Guest post: My work experience at B P Collins

Alice Russell has just finished her second year reading law at the University of Durham. She spent a week sitting with the firm’s family group.

Every budding lawyer will be familiar with having to complete application after application, writing cover letter after cover letter in the hope of attaining that highly coveted training contract. I myself am at that ‘exciting’ stage. Thankfully, I have had a week of work experience with the family group at B P Collins to break up the monotony.

"To say the experience has been an unexpectedly brilliant one would be an understatement."

At previous placements, I found myself stuck in a corner reading through files and frequently the only answer I got to my questions was "yes, I do take milk", so I expected much the same from this week. It is true that I have done my fair share of filing and photocopying, but this was only a portion of what I got to experience. I was told as soon as I arrived that I would not be doing any task that a trainee would not be given which, I admit, did terrify me somewhat.

I soon found myself attending client meetings, typing up attendance notes, extracting information from particular files to make chronologies and attempting to dig up old deeds (and failing). 

On one occasion I was even lucky enough to go to court. Although the experience was not as glamorous as Harvey Spector and Alicia Florrick make it out to be (no gun fights or shouting – at least not at the hearing I attended!), the experience was still a real insight into how our legal system works and I took the down-time in between the hearing to grill a trainee on her time at B P Collins.

"It quickly became apparent to me that work within the family group is exceptionally varied." 

One aspect of the experience that I found surprising was the amount of investigative work that is involved. I was asked to pour over bank statements to look for irregularities and to figure out which documents the opposing party might be unwilling to divulge. For one of my last tasks, I was asked to piece together a map for a particular area of land, on the hunch of a solicitor that someone was not being entirely truthful with regards to its ownership.  

The only down side to my week was the fact that it has gone too quickly! B P Collins has surpassed all my expectations. 

"You can guarantee that the firm will be receiving my application for a training contract shortly."

How much is that doggy in the court room?

We have all heard the expression 'a pet is for life, not just for Christmas', but what happens when its owners decide to part ways?

A recent article by Deborah Rook, entitled "Who Gets Charlie? The Emergence of Pet Custody Disputes in Family Law: Adapting Theoretical Tools from Child Law’’, examines the way pets are treated during divorce proceedings in different jurisdictions. Where arrangements for an animal cannot be agreed between parties, the family courts in England and Wales are forced to apply pure property law principles and, in doing so, the animal’s feelings, emotions and well-being are disregarded. It is effectively treated as just another item on the list of the parties’ property and is given to the person who can best prove they are its legal owner.

Rook calls for a new approach within English law, stating that it must “fit within the existing property paradigm but nevertheless recognise the special nature of this living and sentient property”. One such way to do this, Rook suggests, would be to create a test not unlike the well-established 'best interests of the child test' that is applied to the equivalent argument in respect of children.

However, whilst using the ‘best interests of the child’ test as a “useful eyepiece through which to view pet custody”, Rook accepts that it would not be appropriate, or indeed proportionate, to go so far as to replicate the test in the case of pets.

As a lover of animals, I fully sympathise with those who face losing their pets at an already deeply distressing stage of their lives. I certainly cannot imagine having my own pets taken from me at such a time. Despite this, and donning my recently-acquired trainee solicitor hat, I find myself agreeing with the arguments that altering the test and encouraging litigation would be a waste of costs and time in a court system that is already fit-to-burst.

To date there is little in the way of case law on the subject from the English courts, and, perhaps unsurprisingly, it is the US that is most frequently cited as creating the biggest waves in the field. Judges there are showing a growing willingness to give increasing emphasis to what is in the best interests of the pet in question, including considering the separating couple’s respective lifestyles, suitable surroundings for the animal and whether it has attachments to particular individuals.

In Raymond v Lachman, for example, the New York appellate court allowed a cat to “remain where he has lived, prospered, loved and been loved for the past four years”. There have also been awards of shared custody, visitation and maintenance payments to owners, and there is even a market for specialist pet custody mediators.

Whilst arguing over the family pet may seem a little trivial and disproportionate in terms of costs, it is often seen by parties as a yardstick in financial proceedings, with disagreements over the family pet threatening to derail negotiations. Many people have very strong emotional ties to their pets and can seek to cling on to what they represent of their old life at a time of otherwise great instability and chaos. Despite this, it is highly unlikely the law will change any time soon. Application of a test comparable to the 'best interests of the child' test encourages costly litigation due to the unpredictability of the outcome.

The animal charity Blue Cross have recently devised a 'pet-nup' which aims to provide for what happens to a pet when a couple separates. Whether or not these agreements will be enforced by the courts remains to be seen. In the absence of a pet-nup, and perhaps in any event, with an already crowded court system I would suggest quarrelling pet-owners are best advised seeking alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration.

Posted by Emily Halley, trainee in the Family practice group.

Emily graduated from the University of Bristol in 2010 with a degree in Mathematics and Biology. She went on to study the GDL and the LPC at the College of Law in London (Bloomsbury), gaining a Distinction in both years.

Is January really 'divorce month'?

If you believe everything you read in your Sunday morning newspaper then January is supposed to be the time of year when family lawyers are inundated with disgruntled couples, clamouring to separate after having one too many arguments over the festive season.

However, after spending January with the B P Collins family practice group as part of my training contract, I struggle to find truth in this urban myth.

Throughout this seat I have come to appreciate how divorcing someone is simply not a rash action made after a tricky holiday period but a long-considered decision. Even where one party has made the decision quickly (perhaps after discovering infidelity) it is never a decision that I have seen taken lightly.

In my experience people who have thought rationally and sensibly about the future of their relationship will approach the process of resolving any consequent dispute (whether relating to children or money) with similar care.

Some people will agree everything between themselves, around the kitchen table so to speak, and will just come to us to make the agreement legally binding. Others will have no alternative but to go to court, perhaps where they need to establish the jurisdiction of the English court for their case.

However, many couples will fall somewhere in between these two extremes: they need some professional assistance to decide children or money queries, but they want to retain ultimate control over the outcome rather than ceding it to a judge (although, even when court proceedings are started, negotiations almost always continue alongside).

Since joining the Family practice group, I have been surprised by the number of flexible options available to separating couples and how the solicitors here will often tailor a bespoke solution to those particular individuals both in the agreement itself and the method of reaching that agreement. Mediation and solicitor negotiation are two alternatives I have seen work well.

Mediation involves an independent and impartial mediator facilitating discussions directly between the separating couple. With the informed guidance of a solicitor in the background, combined with the neutrality of the mediator, this can be a very successful means of resolution which allows the individuals concerned to retain control and find the appropriate solutions by working together, albeit with an experienced professional present to guide discussions and help “sense-test” potential outcomes.

Whereas a Solicitor negotiation requires a delicate balance between pursuing the client’s objectives and advising on what is within a reasonable band of outcomes. It is the solicitor’s role to obtain the best possible agreement for their client, while always keeping them informed of what the best alternative to the negotiated settlement is. Solicitors must help the client assess the cost/benefit analysis between conceding on certain points to avoid the stress and expense of an on-going battle, without losing sight of the client’s goal.

The advantage to allowing a solicitor to negotiate is that the individuals do not have to have direct contact with their former partners. Many couples, particularly with children, prefer not to have direct discussions, but rather to keep the heat out of potential disputes by allowing their solicitors to resolve things at arms-length.

The myriad of options available in the family arena has inspired a genuine interest in the different ways of resolving disputes and I look forward to exploring this from a different angle in my next training seat in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution group. 

Posted by Rebecca Mitchell, trainee in the family practice group.

Rebecca started her training contract in September 2013 after graduating from Newcastle University with a 2:1 (BA Hons) in History. She undertook the Graduate Diploma in Law at Kaplan Law School and has recently completed the Legal Practice Course with distinction.