Divorce case: Neither side covered themselves in glory, says judge
A judge has condemned the “utter incompetence” of a law firm that claimed it had instructions to represent the husband in a financial remedy case when it did not.
West London firm Ash Solicitors also told the court that the husband lacked capacity, a statement for which it had no evidence.
“I do not mean to suggest that the court was misled deliberately, or that Ash Solicitors had anything to gain from their behaviour,” said Deputy District Judge Hales [1]. “But it betrays carelessness, ignorance of the rules and, it is not too strong to say, utter incompetence on their behalf.”
DDJ Hales stressed the responsibility shouldered by lawyers in family cases, and to the public purse where they were legally aided. “Sadly, in this case I have found that the legal profession has fallen very far short of the required standard.”
In what the judge described as “straightforward” proceedings, Mrs Pool was essentially seeking the transfer of a tenancy into her sole name after a 20-year marriage.
She petitioned for divorce in 2024 and in March 2025 the parties agreed the transfer. Mr Pool instructed Ash Solicitors to prepare a consent order but Mrs Pool decided that she wanted to exchange financial disclosure before agreeing to a dismissal of claims.
She instructed MacKenzie & Co, which issued these proceedings last October.
Ash initially indicated that Mr Pool was prepared to transfer the tenancy but, by mid-November, said it was without instructions, save that he had said he was sick.
“That appears to have been the last time the heard from him,” HHJ Hales said. “He is rumoured now to be in the Seychelles, and he has filed no documents and taken no part in these proceedings.”
Nonetheless, Ash Solicitors went on the record for Mr Pool shortly before the first directions appointment in February and filed a position statement that described it as “common knowledge” that he suffered from mental health problems and was not fit to participate in the proceedings.
The judge at the hearing adjourned it and ordered a medical report on his capacity be prepared, as well as that Ash Solicitors file a statement explaining their conduct. The adjourned hearing would also consider a wasted costs order.
The statement was filed and the person who wrote it attended the hearing but it turned out she was a solicitor apprentice. HHJ Hales said he was surprised the firm had not sent a partner and adjourned the hearing briefly to see whether a partner in the firm could be located.
Veronica Lartey, listed online as the firm’s sole owner, attended and the judge discovered from her that Ash Solicitors had no instructions to go on the record for Mr Pool.
Ms Lartey accepted that the firm had no evidence on which to base the statement about Mr Pool’s capacity. It was based on an assumption made that a social worker at a hospital who contacted the firm to discuss Mr Pool’s housing situation was connected to the hospital’s mental health team.
“She could offer no explanation for this error,” HHJ Hales recorded.
Ash Solicitors had also forwarded the remote link to the hearing to the social worker without the court’s permission or telling the other side.
“It is an understatement to say that I find this conduct utterly extraordinary,” HHJ Hales said, going on to describe the “utter incompetence” on display.
He added that it appeared these were all the apprentice’s actions. “If that is the case, it is a further poor reflection on the firm, as it betrays their failure to ensure proper and competent supervision of non-admitted staff.”
The judge also had criticism for MacKenzie & Co, after its failure to file and serve an N260 meant Mrs Pool had to withdraw her application for a wasted costs order.
“That failure is likely to lead to a direct cost to Mrs Pool, and I would hope that her solicitors will take the necessary steps to ensure the relevant cost burden is undertaken by them rather than by her.”
Further, MacKenzie & Co exhibited to her statement what appeared to be the entire pleadings from Family Law Act proceedings between the parties, without permission from the court where they took place or an order from this court.
“None of the legal professionals in this case has covered themselves with glory,” HHJ Hales observed.
He concluded: “It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to publish a judgment including such criticism of members of the legal profession. I would hope that this judgment leads to those involved reflecting upon their conduct, seeking further training or guidance, and ensuring that their clients receive a significantly improved level of service in the future.
“Parties to family proceedings, many of whom are spending money they can ill afford, deserve no less from the legal professionals involved. The competent conduct of legal proceedings is not negotiable.”