The Family Law Clinic's aims are:

- To support litigants in person (those not represented by a Solicitor);

- To raise our clients' awareness of the law, the legal system and Courts service, in order to enable them to become more confident and independent;

- To actively promote the use of mediation for clients;

- To help limit the legal costs of litigants in person by providing low cost legal help and services;

- To try to limit and circumvent the adversarial approach and attitude of Solicitors, for the benefit of our clients;

- To support and advocate judicial separation instead of divorce, whereappropriate.

 This is a pioneering service founded by Nicola Matheson-Durrant (BA hons Law),  who believes that undercutting high street Solicitors' fees does not compromise professionalism or quality of service.



UNDERSTANDING HOW THE FAMILY LAW CLINIC WORK 

 It is very important that potential clients understand the difference between the Family Law Clinic and other legal service providers.  

‘One-off’ ‘pay-and-go’ contracts  

Since the Family Law Clinic business was created and established it has always been a ‘pay-and-go service’.  This means that clients are never asked to sign a Contract for Services and to commit themselves to us for the duration of a case. We do not expect this, but are always honoured when a clients wants us to help all of the way through a case.   

We believe that clients are entitled to have the freedom and flexibility to have one-off, no obligation consultation/services, or two or more appointments, or ask us to do one or two items of work for them, consecutively or from time to time, and then never feel compelled to use us again.   Each request for an item of work/service to be carried out is a new and separate contract with the Family Law Clinic. 

The end of each appointment and the completion of each service (whether on a 'pay-and-go' basis or if it is one of our 'all-inclusive packages' is the end of that particular contract.  This is reflected by the issue of an Invoice at the end of the consultation appointment, or the issue of an invoice which must be paid by the client before work commences.  Once the work is completed, so is the contract with us.

Each appointment/service constitutes a new and separate contract and this ensures the client remains in full control of his/her budget.  At any time, a client can stop using the Family Law Clinic without restriction or limitation, at any point in a case, and not book any more appointments or services again.  

This means that we do not represent or act for a client, we do not control, take over, run or manage a case, we do not automatically write letters on behalf of clients without their input or feedback.  We work alongside and with our clients, as part of a team, so that the client is always in control, and we only ever communicate with third parties if the client asks us to do so.  

We regularly publish a variety of monthly offers and all-inclusive low cost packages, which may last for one month or a couple of months.  This is part of our promotion and marketing policy.  We also introduce new services from time to time, or delete services from time to time.

Please always read the services and fees terms and conditions carefully as some of these will contain a 'no refund' statement and a 'completion fee' element.

Family Law Clinic Invoices:  Our invoices are clear.  However, clients must always check their invoices as soon as they are received. Overlooking or ignoring any of our terms and conditions is at a clients own risk. 

Because of the nature of our business, in so far as each appointment or service is treated as a ‘one-off’ ‘pay-and-go’ contract, the contents of individual Invoices will inevitably change during the course of a case, depending on various factors, such as -  type of service, cost or duration of service, fee and type of fee applicable, method of payment, monthly offers  etc.  

We are very happy to clarify anything for clients.  We expect our clients to query or discuss any item on our invoices if they are not sure of its meaning.   We require payment immediately.  Our justification for not extending credit is that our fees are considerably lower than those charged by high street Solicitors or barristers, so it is only fair and reasonable that we are paid without delay.

We are very disappointed that the general CAB ethic is to uphold the status quo by indiscriminately feeding all of their clients to expensive solicitors, even if the client does not qualify for public funding.

This state of affairs is unacceptable and completely unfair to those who are not made aware by the CAB that there is an affordable alternative to Solicitors.  If you are not wealthy or living below the poverty level, access to justice, ie affordable legal advice and services, is generally not available, and the CAB are inclined to make sure this injustice is here to stay!  Shame on you CAB.


Complaints about Solicitors

Last year theLaw Society received 17,074 complaints about Solicitors in England& Wales; that is approximately 1 in every 6 Solicitors! (QuoteWhich?)  The main complaints were about rudeness, arrogance,over-charging, and poor communication.  Solicitors fees can range from£160 + vat per hour up to as much as £600 + vat per hour for the sametype of service. 


The following is an extract from the Law Society Gazette:

"  Legal Complaints Service slams 'unjustified' fine
Thursday 05 June 2008

By Neil Rose  of the Law Society Gazette

The Legal Complaints Service (LCS) has hit back at the decision to fine the Law Society £275,000 for failing to deliver an adequate complaints-handling plan for 2008/09, branding it ‘completely unjustified’.

Zahida Manzoor, the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner, said: ‘It is with regret that I have to announce a penalty for the Law Society – and for the second time in two years’. The Society was fined £220,000 for an inadequate plan for 2006/07.

Manzoor added: ‘While the Law Society carries the financial consequences of this failure to provide an adequate plan, the LCS must accept the lion’s share of the responsibility as it failed to demonstrate a commitment to achieve important targets.’

Accusing the LCS of wanting to remain ‘within a comfort zone’ and not providing value for money, Manzoor also voiced concerns that the plan – which should have started on 1 April – only committed the LCS to meeting some of her targets. She said: ‘There are no valid excuses for the plan submitted.’

LCS board chairman Professor Shamit Saggar said the decision was ‘completely unjustified’ and distorted the true picture of the effectiveness of the organisation.

‘By any reasonable measure this is a disproportionate action that brings no benefit to either the legal profession or consumers of legal services,’ he said. ‘You do not fine a successful organisation, let alone one that in fact leads the way in consumer redress.’

He added that improvements in the service – to a level comparable with the ‘very best consumer redress organisations’ – have been recognised by the likes of Which? and the National Consumer Council.

Law Society chief executive Des Hudson said: ‘We disagree with the commissioner’s decision. The fact is that the LCS has delivered a year-on-year improvement in terms of the quality and speed with which it handles complaints.’

Manzoor said she would ‘shortly’ announce her separate decision on whether the LCS delivered its 2007/08 plan.   "