Don't blame lawyers for spiralling costs

Every once in a while, a case will come along that makes even those with years of legal experience sit up and take notice. Such a case recently occurred in the High Court.

In Seagrove v Sullivan, a formerly cohabiting couple spent a combined £1.3m in their dispute. Mr Justice Holman, who heard the case, lamented the "titanic litigation" which had led to this enormous legal bill.

It is important when examining this case, to keep in mind the 'overriding objective' set out in the Family Procedure Rules (FPR), with its emphasis on resolving cases justly, expeditiously, and in a way that is proportionate to the details of the issues.

With that in mind, the legal costs amassed in this case were all the more staggering, and Mr Justice Holman quite rightly condemned the "out of control and completely disproportionate" costs that had built up over the course of the dispute.

Costs were not the only problem with the case. The volume of documents submitted to the court over the course of the proceedings was enormous. In total, 3,500 pages of documents were submitted and 1,500 of them were delivered only 20 minutes before the hearing began.

Mr Justice Holman was unequivocal in declaring that this mountain of documents constituted a breach of part 27 of FPR, specifically PD 27A rule 5.1, which came into effect on 31 July 2014 and states that bundles submitted to the court should be "no more than 350 sheets of A4 paper and 350 sides of text".

He ruled that the couple had one day to reach an agreement or they would have to choose just 150 documents each to submit to the court for him to make a final decision. The warning succeeded in galvanising the couple into - finally - settling.

I can certainly understand the judge's concerns, but, these cases are actually quite rare. Only a fraction of all family cases ever reach the High Court, and that means that their Lordships tend to see only these extremes and not the routine realities.

As we know, thanks to the new Family Court process, gatekeeper judges are now sending as many cases as they can back to the Family Court magistrates' bench. And, of course, the great majority of cases never reach the courts: the participants settle. Sensible litigants want a quick and relatively low-cost solution to their dispute.

Lawyers litigate for our clients. We are instructed by them - not the other way round. In such extreme cases, clients went to Bond Street rather than the local supermarket for their lawyers, as it were. They knew what that implied for their bills.

It's easy to blame the lawyers in these cases, but if the litigants refuse to budge from their determination to go ahead, ignore legal advice, and make crazy offers, there is only so much the lawyers can do. They can offer dire warnings of huge, winner-takes-all costs, but ultimately they cannot force the parties to settle. SJ

Marilyn Stowe is senior partner at Stowe Family Law