges are also solicitors or barristers because they have an understanding of the law. Which also makes them fair game. But solicitors and barristers have a duty to the court first and foremost and cannot lie, or put forward points that are dishonest or mislead the court in any way. That means their clients are sometimes upset because they think we are being paid to put their perspective and their points irrespective of the duty to the court. That is clearly wrong and goes a long way to explaining why some litigants become very upset that a solicitor or barrister will not follow their agenda.

The tone of this thread has actually been horrible, and unnecessarily so. Unfortunately for whatever reason the poster(s) are unwilling or unable to use the proper professional channels for their complaints. I strongly suggest they follow their complaints on here with complaints through the proper channels.

Collaborate, me too... sobs!!

Boat stop making excuses and support your children, there is absolutely no need for any Cms involvement it's not a legal requirement, there are no excuses you choose not to support your children, they know it, you know it, tell the rest of the world your excuses but the truth is you are too mean even to contribute to your own children.

Jack, thanks, so you are saying, to paraphrase, "clients ask solicitors to lie, and then get upset when they don't". That's your answer? It's rubbish - blaming clients and implying they are liars for the failings of solicitors - that's not at all "unpalatable", now is it? And, it's not "advice" when it's anonymous, its just an opinion.

There are a certain type of client who has an agenda, and is unhappy when you explain that fulfilling their agenda is not your role. I didnt say the clients are liars I said solicitors cannot lie, or put forward points that are dishonest or mislead the court in any way. There is a difference. Are you saying all clients are truthful and honest?

I note you fail to address the issue that 50% of litigants are unhappy with the outcome. Anyway I have nothing further to add.

OMG I am in tears with laughter and waking the neighbours...'Have I got a bit more news for you' is no competition for my grunting!!!!

Funny how being wronged makes for eloquent commentary @Highlandheath

@ Jack65

Just to remind that earlier in this post I posted this and another link if you care to look back a few pages...

www.sra.org.uk/sra/news/press/risk-outlook-autumn-update-2018.page

Some of us are working hard and getting somewhere having alerted the SRA to what is going on.

These reminders fit with what you say about offences so there are naughties going on out there and evidently the SRA feel the need to remind their customers of their obligations.

I am yet to send them my bill for the time spent doing their job for them...

Oh and the other regulators with whom I am well acquainted. So if you are a principled lawyer please continue to be so. I was brought up to tell the truth.

Bizarre that the family court has the truth as an optional extra making appeals hopeless as you are probably appealing an order formulated on a lie anyway.

Me,.. I am just disappointed at the tragedy of what is happening in our country that has gone to the dogs, and proud to be British has turned to embarrassment.

there is absolutely no need for any Cms involvement it's not a legal requirement

Incorrect. The Consent Order stated that either party could refer to CMS 12 months after the date of the Consent Order.

and is unhappy when you explain that fulfilling their agenda is not your role

Sums up my Ex exactly. Not hearing what they wanted to hear so Jumped through 4 different Law Firms hoping the Solicitors could convince the Judges that Applicant's word is final unless Respondent's can disprove.

Are you saying all clients are truthful and honest?

I can say all clients are not. That is based on both my own Divorce and what I see in the Arbitration Courts. Falsified documents, so called independent Experts following scripts provided by their employers.

FFS Eboatneezer! "could". COULD. NOT "MUST" - but "COULD". You are a mean piece of sh*t and are just using excuses to avoid feeding your own children, and you are STILL trying to excuse your own appalling behaviour, seriously you KNOW that you are lying, you know that you COULD also simply behave with a scrap of decency and provide food, clothes, and a roof over the head of your children, but you are pretending that you can't "cos Cms says no". If on the other hand you really are dumb enough not to realise that you have free will and don't have to go through he CMS then your comments are pointless. If you are that stupid why would anyone be interested in your opinion. You really make my skin crawl, depriving your children and pretending it's because of the CMS. Its YOU, it's your meanness and nastiness. There isn't an honest bone in your body, you have contradicted yourself and lied repeatedly on this thread alone - just go away Scrooge.

Most solicitors and barristers are truthful as we lose our careers if we aren't. However if people don't want to use us that's fine. People are reguarly struck off.

Most divorces are agreed between couples as are arrangements about children and that remains the best course of action for most people; however not always possible.

Link to Transparency project openfamilycourt.wordpress.com/?fbclid=IwAR2kK91AKvB_rYl6z8KoN2LlgRl9U7Q5xvQ5hKNMDjouxl4lRiGUUBGhuAE

Gosh

This thread is a disjointed series of hysterical (not in the funny sense) rants by two posters with an agenda. I'm just not sure what that agenda is.

But solicitors and barristers have a duty to the court first and foremost and cannot lie, or put forward points that are dishonest or mislead the court in any way

If only this were true - I can prove that my x and his various legal representatives lied and mislead the court - even the “court” I’m asuming this is “ judge“ ignored significant information that proved that the company was not going down the pan - which was the basis for my x’s Strategy which then influenced everything else including the forced sale of the famil home.

I appreciate that the board is about helping people but we too are trying to help people by making them aware of the dishonest practise that is out there.

As for going through proper channels I’ve tried Legal Ombudsman their response is frankly laughable - I’ve asked on here how do you define reasonable I’d like to know!

Maybe those on here are new to the profession or seomewhat niaive - only you know the answer - going on what has been said on here there’s at least 10 going to lose their careers just on me alone - and I’ve just seen another flying pig!

Before this thread took a slight turn, I think what is clear is that there is a misunderstanding of litigation loans in general.

When a solicitor presents a litigation loan as an option to client, that’s exactly what it is, an option. You are under no obligation to agree to an application, or complete the documents that form part of that application.

If you are in a position to obtain alternative funding, or have not yet explored the possibility of doing so, then why wouldn’t you do that?

Similarly, if a litigation loan is perhaps the only option available to you, then why on earth would you enter into it without first fully understanding the terms, or looking further into the various lenders and how they differ?

The key lenders in this field (Novitas, Lime, Iceberg) are all regulated by the FCA, and so all will be subject to various lending regulations. You suggest that they are dishonest and unethical, but I have to disagree - and I’m speaking as a layman, with experience only in obtaining a litigation loan to fund my proceedings.

For those not entitled to legal aid, and unable to borrow from their bank/credit card/personal loan etc, what other options are there? I, for one, know that it would have been impossible for me to get through this process without financial assistance.

Xanthe, I am sure that is correct. In our case I paid mine and my husband's legal fees as we only had joint accounts anyway so that is another option for some. It is not that rare that the better off party pays both side's legal fees on a monthly basis as the parties negotiate and ideally they avoid court hearings and the more expensive side of things and reach agreements over children (as most divorcing couples manage to do).

Some clients and some solicitors and barristers will be dishonest. No one disputes that. On the whole most of the legal profession is honest. I m certain I have ever once lied in any work matter ever. Almost every month of the year I refuse to p ut something in a letter that a client wants me to put in there becxause I cannot be use it is correct or they are wanting me to exaggerate. There is this constant knowledge of your duty to the court, compliance with your regulatory rules never mind the general imperative on most humans that on the whole most of us are honest as a matter of personal morality anyway.

I think in some divorce cases people can have a settlement over turned later if it is found their spouse lied about finances at the time. I am sure I have read occasionally cases along those lines which might help greenberet. There have certainly been cases where m en have got the company and the wife the house/savings and then the company has gone bust . I sometimes thing if they both just got half of eacvh - half th company's shares and half the house then the risk would be more fairly spread between the two of them particularly if they ensured both were directors as well as shareholders .

Ho hum, Xantherose... you appear to be unique in this. Good for you and thanks for your contribution. Novitas only received full regulatory approval from the FCA in 2016, FYI. I don't know about Iceberg and Lime... Iceberg strikes me as an appropriate name for this sort of loan though!
I recently received the following email from the firm of lawyers who gave me the not at all independent legal advice - this is two years down the line from the time they supported their chums in getting the documents signed up - with great reluctance on my part, they didn't tell me then there was a conflict of interest in that they had a prior commercial relationship with the loan company, and they did not tell me that they thought the loan was inadvisable.... They did not recognise my name when I asked them about using one of these loans, so they responded to me as potential client of theirs. As for understanding the loans, well, even the FCA are not sure what regulations the loans I signed up to fall under....

My first question related to which litigation loan companies they used if any, they confirmed they used both firms I have had problems with - Here's what the solicitors said in response to my second set of questions which were: how long have you used these companies, how long have you been using them for, how often, and what's your experience. As you can see, the solicitors reservation about their worth is largely based on self interest... not client best interests... The person responding to the questions is a senior partner in Family Law in a major London family law firm...

"Most Have been around for 5 years

XXX use them sparingly (perhaps one a year) for at least 5 years.

They are all too expensive – usually over 20% p.a. interest - and sometimes leave lawyers on the hook if clients don’t pay.

I do not think they are a good way of funding divorce legal fees"

What interest rates were you paying on how much, and for how long?

@Highlandheath that's interesting. I actually carried out a lengthy amount of research when considering litigation loan providers, and could only identify one with an interest rate over 20% p.a.

I was accepted with a credit limit of £10k - unsecured. The int rate was 18% p.a., payable on the balance as opposed to the limit. I wasn't required to obtain indep. legal advice, and there were no app fees. I was borrowing for about 12 months, but my solicitor only requested funds once the work had been carried out, so I was only paying interest on money actually paid out. I made interest payments monthly, and the balance was paid once our house was sold. I have to say that the whole process was seamless.

I have no doubt that it would have been far easier for my solicitor if I had just obtained a bank loan/used a credit card/etc. and just paid my fees when they were due, but the fact is, I didn't have this option.

it will also depend on the divorce if you need them. Plenty of couples just pay their legal fees (or act without solicitors) or have just about no money nor a house so don't have the same financial issues to sort out as those with a substantial asset.

in y (different) area of work I just invoice every client at the end of the mnoth and if they do not pay I would not accept the next job from them (and just about always they do pay - I've been very lucky so I could not see a reason to do work on a different basis such as I would not be paid for a very long time as I cannot tell my local supermarket or council - just wait a year until a loan company or court case pays out).

None of us want unhappy clients, but most solicitors are honest and follow the rules. The purity of the old system where you just paid for work done, rather than these no win no fee complexities for personal injury cases, never mind loans, certainly made things simpler and I prefer that system (whch is the one that prevails in my areas of law - business law).

There was a point about conflicts above. Most solicitors will do a conflict of interest check before they take on a new client. This is what worries me about all the new ways people can pratise that are planned or already in place. Your non solicitor lawyer or your freelancer solicitor may not have to do standard things solicitors do and the client may not be aware that Ms Lawyer is not a regulated solicitor subject to the myriad of rules.

Sorry, re-reading my last message, just to be clear - the litigation loan company that I decided to use would pay my solicitor as and when they requested payment (I believe the solicitor had to show evidence to the loan company by way of an invoice - as per @Xenia, from memory this was usually at the end of every month), meaning that my solicitor was happy to carry on working with me as all bills were up to date.

As mentioned above, I was happy with this as it meant that I was only paying interest on money that had actually been paid to my solicitor, not on the amount the loan company were prepared to lend.

Hi Xanthe, was this 2017 onwards? Seems the loan companies have begun to rein in the amounts - a lot of the older loans were secured against the home, and not capped at £10k - so I can see why you feel less aggrieved, it's a different product really, it doesn't risk your home and keeps the solicitor on a budget. The bigger loans were treated very differently, and seem to have been part of a mad, greedy scramble with a few individuals at the heart of them... the same names just keep popping up! The firms were not regulated prior to 2017 and 2016, there were and remain significant risks involved, due diligence by the lawyers was minimal if it happened at all....

Xenia, your comments are much appreciated, very measured and reasonable (can't say the same for all of mine!). The law firms we are discussing here are BIG, established London Law firms - not high street maybe a little dodgy... As a result we all felt these firms would put our best interests second only to the solicitors duty to the court... They did not, and like Mostyn, my Judge pointed this out in writing in the Sealed order at the final hearing. It isn't only clients (and of course, treating clients so badly is biting the hand that feeds) but the Judges themselves who are commenting on the damaging effects of these loans. Mostyn's statement "the only commodity being charged for was time" was similar to comment my Judge made... the loans were "neither justified nor justifiable", there were "serious questions about the inaction" of the first law firm... However many times solicitors state that these loans are fine, when the Judges have started to pick them up and point them out as being detrimental to the client and having a negative impact on the process, then it's time to listen I think!

@Highlandheath - £10k was the amount that my solicitor advised me to apply for so as to cover all costs, and thankfully it did. My borrowing was pre 2017. The amount that I was eligible to borrow was, I believe, largely based on my solicitor's professional judgement as to what I was expected to receive at settlement. From memory, I could not borrow more than one third of what I was anticipated to receive. As far I can see, there is no cap with this company. I have two friends (totally independent of one another) who have also both used the loan company I am referring to (also both with great success) - one pre and one post 2017. One borrowed in the region of £80k, another in the region of £160k.

Can you disclose which loan company you are referring to in your case? I am guessing Novitas, or perhaps possibly Schneider? If so, you note something really important here - it is a different product to the one I refer to - each litigation loan company operates differently. Just because your solicitor suggests one, in no way means that you must agree. I think that I would have found an alternative solicitor if they had pressured or in any way steered me towards a lender that I did not feel comfortable using.

As the borrowers, you and I have a responsibility to ensure that we are completely aware of what we are entering into. We would not accept an any other offer of credit (secured or not) without first fully understanding the terms, so why is it any different here? When entering into the loan as you did, how did you expect to repay?

As I say, I carried out a fair amount of research on this topic before entering into anything (after all, we all have access to google), and I struggle to see a reason why anyone else wouldn't do the same.