“I hear the Supreme Court may be about to legalise pre-nuptial agreements very soon,” said TheBusker in the clerks room earlier today.
“Shame they weren’t around for my first two divorces,” said OldSmoothie.
“Or mine,” chorused another five or six lawyers in tandem.
TheBusker smiled. “Seems to me that one of the sectors of society that has come off worst from their not being recognised is fat cat lawyers.”
“Of course, that wouldn’t influence the Supreme Court’s reasoning in any way, now would it,” said BusyBody sarcastically.
“Of course not,” said UpTights, backing her up.
OldRuin entered the room as the conversation was going on and added wistfully: “You know, in my day the only pre-nuptial agreement we’d ever want to make were, er, how shall I put it?” He paused before continuing, “A little more romantic.”
In the meantime, HeadClerk was starting to look impatient. “We don’t have time to stand around talking. If a court is going to invent a whole new area of practice then I want you all out there drumming up business. Radio, TV, newspapers, you name it. Oh and someone go and set up the website We’re about to be the world’s leading experts on stitching up your fiancée dot com.

For more on this story visit Follow me on Facebook and Twitter or leave a comment below.

June 10, 2010 · Tim Kevan · 3 Comments
Posted in: Uncategorized

3 Responses

  1. John Bolch - June 10, 2010

    Looking forward to receiving the press release!

  2. Michael Robinson - June 10, 2010

    This story, from the Times, could almost come directly from this Blog — have chambers been reading BabyBarista for business development ideas?

    Barristers turn brokers as credit crunch hits divorce… [content and link deleted]

  3. Nicholas Shackel - June 11, 2010

    You’ve got it completely back to front. The legal profession makes a fortune out of contested divorces, the murkier the better. That is part of the explanationf for why we have pre-nuptial contracts that lack the force of law–more to argue about in court. What is notable about the case referred to is the anti-male sexism of changing the law in a way that applies retrospectively for this case. The court has ignored pre-nuptial agreements that stop the wife getting a fortune, but now changes the law to stop this husband getting a fortune. Ludicrous and contemptible.