Any work for/in Family Court/Family Law?

[hairtoss]

I was just wondering what percentage of warring couples go all the way to Final Hearing? (percentage of couples who use the court system, rather than percentage of all divorcing couples).
I've only got the credit ability to pay solictor/barrister for one more Hearing....so have to choose between finding an FDR or final hearing.
My solicitor (of course) is saying it's madness to be a litigant in person at a FDR, my reply, but even more so at a Final Hearing?
To which my solictor says 'No one goes to Final Hearing' .... easy for her to say.
I'm a really low earner and my ex isn't so the legal costs are not proportional....I would bet everything I have (which I kinda am) my ex will drag it out to Ginal Hearing just to be an arsehole.... he knows I can't afford it.

If I could only afford support for one hearing, it’d be the final hearing.

It may be you can agree on an order and a final hearing isn’t necessary. But if you can’t agree, and both of you are committed to attend the hearings to fight their corner (i.e. don’t withdraw or fail to attend), the only way to resolve is a contested final hearing. I see a fair few cases go to final hearings.

At the FDR, you’ll have a duty CAFCASS officer there who can give initial advice to the court and may be able to help you find a way forward (don’t be swayed into agreeing to something you’re not happy with).

In fact - I think it can be as simple as that at FDR. If you’re not happy, don’t agree. If you don’t agree with what the other party proposes, and you can’t reach a compromise that you feel is right for the children, then it simply gets listed for either a dispute resolution appointment (if there are issues to be ironed out) or straight to a final hearing.

Sorry if that doesn’t make sense, I’ve had some wine!

To answer your question, roughly one third of cases that are contested remain contested throughout.

Wow @prh47bridge is it really that high?!
Why does every solicitor I've spoken to go to get lengths to tell me my fears about going to FH (because of the legal costs) are completely unfounded and that no one a) goes to court, or b) they always settle at FDR or before.
Why lie to their clients?
I know my ex - they will never move from their position that I am not entitled to any marital assets, not 1p, which of course is crazy, so I have always told solicitors that the case is very likely to go to FH, which is always poo-pooed by the solicitor.
Do solicitors do this because they don't want to frighten their clients off so they can take more money from them as the case unfolds. I can believe that about a couple of the solicitors I have instructed/had meetings with....but I thought my current solo 'twas this like that, but maybe she is and I'm just being naive?

no one a) goes to court, or b) they always settle at FDR or before.

That is quite clearly not the case, as an absolute statement, otherwise there would never be any final hearings and the FDR would be the end point of all cases. There is a large financial incentive to settle at FDR - costs savings together with the opinion of a judge that your case is not cast iron strong).

Unfortunately there are some judges (a minority) who fail to understand that their role in an FDR is to give an opinion. The parties therefore miss out on this vital element of the FDR incentive. Partly that is down to how some courts cram in FDRs, leaving the judges with insufficient time to get to grips with the case itself. If you haven't read all the papers you're not going to want to venture an opinion.

Thanks @Collaborate, I think the solicitor didn't mean literally no one goes to court/gets to FH, just that it was so unusual I shouldn't worry/plan for this.