A passionate barrister for articulate representation-family law

[Rob2019]

Unfortunately Im in a JS 1 year in the Family Law Courts.
My experience to date is the Barristers are more interested in following "Court Process" than passionately articulating your case points in Court.
You pay a lot of money and often key case points are not articulated to the Judge. They often fumble for notes, when you know your key points on the tip of you tongue.
There is no Amazon 5 Star rating process for barristers, they all have an air of importance and believe they are worth their large remuneration, imbedded in a largely historic outdated system.
If you ask people for a "good one" it is highly subjective to their own individual case circumstances.
Generally the process in my opinion, favours the ladies (family law still assumes the lady is the main child assisting party, and the outcome is skewed against the men as far as all people Ive canvased- tell me otherwise).
Ireland is even more subjective than most International divorce courts, which are normally 50:50 assets and maintenance formulas, quite clear cut- no set rules in Ireland, means higher legal fees with the grey area wide open to subjectivity, complexity and legal fee Nirvana....

I get to main point;
How does one (in my case a Defendant- generally ~90% of time the man) find a good barrister who;
- Will represent well the defendant aspects in a case in an articulate manor to the Judge
- Not just represents court process
- Has represented both parties frequently
- Gets a fair deal for all.
- Is not incentivised to drag it out for larger fees
- Is not more interested in taking Applicant female cases & enjoys the challenge of a male case
- Calls time on infinite vouching if it goes around in circles perpetually

Maybe they don't exist, but it would be nice to believe in Ireland there are barristers that push for a 50;50 deal even if it means selling family home, for the interests of all parties.

Please advise with suitable Counsel recommendations.
Thank you.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

If you ask people for a "good one" it is highly subjective to their own individual case circumstances.

That is the point.

You just have to rely on your solicitor picking one who is quite good.

There is no point in taking a recommendation from an anonymous poster on askaboutmoney.

Brendan

 

[Brendan Burgess]

- Is not incentivised to drag it out for larger fees

It's not only barristers who drag out cases. The participants often drag them out especially when the taxpayer is paying their legal bills.

Judicial Separation- Legal Aid approved, but 6 month waiting list.

Hi, Unfortunately Im in a Circuit Court Judicial Separation process. I have been unemployed over 6 months now and have recently been approved for Legal Aid. My wife (Applicant) has a private solicitor. I can no longer afford an expensive solicitor and have discharge my existing private one from...

askaboutmoney.com

 

[DeeKie]

When asking your solicitor about the barrister suggested ask about how much experience and success of dealing with similar cases they have and ask for a short call with the barrister. I don’t know why clients don’t request this in Ireland, or indeed why solicitors don’t suggest it. In my line of work as a solicitor I’m required to pitch for work all the time.

 

[Thirsty]

..passionately articulating your case points

Your barrister may be the best or the worst in the country for all I know.

But this isn't the movies, no one is on trial here. What you believe to be the most 'important' case points may not be.

Our Family Law system has many faults, but I can tell you that the overriding concern is the welfare of the children of the marriage.

Here's the thing:

You and your former wife have failed to agree on settlement terms. So you now have to ask a judge to make those decisions for you.

In my experience Judges want facts and figures, not dramatics.

Edit to add: I've had personal experience of a barrister getting papers mixed up, fluff questions, and generally fail to prepare. It's incredibly irritating, but they were promptly replaced.

 

[Johnno75]

In Family Law litigation, there tends to be enough “passion” (of the wrong kind) between the opposing parties, so let me assure you that the last thing you need is a passionate barrister. You need a steady hand who can offer objective advice and guidance in a maelstrom; someone who can articulate your case and advocate your position effectively. Family law practice, legally, isn’t rocket science - in my experience it’s all about client management and management of client expectations. A passionate set of clients coupled with passionate barristers can be a toxic mix that ends with a large legal bill. (Plus, in family law, each side bears their own costs).

 

[Purple]

Our Family Law system has many faults, but I can tell you that the overriding concern is the welfare of the children of the marriage.

The problem for men is the above seems to assume that the mother is the person best placed to provide the best welfare. If we believe in equality then such assumptions are anachronistic.

 

[Baby boomer]

Thirsty said:
Our Family Law system has many faults, but I can tell you that the overriding concern is the welfare of the children of the marriage.

The problem for men is the above seems to assume that the mother is the person best placed to provide the best welfare. If we believe in equality then such assumptions are anachronistic.

It would be more correct to say the assumption is that the primary carer is the person best placed to provide the best welfare. It's just that the primary carer is most often the mother. Very few men make a case to the courts to become the primary carer with whom the children will primarily reside.

 

[Purple]

It would be more correct to say the assumption is that the primary carer is the person best placed to provide the best welfare. It's just that the primary carer is most often the mother. Very few men make a case to the courts to become the primary carer with whom the children will primarily reside.

Sure, but there is an assumption by the court that they won't. That's the problem. When both parents work and childcare duties are evenly split, or the father does the larger proportion, there is still a presumption that the mother will be the primary caregiver.
In my case one child never sees their mother (although she still received the children's allowance) and the other two children who are young enough to matter are deeply unhappy with the current arrangements.
During the marriage I did the cooking, the washing and ironing, the bedtime stories etc. I learned how to blowdry my daughters hair, use a sewing machine, bought the clothes, taught them about personal hygiene, talked about puberty, took them to get their hair done, brought them to get their first makeup, baked and cooked with them, wnt to the parent teacher meetings; all the things their mother didn't bother with. They spend more nights with me but I'm in the small rental house while their mother is in the large detached family home. I don't care about house sizes or money but I do care about their happiness.
The court considers her the primary caregiver until proven otherwise. All it takes is a refusal of the mother to engage and nothing happens for years. During that time considerable damage is done to the wellbeing of the children.