Collaboration
Collaboration is in some ways similar, however it is not being used enough as it should be. Collaboration differs in that both parties are accompanied and assisted by their solicitors throughout and agree that neither of them will go to court.
If they chose to do so, the process comes to an end and both have to find new lawyers to represent them. Everyone, therefore, has an interest in collaboration succeeding if at all possible.
Other professionals, such as accountants, wealth and financial advisers as well as pension experts can be invited in to the process and provide invaluable assistance.
One lawyer, two clients
'One lawyer, two clients', known as resolution together, is a very recent innovation. It allows a specially trained solicitor to help both parties to achieve a resolution. It is very cost effective.
Just like all the other options, it can be suitable for some couples and not for others.
Early neutral evaluation
Early neutral evaluation allows an independent lawyer, normally a barrister, to provide at an early stage a neutral view as to what an outcome may look like. This can often break a deadlock.
Private hearing
A private hearing takes that one step further; where both parties are present and legally represented, an independent and experienced family lawyer will listen to detailed representations made on their behalf and then give clear indications as to what a judge is likely to decide if agreement cannot be reached.
Unlike at court, both are given ample time to reflect on those indications and many cases are resolved at this stage.
In all of these scenarios, the clients are in charge and participate throughout. Their autonomy is respected. There is also the argument that these resolution options are more relationship breakdown-led, finding a way to resolve issues with an ex-spouse for both the financial and mental health welfare of both parties.
Arbitration
is a direct and far more attractive option to going to court and should only be used where all other options have failed or have been ruled out. For family cases, it is the only alternative than going to court if agreement cannot be reached, and can be used to resolve disagreements about arrangements for children and financial issues.
Like a court judgment, an arbitrator’s decision is binding, is a quicker process, is confidential and cost efficient.
There is also more flexibility in terms of timings that suit the parties, and location. However, only 23 family arbitrations have been used this year and 710 since it was introduced.
As lawyers we need to accept that in the vast majority of cases there is no reason at all why our clients should not go to arbitration rather than going to court. Our clients will benefit enormously as a result.
