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?

You don’t have to know us to undermine.

Yes you are right I am calling the legal profession crooks - because in my experience they all have been - apart from my first appointed solicitor who left the firm and then when she heard of my experience told me to pursue it as far as I could.

Maybe some of the claims have been disjointed - irrational ? If you had experienced what we have experienced I’m not surprised sometimes we come across as irrational because what we have been through Is irrational - sometimes I question myself did this really happen - I only have to read a section of emails to know it did - emails from a managing director who contradicts herself on more than one occasion depending on what she sees fit on that particular day!

Outlandish? No I don’t think so - you yourself have doubted what has been said - yiu are doing it now - just because you have no experience of these things doesn’t mean it never happened or the claims are exaggerated!

Vitriol? - is this a favourite word of legals - I got accused of this - by a male judge - is this a word used to put women back in their place - has it ever been used to describe a male?

We are all going down the proper routes ie LO and SRA but these are a waste of time as so many have said they would be - can distort words like you cannot believe - but am I surprised no not really!

You may be an established professional poster - maybe you come on here to boost your own ego who knows - but all you needed to say was I have never come across this in my experience - I’m sorry this is how you’ve been treated - I’m disgusted as being part of the profession - but you say no it never happens - the legal profession dont lie - this is what got people’s backs up - that you too chose to disbelieve what you were being told.

I could have easily accepted that my solicitor had not dealt with a case such as mine - she had never experienced an experts report being overruled before - but no she chose to bullshit and eventually bullshit starts to smell.

You don’t have to be a legal professional to realise you are being fed bullshit but all respect goes out the window when you challenge and rather than admit your incompetencies you chose to shaft a vulnerable person.

Depression does not make me stupid - it makes me unable to function at a consistent level for a sustained period of time - it also makes you question your own mind? Coupled with dealing with an emotionally abusive x who gaslighted your for months before the truth was revealed and you end up in a very unhealthy place. To then experience this from a legal professional not once but then a second time can you imagine what this does to you?

We all came on here for help but mostly to try and make sure no one experiences what we have been through - it’s hell - a living hell - surely you have come across this in your experience ?

Or have you become devoid of feeling because we know it is not about emotion but about fact - but what is a fact? I thought a fact was something that could Only be interpreted in one way - not questioned, not discussed, not maybe in an ideal world but it seems not - a fact can be interpreted in many ways based on somebody else’s opinion, based on personal agenda - and then it can all be swept away by dthe judge on the day !

Not only this but the judges maths failed - nothing to do with legal professionalism - and then she chose to ignore this when emailed - this is what I have no respect for - a profession that demands respect based on its so called honesty - well I can tell you there was no honesty in my court room nor it appears from the other ladies!

I don’t know them either - never came across them until this thread - but you know what I would trust them with my life based on what I have read here - they have no reason to keep going with this other than they know deep down they have been wronged - wronged in the most despicable way - and that no other human being deserves to go through this - this is what drives us - not some petty one upmanship or to get one over on the spouse - I would have more respect for you if you got this but you chose to believe what you want !

One day you will get it! I only hope it’s not through personal experience!

Watching, reading and listening with interest.

It has been my observation skills, honed through the turbulent disaster which has been the last 4 years, described as a mess by a QC which led me to discover a whole honeypot of lies, contempt of court, breaches ad infinitum.

I observe that @Xenia is being helpful. I observe that @MissedTheBoatAgain doesn't seem to know if he is batting or bowling and @Collaborate delivers up the sort of 'disappointed' I have felt many times over the course of this utterly artificially constructed and evidently repeated time over scam.

I also observe that there are many justly angry, frustrated and indignant highly intelligent people posting on here who have been harmed and who will see a seismic shift over this because it simply is not good enough, it ain't cricket and the Suffragettes made a point a while back and I have no doubt the new ones coming through here will do the same.

Observation is a wonderful thing. I sat with a commercial lawyer today. I had to make a will to reflect the fact if I die now my heirs will need to continue the unfinished litigation to get their inheritance because it is not yet mine, such is the mess I have been left with.

2 years ago my home was undersold against my wishes, behind it a hidden litigation loan. My ex walked away with another property bought before they even bothered to tell me...joint legal owner with restrictions on the title deeds in my favour...that the property was now sold. Or was it...the selling contract beggars belief. Anyway, point is this...

This thread has been enormously useful for many people. My experience is that litigants in person are feared actually although the behaviour looks somewhat different to that...we are undermined...'oh the case is a mess because we have a LIP'...well they should be feared because we are not all stupid. We know when something is not right. We can smell it.

I am yet to be impressed by a lawyer. I am yet to feel yep this person has balls and principles. I am appalled at what I have seen and witnessed. The only reason the courts are a disaster area is because people let them be. Individual responsibility is what is lacking in abundance. Easier to pass the buck.

Nobody wants to own up or be counted. I am prepared to be. The thing is, if you tell the truth you have nothing to hide. Simple.

Bravo @greenberet

Wrote mine while you were clearly posting yours same time

Hope the lawyers of whatever nature on here are sucking this all up. They may want to pause for breath and ponder their own personal code of conduct and if they do reflect for a while, perhaps some people will be saved some unnecessary pain.

I find it astonishing that financial abuse is a crime and here we have it, it is being rolled out by the very people put in place to protect you.

Early retirement is probably looking attractive to many!

The bottom line is most clients are happy with their lawyers and the lawyers who come on MN to help day in day out are not doiing it as some kind of ego boosting exercise.

People can post what they like but if it were to happen that every time a lawyer tries to help answer a question they in the legal matters section do not feel appreciated then fewer and fewer will bother.

However I hope everyone who has problems is able to sort them out.

Xenia maybe most are happy or maybe most do not realise what is really going on - pretty difficult to tell.

I have been on these boards long enough to know that there are many others who have experienced questionable advice/service but for whatever reason they have chosen not to pursue it - that’s their choice and I can understand that sometimes you just want to put it all behind you!

We don’t post here to be appreciated we post to try and educate and help - ive been flamed many a time across MN - in the early days I would back off because I was probably too vulnerable to take it.

I never thought I would be the victim of emotional and financial abuse by my own DH of 20 years - I never ever thought I would get taken advantage of by my solicitor and then again by a DAB and experience the abuse all over again.

If these lawyers need to feel appreciated for coming on here then they are doing it for some personal gain.

I’m sure however there are more than enough posters to warrant their help and will appreciate it.

I have never said I don’t appreciate any help I get I certainly do - not just here but in all topics - but we will defend ourself.

This is our truth - we have a human right to be believed which has been sorely abused - the more we get quietened down the louder we will shout - we are not doing this alone anymore - there are others who know exactly what we are talking about and we all have the proof.

The worm has turned!

If anyone who has used these Litigation Loans thinks there were incorrectly administered or they were badly advised then they should pursue their complaint through the correct channels. I don't think posting on MN will solve their issues.

I observe that @MissedTheBoatAgain doesn't seem to know if he is batting or bowling

As I work in Arbitration I will never be batting or bowling, but umpiring. The object being everyone gets what they are entitled to receive.

In simple terms the burden of proof is upon the Applicant. The Respondent, whilst they have to be upfront in their disclosure and provide the documents the Courts have directed, have no obligation to disprove the Applicants allegation.

I am not family solicitor, but imagine similar principles apply. The Applicant for the financial settlement, which from this thread seems to be mostly ex wives, has to demonstrate that what they are seeking in terms of asset split and maintenance is fair taking into account that both partners have future needs (somewhere to live, something to eat and clothes to wear, etc.).

Get the impression that some posters think their Legal Advisers have a duty to get what their clients WANT as opposed to what they NEED and that NEEDS of the other partner are irrelevant? When their revenge crusade fails they blame their Advisers and the Legal System in general. Maybe some of them should stand back for a few minutes and ask themselves the following question:

"Was my application reasonable or was it based on; anger, greed and revenge?"

It would be incorrect to say that every first Judgement is correct as some rulings have been overturned at appeal or supreme courts. I don't have any figures, but how often has that happened?

Unbelievable!

How many times are you going to say “pursue through the correct channels”

And how many times do we have to say “we are”

We are not posting here to solve “our issues” but to make others “aware”

As for your second post I have no idea where your basis for your assumption comes from other than some narrative that must be on a continual loop in your head!

Some of these comments appear to be of a goady nature because they do not reflect what is “ being” said here but are based on “personal agenda” one of the issues we are complaining about!

How you can umpire when you think it’s a cricket match but it’s actually football is beyond me!

And “not enough” is the answer to your last question!

Must be jacks turn now !

A football match has a referee whose function is the same as that of an umpire in a cricket match.

And “not enough” is the answer to your last question!

Is that based on your perception that you were a victim of a failed system that gets it wrong all the time or just that you were the loser?

Judge Mostyn ruling in 2014 stated:

Having heard the case I would not describe that claim as complex. Rather, I would describe it as speculative, experimental and unfeasible. I consider it to be a product of the great bitterness that the wife feels towards the husband. Her section 25 statement is a most unhappy document and seems to have been written with a pen dipped in vitriol

Guess that's where the use of the word Vitriol comes from?

In this field of litigation budgets prepared by the parties often have a high degree of unreality - usually the applicant wife's budget is much inflated

So even one of the most prominent Family Law Judges in the UK who has presided over 100's of cases acknowledges that applicant wife's budgets are inflated. That coupled with the early statement of resentment towards the husband and the word vitriol leads me to the conclusion that long protracted (ie expensive) divorces are due to one partner wanting revenge over the other. According to Mostyn it is the usually the wife.

Ive just lost my reply to you but the gist was

Do you have to always be right?

Referee/ umpire - same role different word - did you get the meaning behind what I was saying or just look how you could correct it?

I am not a victim or a loser I’m a fighter - hence Greenberet - what else have you missed other than the boat?

Mostyn - yes we all know this case gets trotted out all the time - I thought ach case was meant to be on its merits - law contradicting itself again - this case has no resemblance to mine other than its a man who most probably had an affair trying to screw over his former wife - do you think the wife had help with her overly inflated budgets? And her statement? THe long protracted divorce? Who’s interest was this in the wife’s the children or the husband who I think from memory reduced his working hours due to ill health? Not the legal profession surely? Ah the expense!

As I said is vitriol exclusive to women? What’s the male equivalent - you must know this?

If nothing else you are keeping me entertained and taking the focus of the shite I really need to be dealing with - I appreciate it!

Dear me...@Boat

What is this utter drivel about wife bashing? It is old hat stuff. I think this debate has gone to a much higher level at this point than such suggestions.

For starters, @MissedTheBoatAgain seems to think these litigation loans are all taken out by wives.....WRONG

This forum is called MUMSNET. Might offer an explanation why there are women talking on here.

My ex, who is a male btw, took out one or more of these loans. Faied to disclose it entirely. The correct channels are looking at this currently. They failed to act adequately when first alerted to extraordinary behaviours, only when reported to again did they investigate then closed the investigation prematurely and have had to open it again because the evidence of the copious lies was revealed by me through the help of other regulators.

So...is this wife a moaning unrealistic greedy person? Driven to take her spouse to court for every penny he had hidden away? Was she the applicant in the financial application to court? No.

Was she the applicant in the divorce action...yes. Why...oh because the behaviours seen in the proceedings are reflective of the behaviours which were the downfall of the marriage.

So the argument falls down which is being proposed above. The fact is that the whole process is not abuse-proofed enough. Immediately upon any suggestion of divorce or separation I believe either party should be allowed to apply for a total lockdown of assets, a freezing order essentially, like in a deceased estate I believe.

That would stop the vultures from spiralling out of control over the carcass and slowly stripping the flesh off it which is what these loans are. The terms are astounding. It is fraud of an organised nature and anyone remotely facilitating these products should, in my humble view, stop in their tracks and disassociate themselves from them.

I am astonished that the lawyers have not picked these documents apart themselves. Or have they never seen the loan docs that the client signs up to???? PLEASE ANSWER THIS @Collaborate

We are having here a debate about the construct of these loans, their inherent harmfulness and how they are being rolled out to actively prolong litigation in order to use up the pre-determined investor pot of money that has been 'guessed upon' at inception of the loan by the solicitors operating them and the dodgy team behind the scenes gathering the money in from unnamed investors.

Oh yes some of it coming from offshore nicely passed through a Peer to peer platform on to another peer to peer platform and into a solicitors bank accounts. Have seen the documents... Not at all worrying as a tax dodge to invest back into onshore markets but take it back offshore tax free...hmmmm. HMRC anyone???

Money laundering...invisible investors...it is all there.

This is not at all about unrealistic 'vexatious' wives!!!! If your quotes from Mostyn are correct I am somewhat baffled as I read the case and do not recall that emphasis but overall his message was different to that anyhow...he was appalled that out of £3m the division was about 1/3rd to the wife, the husband and the lawyers.

Evidently Mostyn may not be aware but that 1/3rds mathematical formula is actually in loan documents I have now seen. It is an agenda. It is daylight robbery, abuse of process, breach of trust...the whole shebang.

The use of the word vitriol by me in an earlier post is because it is a good word. The English language is rich and interesting.

Anybody who has been wronged is entitled to feel anger. The commonality here is a group of people realising they have been stung in a most elaborate deception and fraud and some of whom are at risk of losing their homes over Christmas because of them.

I think a time for reflection is needed. I think some lawyers on here ought to come out of the woodwork and tell us about how this can be right...?

Finally @MIssedTheBoatAgain

You say...

'In simple terms the burden of proof is upon the Applicant. The Respondent, whilst they have to be upfront in their disclosure and provide the documents the Courts have directed, have no obligation to disprove the Applicants allegation.'

So what is your comment if the applicant in the divorce action is not the applicant in the financial and the financial applicant has the loan? Where do you say obligation to disclose is then?

AND IMPORTANT QUESTION TO LAWYERS -in this scenario what would the case numbers look like for the 2 different aspects? Would they be the same number on both or different numbers?

Oh and for the titillation of those with an interest, funnily enough my needs budget was less than my ex's so I personally cannot be lumped into the greedy wives club.

Not everyone is in a formula but the formula is certainly held by these exploitative products. I am not sure at all why there is such defence going on when everyone is appalled that PPI coud ever have happened. This is the same...watch this space...I have said it before...you heard it first on Mumsnet...

Hiddentruth
"The fact is that the whole process is not abuse-proofed enough. Immediately upon any suggestion of divorce or separation I believe either party should be allowed to apply for a total lockdown of assets, a freezing order essentially, like in a deceased estate I believe. "

On this they can and people very often do this. I know someone whose wife immediately applied for a freezing order other than on their current account wihch did not have much in so they could continue to operate the family home etc. The order was granted.

Also if you notify a bank thre is a dispute they will often freeze the acocunt - I find that happens when two business partners are in dispute and it can be very difficult as then the businses cannot be run.

So anyone on here where there is a lot of money and they think a spouse might dissipate it immediately a divorce is in prospect should talk to their solicitors about applying for an emergency order to freeze the life savings etc. In my own case I knew we were both sensible enough not to do that so we just negotiated a division and used solicitors as little as possible which actually huge numbers of couples do manage. It is only the divorces with disputes over money or children that end up before the courts.

The biggest problem whch we have in all kinds of litigation is that sometimes sums at stake are really small so it would be ridiculous to spend a lot of money on lawyers or court fees (it even costs £10,000 you pay to the state now just in a court fee to start the action if you are suing for a debt of £200,000, never mind solicitors' fees).

There are no guarantees in litigation and it’s costly. I’m afraid that’s not your solicitors fault, they should be paid for their work same as anyone else. As for green beret, everyone seems to be saying you’re unreasonable including a judge who you say accuses you of vitriol. Seems most likely it’s you not them. Sometimes it time to accept our failures and face facts.

Also “hiddntruth” you’re bonkers. Solicitors are very heavily regulated when it comes to money laundering. You borrowed a load of money to pay fees because presumably you thought the potential divorce settlement was worth it. That’s on you. Not on your representative. You didn’t have to borrow the money or instruct them. You made a bad choice and it’s your responsibility. You didn’t get what you thought you would in the divorce- not your solicitors fault. As I said there are no guarantees and unless you are learning diasabled you should be well aware of that.

Zsazsajuju - seems you have an inability to read posts on here and correctly comprehend what is actually said - not only that but your personal comments on myself and hidden truth are nasty! Who is this everyone that you talk about - most people I have come into contact with apart from a few on here like you - fully understand what I have been through and know that I’m anything but unreasonable!

We get there are no guarantees - what we did not get was that some legals are dishonest - this will be their responsibility to accept!

@zzsazsajuju

I beg your pardon.....?

Some of us are civilised on here and evidently you have not read or comprehended the individual stories and mine was clarified clearly in my recent post to this one. I did not take out a loan.

We are discussing litigation loans here and the structure behind them and operation of them.

Nobody said solicitors should not be paid. I do think however it is being discussed that these loans are unethical, introduce serious regulatory and operational conflicts of interest etc etc so please check your facts before making any more bonkers comments.

There’s no conflict of interest with litigation loans. If you can’t pay your solicitor will not act. Rightly so. Why would they care if you are paying them with a loan or not.

Green beret you’ve posted many times about how lawyers and judges, your ex husband etc are dishonest, persecuting you and so on. Yet have never clearly explained anything which was in any way within the scope of improper conduct. Maybe it’s not them, it’s you.

@zsazsajuju - improper conduct? - just one example - x claimed business going down the pan - whole basis for everything else being inaffordable ie mortgage school fees which resulted in family’s home being sold. Court hearing booked for 17 Oct x thought it was going ahead except I had my mental health support worker with me who got it adjourned - announcement by company following week taken on new staff member! - not something I would think is normal practise for company not doing well.

Court hearing rescheduled for Feb - judge sent email communication with details of new employee in Dec - completely ignored. Extra hearing booked for end of March - x taken on another new employee prior to this hearing even though company still going down the pan according to him.

I seem to recall there is a duty to provide ongoing financial disclosure something my x seemed to think did not apply to him!

I don’t actually get what your motive is for posting on this thread other than to shut stir - maybe you would like to divulge?

I don't think any lawyers on here would dispute that spouses lie in divorces and a lot do not disclose finances to spouses. That is why I think all couples before they marry should agree to have total disclosure right through - look at and be interested in people's P60s, tax returns, pension details, know what you each have in your accounts - we always did that so on divorce there was nothing to dlsclose - we both knew it all. Of course not all couples want to be like that.

Solicitors lose their career if they break the rules. Some are struck off every single week of the year. Lying spouses hiding money from their spouse don't run quite the same risk although some of them do get into legal trouble - someone had his £8m helicopter seized this week to pay part of his wife's divorce settlement for not following the rules. Most soliciors are honest and plenty of clients are happy. That is really the case. We are not sitting here pretending our clients happy or closing our eyes to the fact they aren't. Certainly in my areas of law people have loads of other options - lots of my clients will amend contracts themselves and just come to me for an extra bit of advice, others hire in house lawyers for the company, some use contracts managers, retired OAPs who used to work on contracts in companies nad have lots of years of experience, some go on line and hire by app Indian etc lawyers who might be cheaper - basically masses of different kinds of competition and it's all fine with most of us. People can use what they like just as plenty of people prefer to represent themselves in their divorce.

Would have a decent accountant would be able to look at a company’s accounts and know whether or not it was doing well or not?

Nothing new about people trying to hide things during a divorce. Solicitor can’t be blamed if their clients don’t provide full disclosure

@greenberet, the things you mention don’t come close to improper conduct even from your ex husband, never mind his solicitors or yours. He’s obviously going to present a negative view of his business and assets. You don’t even seem to have any actual evidence that he lied about anything. If you think that version of events is incorrect, you need to show that to the court.

Aren’t you the company secretary and haven’t you been getting paid for years while not actually doing anything for the company? I remember you saying that on another thread.

@zsazsajuju

What is your profession please? I am wondering what position you are offering your opinionated comments from?

@zsazsajuju - as I said earlier are you just on here to shit stir?

Xenia - I was married for 20 years - I am not financially ignorant in fact I used to be an IFA -20 years ago - we had joint accounts - I knew state of all bank accounts etc - my downfall was that I should have insisted I was a director of the company and not company secretary - but c10 years ago when company set up I never expected to be in situation I’m in now. Luckily I had critical illness insurance which paid out when I had aggressive breast cancer otherwise I expect I would have been manipulated into a completely different position far worse than I have been in.

I do not believe in a marriage where there are separate accounts etc unless they are completely accessible by all. If you are going to safeguard yourself for divorce what’s the point in getting married in the first place.

With all due respect you do not deal in family law so maybe your perception is different you also had a fairly amicable divorce.

@MiisedTheBoatAgain - yes the company was valued - im sure I have said this on here - do you just keep missing it - first one was utter rubbish - connection to client of company - then had to engage 2nd expert to prove to court how rubbish 1st one was and get it overruled - then had 3rd joint one -who gave the company a significant value .

Maybe yes solicitor can’t be blamed in the circumstances you say - but they can be blamed if they’re are continually told that what they are being presented with is not a true reflection and they chose to do nothing about it!

So sza - you are saying it is ok for x to lie in court after he has given oath - yes I have the evidence he lied it is plastered all over the company website - and the judge had the evidence too prior to the final hearing - in fact 2/3 months before the hearing but chose either to ignore it or did not actually read the file!