Marriage-lite
âI hear the Supreme Court may be about to legalise pre-nuptial agreements very soon,â said TheBusker in the clerks room earlier today.
âShame they werenât around for my first two divorces,â said OldSmoothie.
âOr mine,â chorused another five or six lawyers in tandem.
TheBusker smiled. âSeems to me that one of the sectors of society that has come off worst from their not being recognised is fat cat lawyers.â
âOf course, that wouldnât influence the Supreme Courtâs reasoning in any way, now would it,â said BusyBody sarcastically.
âOf course not,â said UpTights, backing her up.
OldRuin entered the room as the conversation was going on and added wistfully: âYou know, in my day the only pre-nuptial agreement weâd ever want to make were, er, how shall I put it?â He paused before continuing, âA little more romantic.â
In the meantime, HeadClerk was starting to look impatient. âWe donât 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 marriage-lite.com. Weâre about to be the worldâs leading experts on stitching up your fiancĂŠe dot com.
For more on this story visit guardian.co.uk. Follow me on Facebook and Twitter or leave a comment below.
June 10, 2010
¡ Tim Kevan ¡ 3 Comments
Posted in: Uncategorized
3 Responses
John Bolch - June 10, 2010
Looking forward to receiving the press release!
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]
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.