Julian Hawkhead

I asked Julian to write a post about negotiation for this blog, after it struck me that his advice applies to plenty of real-life situations, not just divorce – and that perhaps readers, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, would find it useful.

The definition of negotiation is “to discuss with the goal of finding terms of agreement” – and that may require compromise on both sides. Have conviction in your cause, but be sufficiently self-aware to acknowledge that there can be another opinion that, in the other party’s mind, may be equally valid.

In my sphere of expertise, which is negotiating divorce settlements that include complex assets, business structures, tax issues, liquidity issues and so on, the commercial issues can be eclipsed by an aggrieved, deeply hurt husband or wife who cannot get past the emotional obstacles to be able to deal with the really important financial issues that have to be sorted out. It is inevitably the emotional issues – the anger, mistrust and distress – that complicate many divorce settlements, whether they involve Premiership football players, ageing rock stars or just the everyday men in the street.

There are plenty of dos and don’ts when it comes to successful negotiation, but here are some pointers.

1. Groundwork

The key to a successful negotiation is preparation: knowing your own strengths and weaknesses and those of the other party inside out. Know your best and worst case scenarios: where your bottom line is (worst case scenario) and where your top line is (best case scenario and where this leaves your counterpart). What are the key points you want to get across? You need to know as much about the person with whom you are negotiating.

I’ve undertaken negotiations in many cases involving multi-million pound settlements and in those situations, you need to know the circumstances of the case inside and out: the details of the assets, which of the assets are prized by your client and what you suspect the other side would most like to hold on to. I ensure that my client is up-to-date with the case and extremely well-prepared before we go into any meeting, so that they too are aware of all the possible developments and outcomes.

2. Setting

I have no qualms about where I negotiate. As the saying goes, you have to make the best of the terrain you’re given. I sometimes feel that it is better to negotiate in the place where my opposite number will feel most comfortable, because if they are not immediately on the defensive they may be more open to ideas and discussions.

3. Timing

A meeting at the end of the day, when everybody is tired and when time is limited, is never a good time. It is much better to get an early start before your mind and everybody else’s minds gets filled up with other worries and matters.

4. Conversation

Be concise. There is no point in waffling because that just irritates. At the same time you’re negotiating because you don’t want to be fighting, so smile and be friendly. Listen to what your opposite number has to say.

My client wants a settlement, not a lawyer who struts like a peacock. I’ve seen ineffectual lawyers whose idea of negotiating is to shout the loudest. What’s the point? However if you really have nothing to lose, you can afford to be bullish.

5. Body Language

Somebody who is always aggressive will not be a successful negotiator, because they will get a reputation for bluffing or for being so intransigent and unpleasant that nobody will negotiate with them.

Remember you are negotiating for a purpose: to get something you want by making the other party feel sufficiently content to agree with you. Coercion is not negotiation.

6. Clothing

If you look like a tramp, you’ll get treated like a tramp. If you wear a cardigan, you’ll be treated like a social worker. Dress smartly to impress: my personal preference is for a dark-coloured suit. If you want to be taken seriously, avoid a comedy tie at all costs.

You should, however, dress to suit your environment. If you normally wear jeans to work, don’t pull on a suit to go and ask for a pay rise. You’ll suddenly stand out and put your boss on alert that you are after something, before you have even opened your mouth.

7. Strategy

It is almost impossible to predict with accuracy what will happen in a negotiation, so a pre-prepared speech has a limited shelf-life at best. Instead, be alert to what is being said to you and respond accordingly. If you don’t listen and you carry on making your points regardless, the chances are that you’ll fall flat on your face, achieving nothing. Give yourself room in which to manoeuvre.

The only time you should ever go on the attack is when you know that if you take the nuclear option – for me, this is a case proceeding to court  – that you are likely to get what you are asking for. In law, the lottery of litigation means you can never be 100 per cent certain of an extreme outcome, so you have to be aware of the risks. Ask yourself: what happens if you don’t get what you’re asking for? What will you do about it?

In contract law, if you reject an offer that is made to you or go back with an alternative offer, it means that the offer originally put before you may no longer be open for acceptance. Do not be quick to reject an offer out of hand unless it is truly derisory. Instead, look at the offer, give it some thought, accentuate the positives and the common ground that you both have and try to narrow down the issues that are outstanding. This way, you may be able to show the other party that actually you’re not very far apart, while making substantial headway with the headline issues.

Finally…

Stay positive and be prepared to compromise. Try not to focus on negatives. Instead of listing everything that is not agreed, how about concentrating instead on what is agreed? As one famous American divorce mediator was renowned for saying to the warring couples that sat before him: “I’ve heard a lot about what you don’t want but what is there that you do want?”

I have negotiated a £7 million settlement successfully for a client but equally, I’ve seen opponents flounce out of a negotiation because they didn’t get the coffee machine that they wanted or the beloved pet cat. You should never assume that you have fully settled a deal until you have dealt with every detail.

Julian Hawkhead became Managing Partner of the Harrogate office of Stowe Family Law in December 2009. Although Julian has a broad spectrum of expertise in Family Law, he is a Resolution accredited specialist in both Emergency Procedures in Financial & Property Cases and Complex Financial & Property Matters. He is known in particular for specialising in cases involving complex financial arrangements for high net worth clients, often with a corporate or trust element.

So why get married? Because it is still seen as the right thing to do? Because it legitimises children? Because it gives out a strong image of stability?

Why 11 years? Is it because this is the average length of time it takes to become established in a marriage, to have children, for those children to reach school age and for the marriage to go stale?

This could be one explanation – and yet the number of people who are aged 60 or over when they divorce – so-called silver divorce – has also increased. I think it shows a growing attitude in society towards marriage as something that is disposable when it just doesn’t fit anymore. People live longer and life doesn’t necessarily begin at 40 or 50 or even 60. It begins when you, as an individual, make a decision that is about you and how you live your life.

Since 2000 and the case of White v White the courts have been viewing marriage as a business partnership like any other. Think about it this way:

• In a partnership you can have good partners, industrious partners and lazy partners, but if the partnership agreement dictates an equal profit share then everyone gets an equal slice of the cake.
• Once you have got past the first hurdle in every case, which is how assets should be fairly distributed in order to meet the parties’ and dependent children’s needs, the concepts of contributions, marital acquest (all assets acquired during the marriage), relationship-generated disadvantage and compensatory maintenance are all indicators of a commercial view being taken of marriage
• We are not yet in line with Europe or America, which simply carve up everything acquired during the marriage straight down the middle – but there are stirrings towards such an approach.

The suggestion that marriage is effectively an “economic partnership” has a strong ring of truth about it. Putting religious and cultural reasons aside, the act of getting married creates financial ties between couples. It is like entering into a commercial contract with penalty clauses if you want to break the contract and get out. A person living in a house belonging to their partner does not automatically acquire an interest in that property, no matter how long they have lived together; yet as soon as that person gets married, even if they are married for a short period of time, the period of cohabitation and marriage can give rise to a claim for capital and a share in the house. Marriage gives rise to claims against income, business interests, pensions, capital and property.

To support the contention that marriage is becoming something of a business arrangement, there is the increasing weight that is being given to prenuptial agreements to dictate what should happen when it breaks down. These agreements are not automatically binding on a court. People in favour say it gives greater certainty, less scope for argument, fewer legal costs. However in all fairness the motivations and emotions of both parties before they marry will likely be different to those experienced if the relationship and trust breaks down. A legal process that is just black and white can be exploited, can lead to unfair outcomes and can prejudice the vulnerable party, who invariably will be the one with fewer assets who we should be worried about when a marriage breaks down.

It is a certainty that very few people get married expecting to be divorced. Doubtless there are some who will seize the opportunity to marry if it brings them greater financial security. However this statistic does give rise to another, bigger question: if so many of us are getting divorced after 11 years, what can we do to fix this?

Julian Hawkhead is the Head of the Domestic Family Law Department at Stowe Family Law. Specialising in cases involving complex financial arrangements for high net worth clients, often with a corporate or business element, Julian is becoming known as a leader in the field.

Julian has also trained as a collaborative lawyer through Resolution, the family solicitors group, and has successfully dealt with multi-million pound cases on that basis.

Newspapers reported that the judgment in this case was academic, because the parties had already reached a further financial compromise before the ruling in the Court of Appeal was made. In fact, I believe the judgment has important implications for all parties and their lawyers. This is because the safety net to set aside court orders has all but been removed. Although it is not my practice to comment publicly on my clients’ cases, I intend to make an exception referring only to facts which are in the public domain. I would stress that the advice and client examples I give thereafter are not connected with that case.

However, I am pleased to say that Julian Hawkhead, Head of the Domestic Family Law Department at our Yorkshire family law firm represented Mrs Walkden and was able to assist her to reach the financial compromise in advance of the Court of Appeal’s ruling. The details of the case are as follows:

• Martin and Kim Walkden divorced in 2006. The husband’s timber company was valued, and split 58:42 in his favour. Mrs Walkden received a fixed settlement of around £482,000 and ongoing maintenance of £1,100 a month. Case closed? Not quite.
• Less than three months after the divorce settlement was finalised, the husband’s company was sold for more than £3,700,000 – an amount that far exceeded the original valuation. In effect, that 58:42 split became 82:18.
• The county court gave Kim Walkden permission to return to court to seek an increased settlement, on the basis that a “new event” had occurred.
• In the judgment handed down, the court set out the law in great detail, leaving no-one in any doubt about their views. Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Wall and Lord Justice Elias found that Mr Walkden was not obliged to make additional provision for his former wife and child.

In such a case, the first question to be asked is whether an agreement has been rendered invalid by misrepresentation, mistake, breach of duty of full frank and clear disclosure, fraud or undue influence. If that cannot be established, then under Barder principles, a supervening event may have occurred to wholly frustrate the agreement. However, such an event will be very rare indeed, and certainly not because of the unexpected – but even so, not unforeseeable- increase or decrease in asset valuation from the original, no matter how starkly different the value may be.

Lord Justice Wall also added another obstacle to overcome: the legal advice given not to enter into the agreement, citing the leading case of Edgar v Edgar. He added that while he did not wish parties to be deterred from entering into an agreement, any such settlement “if properly arrived at is likely to be binding and the opportunities to unravel it will be limited in the extreme.”

There we have it, loud and clear, from the Court of Appeal. Don’t rely on Barder. You cannot return to court easily or at all. You certainly can’t complain if assets turn out to be worth far more or far less than you think. This latest, stark judgment is one that all family law practitioners should read. Their Lordships have now set the bar so high, it is almost impossible to set aside a Court order for any reason, let alone where an order has been made by consent on the basis of values that are subsequently subject to dramatic alteration.

Let’s move away from the Walkden case, and look at some practical ideas. Clients: if you are currently in negotiations, what can you do to help ensure that your situation is properly and fairly resolved?

Firstly, you mustn’t close your mind to sound advice in order to do the deal “your way”. You may regret it. Countless times new clients have said to me, having had time to reflect on their actions, “I wish I had seen you first” or, when there is nothing more that can be done, “I wish I had listened”. Remember: you get one chance only. Your decision will affect you for the rest of your life. Please don’t blow it!

Stay commercial. Don’t let your emotions run away with you. You may be “king of the castle” elsewhere, but this does not- repeat not- make you a clued-up divorce lawyer, forensic accountant or commercial valuer.

I always insist on full disclosure, which is given by court-sanctioned documentation and is sworn on oath to be true. If there is anything in the documentation that looks fudged, or odd, or ignored, it needs to be clarified. Documentation needs to be considered objectively. You can still play an important role, even you are commercially unaware. For example, you should think hard about any comments made in passing about the business.

Is it going to be sold? Is it going to be floated? What are the long-term intentions?

Has the other party talked about buying somewhere abroad?

Has the other party been to see solicitors other than divorce lawyers? Why? What is that party’s long term plan?

Ask yourself these commercial questions – and keep asking them. Write down things you remember. Then let your lawyers and other professionals get on with the job of analysing the information, asking the questions that will protect you and valuing the assets. Once, a client of mine found a phone bill in the house. She analysed it. One number kept coming up – incredibly, it led to a trail of undisclosed companies located around the world. Of course, that husband could not have got away with non-disclosure, even with this latest judgment, but it is an example of how sometimes clients can still, legally, help.

Always attempt to analyse the possible risk to each of the assets in the case in advance. Clients and advisers should deal with those risks accordingly, remembering the general rule that assets should be revalued and disclosure must be given fully, frankly and clearly up until the date of settlement. I don’t understand why clients often don’t want to value assets, preferring instead to rely upon what their spouse is telling them – or worse, what they themselves consider of the asset to be. If the opportunity to value is lost, the spouse could stand to do very well at the other party’s expense. Are those assets likely to increase or decrease or if currently illiquid, be sold on? What is really intended for them once the divorce is out of the way?

If you are paying for advice, take it. If your advisers recommend a professional valuation from qualified valuers, they are doing so in your interests. Please obtain one. Consider this. Your spouse gives you a valuation to read of his company, prepared by his accountants. It looks ok to you. He offers you half of this figure. You accept and breathe a sigh of relief that everything is agreed so easily. However, do you know that there are several different ways of valuing a business? Is the correct method adopted here?  Do you know that properties may be included at values years out of date? Do you know that sometimes business interests are discounted by a significant percentage, when a discount may not be applied by the court at all?

You didn’t know?! Exactly!

If you still refuse to agree to a valuation, and your advisers produce letters for you to sign, indemnifying and absolving them from any liability in the event that things go pear-shaped for you, please, start worrying. Clearly your advisers are so concerned about your steadfast decisions, they naturally want to protect themselves in case you decide to sue them in the future.

Where assets may be “subject to swing” e.g. if liable to decrease, arguments could be advanced to discount their value in negotiations and thus lower a potential pay out. Similarly, when assets may be liable to increase, arguments could be advanced to increase the pay out in the event of certain events arising.

(Note that arguments could also be applied to pensions, if the parties are young and have to live to pension age to make use of their pensions. Should their value be discounted against assets which are immediately available?)

How does this work in practice?

One of my clients entered into a maintenance agreement pending a sale of a property. She preferred this to a clean break and a larger capital sum. Indeed, she has profited by this arrangement; she knew that the property would stick on the market.

Another client was invited to choose between a fixed sum or a percentage amount from the sale of a property. This was before the recession. She chose the fixed sum, which seemed risky at the time. In fact it has now netted her a substantially greater sum, as the sale price of the property has now been vastly reduced – to her former husband’s horror.

Yet another client was faced with a balance sheet analysis. This down valued her husband’s company, which was involved in a hefty law suit. The client accepted a partially deferred payout which could increase her share, once the outcome of the litigation is known.

The point is that potentially risk in divorce is substantial, and risk shouldn’t be ignored. Not every client will take good advice about asset values, and how they may be protected in relation to risk. Some clients want to settle fast with as little expense as possible, because they want an end to the proceedings. They want to get on with their lives. They think they know best.  But those decisions frequently come back to haunt them down the line when emotions have settled and they may be thinking more clearly.

Now that the “Barder” safety net has been all but removed by the Court of Appeal, clients must make a concerted effort to face up to the risks in their cases and take the best advice they can get. This principle applies no matter how clever, how unwilling, how amicable, how pressured, how stressed they may feel - and no matter how much they wish to get the case over and done with on their terms.

Image credit: ArtemFinland.

In Lady Worsley’s time, divorce was a privilege of the wealthy.

I recently came across an interesting article in the BBC History Magazine about an infamous 18^th Century divorce. It brought to mind the recent news about the lady in Dubai who has been imprisoned for committing adultery and may never see her children again once she is deported from that country, I wondered to what extent progress has been made.

The case in question concerned Sir Richard Worsley and his wife, Lady Seymour Dorothy Worsley. The year was 1781 and Lady Worsley had eloped with her lover Captain George Bisset, leaving for the big smoke and staying at the Royal Hotel on Pall Mall. The affair, colourfully described in Hallie Rubenhold’s book Lady Worsley’s Whim, led to her husband’s instigation divorce proceedings.

Back in the 18^th Century, divorce was a privilege of the wealthy, as it was only the wealthy who could afford the expense. Proceedings could only be brought by the husband. He could obtain a divorce through an Act of Parliament, which was an embarrassing rummage through the history of the marriage by his peers (imagine the scandal and gossip!) who would then agree that the marriage should be dissolved. An alternative option was to go to the religious ecclesiastical court to obtain a “separation from bed and board”, which ended the husband’s financial responsibilities towards his wife but left the couple in a “half-life” of still being married.

Sir Richard Worsley made an intriguing claim that related to a charge of “criminal conversation”. The charge was brought by Sir Richard against Captain Bisset for compensation, for damages to Sir Richard’s property. The “property” in question? His wife.

The religious laws against adultery – and perhaps these are still echoed in the law of Dubai – had been relaxed in the late 17^th Century. This meant that other ways of seeking recompense could be sought. Sir Richard also alleged that Captain Bisset had committed the civil offence of trespass and damaged his wife’s chastity. He sought £20,000 in damages – the equivalent of £25.4 million today.

Reading about the case, I fell to thinking about the state of our current law and how the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973 has given the Court wide powers to exercise its discretion and deal with assets in a “fair” manner. The Court looks at a whole range of factors, prioritising the needs of any children, but looking at every factor in a balanced way. It was only as a result of successful campaigning for wives’ rights that in the early 19^th Century, the first Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 recognised women as individuals with rights separate from those of their husbands.

Even now, no law is perfect. The current requirement for parties to wait for two years to avoid a “fault based” divorce is too long, in my opinion. At the same time there is an awful lot to be said for our English system, which steers away from black and white and from formulaic outcomes. Instead, it attempts to provide fair outcomes in differing circumstances. Hard rules can lead to unfair outcomes: the lady in Dubai has claimed that she was set up by her husband, who aimed to take custody of the children from her and have her thrown out of the country.

Back in the 1780s, the unfortunate Lady Worsley became the object of a terrible dispute. Captain Bisset defended the charges brought against him by claiming that Lady Worsley was simply not worth £20,000. In fact, he said, she was worth nothing! He alleged that Sir Richard had actively promoted Lady Worsley’s liaisons – not only with Captain Bisset but also with move than twenty other men during the couple’s six years of marriage.

In effect, Captain Bisset argued that the damage had already been done. The Court agreed with him – and the compensation awarded to Sir Richard was a meagre shilling.

You probably read a great deal about Sir Paul Mcartney’s divorce last year. Imagine reading about Lord and Lady in your Sunday newspaper!

Julian Hawkhead is the Head of the Domestic Family Law Department at Stowe Family Law. Specialising in cases involving complex financial arrangements for high net worth clients, often with a corporate or business element, Julian is becoming known as a leader in the field.

Julian has also trained as a collaborative lawyer through Resolution, the family solicitors group, and has successfully dealt with multi-million pound cases on that basis.

So do I think New Year will bring an immediate divorce for couples whose relationship is going through a bad patch?

I don’t think so.

I agree that family tensions are ratcheted up during the Christmas period, because few families (especially wives) welcome all the extra work involved in preparing to entertain the family and the in laws for a day or more. The washing up afterwards is enough to cope with, let alone the food preparation beforehand and the thought of credit card bills still to come. But please remember, divorce, is not something that people enter into lightly and because of one bad day, they decide enough is enough. My clients do not suddenly decide to split from their partners because they have had a row about their relatives’ behaviour the day before. Instead, a decision to divorce tends to come over a period of time. Maybe though, Xmas can bring home the need to do something about a boring or unhappy marriage – a longing to be with someone else, an inability to face the prospect of years to come wedged fast in the same dull routine with the same person.

Recently a client consulted me about her divorce. She readily acknowledged they had been in a rut. She was comfortable in it, but he was definitely not and had found someone else. She felt deeply sorry she had  taken him and his pay packet for granted and not done more to try and understand his needs rather than blame him for sulking and having moods. Objectively people would probably sympathise more with her than her husband who had left her, but I think she was probably right. There is no such thing as a ‘totally’ bad spouse and a ‘totally’ good spouse.

Whilst married life can be pleasant to some, to others it is daily boredom and frustration and it is exacerbated by the increased pressures of Xmas, and the need to put on an act that all is well.  Perhaps to such couples under pressure, a mutual recognition of the other’s needs, and a decision to face the New Year with a mutual understanding of the other’s needs, is needed.

PS I think Xmas and New Year is a wonderful time of the year. It’s cold outside to go running, and then toasty warm inside the house. I love to watch “Love Actually” over and over on the DVD, eat hot mince pies and drink a glass (or two) of wine;- all while flopping on the settee in a pair of comfy pyjamas;- my idea of sheer bliss!

Merry Xmas and a very happy, healthy and peaceful New Year.

I have been profiled in the latest issue of Yorkshire Today magazine.

The full interview is after the jump.

A LAW UNTO HERSELF

Marilyn Stowe is one of the most renowned female lawyers in the country. Her pro-bono work on high profile cases such as Sally Clark – the woman falsely accused of murdering her two baby sons – has earned her a formidable reputation. Yorkshire Today met with the Yorkshire woman to see what makes her tick.

• I’d like to begin with how you got started in law. Was it something you always aspired to do from an early age? And how did your career develop.

At Leeds Girls High School I used to enjoy English and acting in school plays. We had to learn Shakespeare by heart every week which I liked. It tremendously developed my memory. And I particularly liked being Portia in the Merchant of Venice, so I decided I wanted to be a lawyer! I graduated in the top tier at Leeds University then went to teach English law at a French University in France thereafter qualifying as a solicitor. I initially handled a lot of commercial cases. When my son, Ben was born I had to ease up a bit. At the same time, commercial clients started asking me to handle divorce work. It was an excellent move – I found divorce was far more interesting than commercial law, because it centred on working with people.

• Your family law practice is 25 years old this winter, did you always believe it would be so successful? And why do you think it has been so successful?

I never expected that Stowe Family Law LLP (formerly Grahame Stowe Bateson (Private Client) Family Law Unit) would become as successful and high-profile as it has. When I started out in business in 1982, female company directors were a novelty in Yorkshire. Launching my practice meant taking out a second mortgage on our home and a bank loan – which resulted in “pre-emptive” action from a cynical and incredulous bank manager. He made weekly inspection visits to my East Leeds office, based in a converted cobbler’s shop, to scrutinise every detail of how I ran my firm.

I attribute the firm’s achievements to self-belief, determination and always going the extra mile. I am extremely discerning when it comes to recruitment – to ensure that Stowe Family Law LLP attracts the top talent. One of our lawyers, Julian Hawkhead, is among the UK’s leading specialists in “collaborative divorce”: a new method of resolving divorce matters that has already attracted a great deal of positive attention. Other lawyers such as Frank Arndt specialise in international cases and our specialist forensic accountancy unit headed by Nick White is expert at tracking down spouses’ concealed assets which range from secret bank accounts to entire property portfolios! Christine McVeigh and Judith Routledge are very experienced top women lawyers – we have a professional team of 20 and I’m very proud and confident in them all. Many of our clients are Yorkshire-based, but others come from all over the world; our expansive range of top-flight legal expertise is all-important.

• What prompted you to set up in Yorkshire and not London?

I am a Yorkshire lass through and through. It is a dynamic environment, which is currently enjoying a period of renewed prosperity. In my opinion, Yorkshire is also the most beautiful region in the UK. Why leave?

• Probably your most high profile case has been that of Sally Clark. Can you explain how you become to be involved in this case, what it meant to be involved and also how it felt when the case was finally quashed (also how you felt when Sally passed away in March this year).

I have always been committed to pro-bono work. In fact, I met my husband in 1981 when he and I were both doing voluntary work at Chapeltown CAB and I still take on pro bono cases where the client has hit a brick wall and I feel my legal expertise can extricate people out of a crisis.

With this particular case, I felt very strongly as a mother that something was horribly wrong. I have had friends who had experience of cot death, and what I had heard about Sally Clark’s case coupled with that implausible cot death statistic just didn’t add up. On an impulse, I wrote to Sally Clark’s website offering to help. I obtained from a hospital in Macclesfield, where Sally Clark’s sons were taken after they died, a large file of documents relating to their deaths. A pathology report from that file, which indicated that one of the boys had died of a viral infection, had not been produced at Sally Clark’s trial or appeal. Her own lawyers had not been able to obtain that information.

I was thrilled when Sally Clark was released, and very proud when she thanked me from the steps of the Court of Appeal. I was also deeply saddened to learn of her death. It came as a great shock.

• I imagine the world of law can be a very male dominated one, would you agree and have you ever come across any prejudice?

When I founded my law practice, we had already witnessed the introduction of equal pay, anti-discrimination legislation and the election of Margaret Thatcher as our first female prime minister. Even so, women still had to behave like macho men if they wanted to be taken seriously. There were 2 categories of professional men; – the paternal types who made it clear that they regarded females as players rather than competitors. The second category comprised the downright rude: I was called a “bitch” on more than one occasion. Thankfully, such behaviour is now (almost!) unthinkable.

When Ben was born, there was still a stigma attached to working mothers, and nursery facilities were few and far between. Notching up 100-hour weeks, I often had to bring my son into work in a carrycot and was derided by many who said I should have stayed at home with him. Juggling everything was a constant challenge: mentally and logistically. Whenever a client arrived for an appointment, a member of my staff would have to bundle the carrycot outside and take my baby for a walk. Fortunately, attitudes to businesswomen and working mothers have improved dramatically.

• And finally, what would you put your success down to?

I am a true Taurean so I think one of my strengths is tenacity. Once I have something I won’t let go if I think I’m right. I will go the extra mile and spend hours at work and at home thinking my way round a case, not just in a straight line. Once a client paid me a huge compliment and said “May I say you have a fabulous…… brain!” and I laughed. I am still able to remain detached and my style enables people to move forward, leave the trauma behind – and see divorce as a new beginning.

Clients do want straight-up advice and they want to win. That is why they are paying their fees. I am a Yorkshire person and a straight-talker who helps them through the process. The reputation of our practice speaks for itself: we constantly deliver and we are one of the biggest firms of our kind throughout the UK.

My level of commitment to the business does mean sometimes my brain acts like a computer, backing up in the middle of the night.

I have often woken up and had a thought which solves a case that has been puzzling me. In one case at 3am I realised there must be a dual company and non disclosed partnership being run together – and I was right. Once I started an injunction in the middle of the night, when I realised what was happening within a particular case that had not been disclosed to me. I had until nine o’clock the next morning to secure the injunction. In the end, I got a judge on the phone and sorted it by half past seven with an hour-and-a-half to spare! The solicitors on the other side paid all my costs.

When I really do want to leave it all behind I go distance running – it clears my head and relaxes and energises me and Yorkshire is the perfect place for running.