A new French film explores the conduct of a 51-year-old woman who, following the collapse of her marriage, pays for sex with much younger men.

Cliente stars well-known French actress Nathalie Baye as the divorcee who seeks to escape from her boring life, and turns to a gigolo.

I am sure that the scenario will be regarded by many as pure fantasy. However, the director and writer of the film, Josiane Balasko, says she wants to highlight the plight of real women who separate from their husbands, find it difficult to move on and turn to paid sex with a stranger.

The film deals with the relationship between the woman and her male gigolo as she learns more about him. She falls in love with him – as, I believe, do most women who have regular sex with the same man. Sex is an expression of feeling. It is rare to find a woman who has regular sex with the same man without any emotional involvement.

The film’s premise appears to be rooted in fact. According to an article in The Sunday Times male gigolos, whose traditional hunting ground for rich women is the French Riviera, are now advertising on websites elsewhere in France. One of these men, known as “Earl Grey”, is based in Paris. He offers his services to women who want passionate encounters without strings, for £150 an hour. It’s quite a charge out rate! But while he may be able to remain emotionally unattached, what about his clients?

I have seen a number of mature women whose affairs with men from different socio-economic backgrounds would baffle independent observers. The men concerned may not be particularly attractive. However, they are usually very charming. As for the women, they don’t always fit the stereotype of provocative, heavily made-up matrons who are “ready for it”. Often they have succumbed to the attention without appreciating the likely emotional (and material) consequences of their passion. The lover may be a builder, a gym instructor or a tennis coach. Typically, he will be found at gyms, wine bars and restaurants frequented by “ladies who lunch”, and will make a bee line for a woman who has a glint in her eye and an expensive car parked outside. He may also be involved with other women. For the woman, this relationship may begin as an adventure – but she will end up emotionally attached and unable to end the affair. She may also end up divorced.

This said, such relationships may not always start off through a charm offensive. There are assertive women who can control their emotions and keep their private lives in separate compartments.

One woman, a high flying company director, saw me recently. She has a lover, who is also married, and their affair has continued satisfactorily for the past four years. She told me, with frankness, that her lover fulfills a need. She had come to see me because she wanted to find out about the likely financial settlement that she would have to pay her husband if she decided to leave him. Having told her the likely cost, I suspect she will stay put.  Her lifestyle is cool, clinical and calculated. She says that her husband has no idea about her affair – her lover, too, is apparently content to stay within his marriage.

I do think that she is an exception. Most other women invest a lot of emotions in their relationships; over time they form strong bonds, and want to spend more and more time with their lovers.

So I can understand how Cliente was conceived, and I do not think that the idea is fantastical. It is based on real scenarios and situations in which women who crave relationships try to use sex to quell their loneliness. They can end up emotional wrecks, dependent upon someone whom they would previously have passed in the street with nary a second glance.

Women can be lonely inside and outside of marriage. Sadly as the hundreds of files in my office show, illicit sex – paid for or otherwise – can cause far more heartache than it was ever intended to appease.

I don’t know how Cliente ends – but in real life, there is very rarely a happy ending.

Eventually you must make a decision…

• 1. The mobile phone bill goes missing. If lengthy calls to your lover have sent the telephone bill spiralling upwards, the last thing you want is for your husband to discover that nearly all the calls have been made to just one number. Worse than that, you definitely don’t want him calling that number!

• 2. You stop cooking for him. If he gets home, asks what you’ve made for dinner and you reply, “I’ve made reservations’, he knows he’s in trouble.

• 3. You often talk about how good the window cleaner is, how the tennis coach has really improved your game or why the builders need to stay longer than intended. The wife of a rich, successful man, if she feels neglected and second best to the attractions of work, may find solace with a lover who has far less material wealth but does not substitute financial rewards for affection and attention.

• 4. You really don’t care how his day went at work! The conversation and gossip about his work once fascinated you. Now it bores you to tears. You are no longer interested in his work because you are no longer interested in him. It shows.

• 5. You look younger and trimmer – and he still hasn’t noticed! If he no longer notices your hair, make-up or figure, he will probably be slow to twig that someone else has. By the time reality has dawned, it may be too late.

• 6. You are suddenly spending more time with girlfriends. You suggest a separate bank account for your “girly” indulgences, so that you don’t have to bother him all the time. At least that’s what you want him to believe. But what will happen if he finds your bank statements or discovers your pin number?

• 7. When work commitments prevent him from coming on holiday, you are unusually understanding. You tell him that you’ll enjoy the sun and finally read all those unopened books. Instead, you plan to meet up with the guy he had dismissed as a beach bum on your last trip together to the Caribbean. You tell him you know that he is too busy to call – and that you’ll ring him.

• 8. You begin to wear younger, sexier clothing. He’s long past noticing anything new you wear – although when he does, he is quick to complain about the cost. You are careful if you use the joint account to pay for them, and you always tell him what you’ve bought – even if you don’t tell him why.

• 9. You are embarrassed in his company. Suddenly he can’t do anything right in your eyes. His fashion sense belongs in a different age, his jokes aren’t funny anymore and you begin to compare him – unfavourably – with more dynamic and successful friends and colleagues.

• 10. Sex is a definite no! The headache excuse is so see-through, it’s transparent. You’ve tried the one about being worried that the children will hear. Perhaps the gym or the tennis has tired you. Perhaps there is a late night television programme that you really can’t miss.

There will come a time when these excuses run out – and you will have to decide whether to stay or to go.

“There is so much more out there” such a person might say. “Ditch him or her, and make the most of your life.”

A constant concern of mine is the worrying role that “friends” can play in divorce. If I hear about a “friend” or if a “friend” appears in my office alongside my client, warning bells will ring.

In my experience, “friends” come in all shapes and sizes and are always loyal, sympathetic and helpful – at least on the surface.

However, clients often complain that their spouses’ “friends” have encouraged the breakdown of a marriage. They speak with anxiety – and often downright hostility – about the roles played by these people in the lives of their spouses. In some cases, “friends’” lifestyles appear to be incompatible with married life.

Such “friends” are often newly acquired and may be divorced themselves. They usually juggle hectic social diaries. For a spouse plodding along in a dull, lifeless marriage, this sort of person can hold a magnetic attraction.

“There is so much more out there” such a person might say. “Ditch him or her, and make the most of your life.” Following nights out together, glamorous lunches and holidays away, even newer “friends” may appear. These “friends” are members of the opposite sex, and such friendships can prove to be slippery slopes. Affairs that begin are often known about and lied about by friends. An affair, with its passion, secrecy and danger, can provide all the thrills that had long since vanished in the marriage.  If the marriage then ends, it does so with the full co-operation and collusion of “friends”.

From a friend’s perspective, he or she may perceive no wrongdoing. After all, how can it be wrong to sympathise with someone going through marital problems? How can it be wrong to try and cheer them up? How can it be wrong to help someone have a good time?

In reality, a “friend” who looks on as a marriage disintegrate may enjoy playing the role of the valued confidante, who is “in” on what is happening. In the worst cases, the more high profile the couple who divorce, the more entertainment and gossip value it offers the “friends” who egg on the respective spouses. Not that “friends” see themselves in that way. If only they would.

Then there are “friends” who see themselves as divorce lawyers and counsellors, providing well-meaning – but wrongheaded – advice. Having been through the process themselves, at first or secondhand, they offer plenty of advice about what the client should do, and how the case should be resolved.

However, I have never come across two case that are identical on facts. This means that a settlement is never exactly the same. On that basis, it is hard to see how anyone lacking professional training can possibly give advice. But they do – and worse, they expect that advice to be taken. I can’t blame an anxiety-ridden spouse for wanting to follow this advice – but usually it isn’t possible, because the advice is wrong.

The “friends” that worry me most are the seemingly ineffectual ones that hover in the background during client meetings. Often a client will attend with a trusted friend in tow, and will insist that this person remains present. The client wants “back up” and likes to discuss the advice I have given after the event. The friend will sit through the interview, interjecting with the occasional comment and demonstrating total support if the client becomes distressed.

Call me a cynic, but I don’t like friends attending interviews because I don’t always trust their motives. How does my client know for certain that the sensitive information she gives me and the careful advice I give her will remain confidential? How do we know that it will not end up in the wrong hands? Or more likely, how does my client know her friend won’t be lunching out on the story in the weeks and months to come, with the facts becoming more lurid and obscured every time it is retold?

In a divorce, a client should be able to rely 100 per cent upon his or her legal team. Friends play a completely different role, which is socially centred. It is free of the professional ethics, scruples, obligations, privilege and confidentiality that are the lawyer’s domain.

Whenever I watch Desperate Housewives, although the story lines are far-fetched I find the programme’s social observations to be spot on. Even cake recipes are jealously guarded secrets by these housewives, who are all friends on the surface. Their friendships are defined by loyalty and closeness, but also by a strong sense of privacy – with very clear boundaries.

“The client walked away with millions – and I used the case as the basis for a storyline in The Archers.”

The hardest cases – the tricky, nerve-wracking ones that need a bit of brain power – are always the most interesting. I like to play “intellectual chess”! One such case was when a client’s husband told her, out of the blue, that he was leaving. He complained that he was fed up with her spending, and claimed she was “sending him bankrupt’”. He refused to give her his new address, but told her to contact him at his business. She suspected that he was having an affair with her (newly divorced) best friend.

This couple enjoyed a lavish lifestyle. At their swish, £3 million home, they employed a groom, a gardener, and domestic help. The wife kept ponies in a paddock and stables, and the home also had a swimming pool and tennis court. There were no children. The wife, a former model, now passed her time horse riding. The husband liked to play golf and was often seen in the company of her best friend, who was also a keen golfer.

In “Big Money” cases, as with others, assets are identified, valued and divided up. In this instance, because the couple had been as poor as church mice when they had wed and their wealth had been built up during the marriage, a straightforward 50/50 split looked to be in order. When the husband’s solicitors wrote to me, however, it became clear that he loathed his wife.

The husband gave a different version of events. He insisted that his wife’s incessant spending had brought him to the brink of bankruptcy. His company was failing. The house was fully mortgaged, save for about £300,000. There were no savings. Around £50,000 had been run up on credit cards. There were no pension arrangements, as income had been swallowed up by his wife’s profligate expenditure. He had a decreasing income of £100,000 gross per annum. He offered his wife yearly maintenance of £40,000 – although he said that he was unable to guarantee this sum in the long term – plus the sum of £200,000 towards a house. His solicitors warned that if she did not accept his “generous” offer, he would take her to court and make her pay the costs. The parties had very different stories. Which of them was telling the truth?

In England and Wales, a party found guilty of “litigation misconduct” can be ordered to pay the other sides’ legal costs, even though the general rule is that each party pays its own. This meant that if my client litigated fruitlessly when she could have settled before proceedings were issued, she would have to pay her husband’s bill of costs. This would further reduce the pot she had been offered – and presented a real risk she could end up with next to nothing at all.

In the meantime, there was also the problem of how her own legal costs would be met. With no assets of her own, save for a heavily mortgaged property, she could not afford to litigate. Of course, the husband knew this – and was gambling that her straitened circumstances would influence her reaction to his proposal. One solution was to take the husband to court for interim maintenance, to include a hefty monthly payment for costs if bank funding was unavailable. Given the lack of equity in the home, funding was not available; given the husband’s reduced income, neither was interim maintenance. An alternative was what has become known as a ‘Sears Tooth’ agreement. This is a document signed by client and solicitor. When such an agreement is made, the solicitor agrees to fund the case. The client assigns her settlement to the solicitors, and at the end of the case her bill of costs – as agreed or assessed by the court – is debited from it. However, in very difficult cases such as this, with no apparent assets, a Sears Tooth agreement is useless.

The client was adamant. Her husband was lying. He had millions.

What did I do? I believed her and decided to take on the challenge. I took on the case on a ‘Sears Tooth basis,’ even though I knew it could turn out to be worthless. Then I set to work.

With the invaluable help of Frank Arndt, a German colleague of mine who speaks several languages, we monitored the husband’s undisclosed business activities throughout Europe. A lot of hard work was involved, but the internet provided a useful source of assistance. We uncovered a spider’s web of trade activity.

About a year later, when the case came before the High Court, the husband capitulated after the first day. He settled and paid our costs in full.

How did I finally get him? With an inspiration that struck at 3 ‘o’ clock one morning. I had been awake, worrying about for how much longer we could progress the case. The costs had been mounting, with little to show for our work. Then I remembered a single entry I had noticed on one of the husband’s bank statements. The statements all showed that he was heavily overdrawn. However, the entry itself provided an important clue. I realised that the husband had to have a second business in England.

After we took a calculated risk, subpoenaing the husband’s new girlfriend, it emerged that she had no wish to give evidence in court. The truth came tumbling out. The husband did have two businesses. One was a limited company, with accounts lodged at Companies House. The other was a “shadow” business, owned by his girlfriend but run by him. The business registered with Companies House had been deliberately plunged into decline by the husband, so that he could minimise his wife’s maintenance. All its profits and growth had been diverted to the undisclosed “shadow” business.

The case was a triumph for us. It required nerves of steel; what seems easy in retrospect is never easy at the time. As I mentioned, I enjoy games of intellectual chess. On this occasion, it was a pleasure to chase the husband – into checkmate.

Our client walked away with several millions. And me? Some time afterwards, I was approached by the producers of the BBC Radio 4 soap, The Archers.  The producers wanted a convincing matrimonial storyline for duplicitous, fictional businessman Matt Crawford. This case provided a perfect starting-point…

“Will my client ever forgive her? It is unlikely.”

Some years ago, a client came to see me about his wife. He was a consultant at a hospital. She was a medical researcher at a university. According to him, their sex life was good and there had been no signs of any problems. Then one day, like a bolt from the blue, the wife announced that their marriage had gone stale – and that she wished to “move on”.

The couple had attended two counselling sessions, but these had failed to throw any light upon his wife’s decision. She denied that a third party was involved, and my client was adamant that she was telling the truth. The couple both worked extremely long hours, and shared the care of their children with a live-in nanny. The nanny had been with the family since the birth of their youngest child eight years previously.

I asked him about his wife’s work pattern. He told me that she travelled fairly frequently; sometimes, when he was working nights or weekends, they passed “like ships in the night”. They had both agreed that children would not adversely affect their careers, but he had made considerable sacrifices. He had declined lucrative private work, to better assist with the childcare arrangements. He felt such sacrifices keenly and described how his wife had spent the previous evening with a “girl friend” at a pop concert, while he had stayed at home to babysit.

From a legal perspective, the case seemed relatively straightforward. I advised him that there was no reason why a shared childcare arrangement could not continue as before, but from two homes. I did point out that if the nanny went to live with the mother, it was likely that the children would spend more time away from their father.

The finances could also be split equally, as both husband and wife earned similar incomes and were likely to reside in similar properties. The couple’s pension arrangements were slightly imbalanced in pension in the husband’s favour, but this was unlikely to make any significant difference. Both parties had healthy parents, so inheritance prospects were not relevant. My client would probably have to pay agreed child support and contribute equally to school fees.

On the face of it, there were no major problems.  However, my client hadn’t listened to a word. He explained that he had come to see me because, as a woman, I might be able to make some sense of what had happened to turn his life upside down.

I asked him if, when he made diagnoses, he ever gave his opinion without being absolutely certain. When he admitted that this was frequently the case, I told him that I suspected his wife had begun an affair. I advised him to go home and ask her again, because the cost of false hope was tormenting him. His wife needed to tell him the truth, to put him out of his misery.

A few days later he telephoned to arrange another appointment. I had been right: another person was involved. His wife was conducting an affair with a work colleague – another woman.

This situation is not uncommon and the law does not differentiate between same sex and heterosexual relationships to any great degree. It is always difficult to advise clients when a third party is involved, particularly the perceived impact on the children. In this case, my client also had to consider the prospect of his children living with two women in the same house, who shared the same bed. He was adamantly opposed to this. However, the courts are dealing with an increasing number of same sex relationships, and civil partnerships, (marriage between same sex couples) have been recognised in law since 2005. Same sex couples may adopt and foster children. It was likely that at some stage, the court would give the go-ahead for the children to reside with the mother and her new partner.

It was important to tread carefully. It is not my function as a lawyer to make moral judgments; rather, I assist clients to arrange acceptable settlements. Acting on my advice and what he felt to be his children’s best interests, the doctor rethought this plans. The nanny agreed to stay with him and he was able to reduce his working hours, so he could demonstrably become a full time carer for the children. He made a claim for residence of the children and suggested a pattern of contact with their mother, which would not involve them staying overnight with her and her new partner for the foreseeable future.  He looked to his wife for child support.

He also proposed that his wife would only obtain her share of the equity in the house once the children had left home for university. I advised him that it was unlikely the court would tie up the equity in the house for so long. I also thought the court might make orders for the children to stay with their mother in the near future.

His wife made counter proposals. Following negotiations, we settled:my client bought out his wife for one third of the agreed equity in the property on a “clean break” basis, with no come backs on either side. She is contributing maintenance payments. She pays more towards school fees; he pays the nanny. The children remain in the family home with their father and the nanny, and are adjusting to the trauma of their mother’s departure and her relationship with another woman. Both parents have taken positive steps for the sake of their children, who are also being assisted by supportive teaching staff at their schools.

Will my client ever forgive his former wife? I think it unlikely. Recently I heard he had remarried. He married the nanny.

“If you had the opportunity, would you?”

A smart, attractive lady in her mid 40s came to see me recently. She is a lawyer by profession. Our meeting began very calmly and her problem soon became clear.

She is married to a chartered accountant. He is a partner in a multinational firm. They have three children, aged between eight and 14. They enjoy an affluent lifestyle. They have no particular worries and life proceeds smoothly.  On the surface, all is well and they are the perfect family.

She certainly hadn’t been looking for romance outside her marriage. Unfortunately, it arrived in the guise of an old university friend.

He is the MD of a successful family business. They hadn’t met for 20 years, but bumped into one another on opposite sides of a commercial transaction. He has a family, but has long since divorced his own wife. They “clicked” and have now embarked on a passionate affair.

Her husband has noticed she has become withdrawn and is worried about her. However, he suspects nothing. Listening to her, I was reminded of the film Unfaithful, which starred Richard Gere and Diane Lane as a “perfect” couple torn apart by the wife’s affair.

This lady wanted advice on the likely outcome of a divorce. When I asked how she thought divorce would impact upon her family, she burst into tears and her control slipped. All her guilt came tumbling out, and she said it was a relief to cry. She used up a lot of the tissues I keep in my desk. She said quite simply that it would devastate them all.

I answered her questions and explained that from a practical perspective, a divorce would not be a problem. Financially, the family would be fine. I advised her about the divorce process, the process for a financial settlement, the law about children, the likely costs and how it all worked in practice.

Then I gave her the advice I thought she really sought.

I told her not to do it.

I drew upon my experience gained from years of listening to clients’ problems and told her I thought that,

as long as her husband did not know about the affair, she still had the chance to salvage her marriage. Once he did know, the truth would be out and that chance would become remote. I advised her to ditch the other man and, if necessary, change her job or even initiate a career move. Although the pain of saying goodbye to the other man would be very, very tough, it would be nothing like the pain she could bring upon her family if the affair continued. She said she had “taken the lid off Pandora’s box”. I told her she could – and should – put it back on again.

Personally, I don’t think she will. Time will tell which part of my advice she will take.