Adjusting your business to your clients' financial constraints

Working in the family department of a small firm I have seen first-hand the impact on private practice of the family legal aid changes introduced in April 2013.

Clients who are unemployed simply cannot finance contested contact proceedings privately, yet they also feel unable to adequately represent themselves at court hearings. Their primary concern is the welfare of their child, yet they feel that they are financially limited in what they can to protect their child's interests. I have sadly seen parents who have abandoned court proceedings for contact with their child because the other party has made spurious allegations against them, and to continue to pursue the matter through the courts will involve significant cost, stress and anxiety to all concerned. We try to encourage clients as much as possible and be as flexible as we can on costs to avoid this situation arising.

Where a party is unable to obtain legal representation then they are often inadequately prepared for court hearings and that can be a significant disadvantage for them and can also result in delays and wasted time at court. I have also dealt with several cases where the opponent is a litigant in person and this serves to increase the work involved for the party that is legally represented and thus increase their costs, in what are already inevitably expensive proceedings.

It is a real concern that in order to get a 'ticket' for legal aid some parents may go to desperate measures and raise or exaggerate domestic violence issues in order to obtain a non-molestation order and thus funding for a case. I have seen two instances in the last 12 months where it seems that legal aid was the main motivation behind obtaining a non-molestation order which could have been avoided. The guidance of Mostyn J in UL v BK [2013] EWHC criticises unjustified ex-parte applications in the context of freezing injunctions but it is hoped that this guidance will also be applied in family matters generally.

This should mean that the courts are moving away from granting ex-parte orders too readily but in practice this is yet to be seen. Not only does this give rise to the potential for unjustified allegations being made but it also serves to further damage relations between the parties.

Our firm has had to adapt our way of thinking to allow for monthly payment plans for clients on a low income. In divorce cases, we have also offered to accept payment at the conclusion of financial relief proceedings for example, where there are assets likely to be realised.

We have historically been flexible with our clients but this has become even more important in order to be competitive. This makes cash flow much more difficult to manage, particularly as we are a small firm, but we would rather know that we have been able to help the client than not and would rather have the work in that not.

Sarah Turnbull is a family solicitor and managing partner at Nicholls Solicitors

www.nichollssolicitors.com

.