Unhappy partners hold fire on divorce actions

It was a good week for divorcing couples, according to some journalists, as newspapers highlighted how a law coming into force on 1 December would mean that 'canny wives' (The Sun, 19 October) would be able to claim a slice of their husband's pension fund.

Presumably ignoring the idea that this law could also benefit husbands of high-earning women, The Daily Express (18 October) described how rich husbands were 'rushing' to the divorce courts before the law came into force, and put a recent fall in divorce rates 'down to wives waiting to cash in on the new law'.

The Independent (18 October) chose to illustrate the effects of the pension sharing law with the examples of the impending divorces of pop stars Noel and Liam Gallagher.

Liam's quickie divorce from actress Patsy Kensit means that she would be unable to take advantage of the new rules, whereas Noel's wife Meg Mathews, because of the delay in her divorce, will be able to 'claim a slice of her husband's pension'.

Barristers' clerks should beware under the new law, as a recent survey showed how some of the top clerks in London barristers' chambers are earning up to 350,000.

These clerks, 'many of whom left school after O-Levels' according to the Evening Standard (19 October), were described admiringly by The Independent on the same day as combining 'the wiles of the souk with the managerial skills of Sir Alex Ferguson and the tactical nous of Field Marshall Montgomery'.

The Times, however, spoiled their party by predicting a pay cut to a 'mere 300,000 a year', as part of a drive to cut chambers overheads.

To other money saving matters, and the Financial Times (19 October) reports that under Law Society reform proposals, law firms with bad complaints records would have to pay more towards the running costs of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors.

Contributions by firms to the cost of running the 'beleaguered' complaints arm of the Law Society would be based on the number of complaints upheld against them, on the 'polluter pays' principle.

Private Eye also turned its attention to the cost of legal proceedings, estimating that the price tag for the forthcoming employment tribunal hearing involving former Law Society vice-president Kamlesh Bahl would be near the 750,000 mark.

From one ongoing saga to another, with the Daily Telegraph (23 October) reporting on the forthcoming decision from Lord Woolf on the likely release date for James Bulger's killers.

Stressing that everyone is 'entitled to justice, no matter how dreadful his or her crime', Lord Woolf emphasised the need to encourage young offenders to lead a 'lawful life in the future'.

He said that the courts had 'always taken into account the effect of a crime on its victims', but admitted that he was not sure the victims had appreciated that the courts were actually doing so.

Another old favourite reared its head, with responses to last week's 'compensation culture' outrage coming in thick and fast.

Law Society President Michael Napier wrote in the Daily Mail (17 October) of his concern at 'grossly inaccurate' images of ambulance chasing lawyers, but a C Brown of Manchester was not impressed.

Replying to Mr Napier's 'glowing picture of beneficent lawyers' (Daily Mail, 23 October), she paints a different picture of an 'avaricious' profession and offers some straightforward advice 'to anyone seeking a legal remedy - don't'.

Perhaps all this lawyer bashing is affecting the self esteem of the Lord Chief Justice.

Terry Wolfe, a leading flooring consultant approved by the Law Society as a 'single joint expert' writing in the Contract Flooring Journal (October edition) says he is frequently mistaken for Lord Woolf, a confusion magnified by the similarity in their names.

On telling Lord Woolf this, he apparently 'commiserated with me that I should be told I look like him'.

Victoria MacCallum