I recently ran a very bitterly contested family law case and while my client was not the easiest client to represent, the barrister on the other side was the most unpleasant, confrontational, vindictive professional person I have ever come across in my years in family law.

There was never the remotest possibility that this case was going to settle amicably while this person was making the decisions on the other side.

The situation was made all the worse because I was actually quite impressed by the barrister’s client, who came across to me as a fairly reasonable individual.

In my view the barrister did her client no favours. A case that should have been settled in a matter of months ended up taking three years to come to a conclusion and I am quite convinced that this case was prolonged unnecessarily and tensions were increased quite extraordinarily, all down to the ‘never give an inch’ ‘fight every single tiny aspect of this case to the very end’ attitude of the barrister on the other side. And this was not an argument just about money. This was a case involving young children as well as property.

Unfortunately, in my experience this particular barrister is not on her own. Most of them I am happy to say are exceptionally competent and fair and reasonable to deal with. However…..

Here’s an idea. If a man can be barred from his home for years on end because he is aggressive, vindictive and at times threatening, why can’t a barrister be barred from a courtroom for exhibiting the exact same traits particularly when children and vulnerable adults can be permanently damaged as a result of their actions?

Kevin Brophy
Brophy Solicitors