Lest anyone get the impression that I am a crane climbing, superhero costume wearing, purple powder throwing, card carrying member of any of the F4J’s; unable to say anything positive about members of the judiciary, this post should go some way to disavow readers of that notion. Regular readers of the blog will recall that I reported on a positive experience involving Master Redpath before, so I feel I have a history of giving credit where it’s due to members of the judiciary.
Our regulars will also recall that I have been bleating on for over a year about a litigant in person list, so that litigants know when they are on. More like a doctors surgery, and none of this dozens of cases listed for 9.30am nonsense, and the poor self litigant not getting in until all the clever lawyers have finished their machinations around midday.
Whilst that experience some while back with Master Redpath wasn’t totally unpleasurable, it wasn’t anywhere close to how I am used to being treated in England and Wales. The experience today in front of Master Bell in Belfast was much closer to how it should be done.
Do read on…
I was in front of Master Bell in an Ancillary Relief case that I had been asked to assist in at short notice. My client had run out of funds, owed their lawyers some money and had to represent themselves. [ Experienced McKenzie friends and lay advocates with be thinking " WHAT ABOUT THE FILE?? HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET THE FILE IF A LIEN IS EXERCISED ON IT???" Well you lot in the cheap seats can just shut up and let me get on with my account of this hearing].
I hadn’t perused any of the papers in this long running case, and as my client had very recently parted company with their solicitor, there weren’t any papers to read beyond the usual ragtag shopping bag full of papers that clients seem to accumulate. I didn’t even have time to read them anyhow.
Arriving around 9.20am I knocked on Master Bell’s door and introduced myself to him, and shortly thereafter the other sides solicitor popped their head round the door. Following my submission that I would be grateful if my client could be heard first, Master Bell invited us to find counsel and return anon.
Master Bell listened to everything that my client had to say, and I at least left feeling that we had been heard. I was also impressed that Master Bell also scolded counsel on more than one occasion for attempted point scoring, instead of this faux joint telling off that some Magistrates such as Mr Magill seem predisposed to give. Master Bell also let me speak on behalf of my client and the hearing had a very collaborative feel to it. I must also commend counsel for quickly grasping that the case couldn’t proceed. All in all, a relatively stress free introduction for my client to the challenging job of self representation.
Although I wouldn’t dream of being so bold as to suggest this formally, if I were Sir Declan Morgan, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, I would have no hesitation in appointing Master Bell to any future committee considering how to respond to the increasing numbers of litigants in person in the Northern Ireland family courts. Master Bell did a fantastic job today, and I commend him for his even handed approach; and I have every expectation that we will get a fair hearing in front of him if the case can’t be settled by negotiation.
{ 0 comments }
The Three Text Trick – An Ultra Quick Resolution to a ‘Contact Dispute’
by McKenzie on September 21, 2011
in McKenzie Friend Comment,Northern Ireland Family Law
The background to the above Tweet is that I had a dad call in to see me today who had not seen his child for 3 weeks, and who had convinced himself that he wanted to make an application to court to get to see his son. He was certain that his ex couldn’t be mediated with, and that only an order would do. I wasn’t so sure, as to me it was a bit of a non-dispute, that had it’s root in both of them failing to understanding the difference between clear consent and ambiguity of intent.
I asked him for his phone and started to draft a text to his ex. I let him read it through, and he ok’ed it being sent. Within a minute an encouraging reply came back. I repeated the process twice more, with the result being that he will be seeing his son as before, with contact resuming this Sunday.
If my client had been to a solicitor, he would have been at the beginning, not the end of his journey back to having contact with his son. Litigation would have put that dad on a hamster wheel of letter tennis, adjournments, contact centres, stress, bills and frustration. Many months would have passed and any trust that existed on either side would have long been extinguished.
As someone who normally deals in very high conflict cases; those that are (in my view) incorrectly categorised as ‘intractable’, this is not uncommon. And whilst I don’t want to give my magic secrets away, it isn’t the first time I have made contact happen this way. It is however, the first time I have blogged about it.
My message to the McKenzie friending and lay advice community in family law is NOT to feel compelled to rush to expensive mediation or litigation to resolve a dispute. The great lie that the vocational legal community are loathe to talk about is that consent needs willing parties, not warring lawyers.
My sagely advice is to try to understand the nature of the dispute from both sides first, and don’t fall into the error that solicitors fall into with their ‘my client, my client’ mentality. The parent and his or her children will thank you for it.
{ 0 comments }