Promoting the Ethos

ResolutionBack to the serious stuff. Resolution, the association of family lawyers, has announced a proposal that will, if implemented, substantially change the process of applying for membership, and is also tackling the issue of "adherence to the ethos and aims of the organisation".

Up until now prospective members of Resolution have had to be nominated by two existing members and recommended by the relevant regional committee. However, there have been concerns that some potential members have difficulty securing two nominations, for example those from minority groups and young solicitors. The regional committee review has also been challenged as "a closed shop which is capable of serving the business interests of those sitting on the committee". Accordingly, it is proposed that both requirements will be dispensed with, and replaced by a new requirement that applicants display a greater knowledge of Resolution's Code of Practice, by having to attend a course on the Code during their first year of membership.

Adherence to the Code by Resolution members has always been a thorny issue. What do you do if you feel that a fellow member is not adhering to the Code? The Code itself is being revised to make it shorter and to emphasise the approach to be taken by members to their work, thereby making it easier for members to identify what is required of themselves and their colleagues. In addition, members are being encouraged to discuss with other members why a particular communication from them could be construed as offending a particular paragraph of the Code, with the aim of resolving the issue by discussion. In this way, it is hoped that the complaints and disciplinary process will only be used as a remedy of last resort.

Personally, I'm in favour of anything that increases membership and promotes the constructive, non-confrontational ethos of the association. Unfortunately, much work remains to be done to dispel the public's perception of family lawyers as self-serving people who only make matters worse.


  1. Family lawyers are self serving parasites making money out of the break up of families. Each child should have a committee, not unlike the old concept of God Parents, made up of representatives of each side of the family. For 99% of children this committee would never meet, for the children unfortunate enough to be in the middle of an unpleasant divorce the comittee would meet and the commitee would decide what is best for the child and parents. The comittee would comprise of medical professionals including child psychologists, and would represent parents and grand parents.

    The decision of the committee would be final. No need for greedy £185 per hour, family lawyers at all.

  2. Thank you for your comment, which proves the last last sentence of my post perfectly. You are not the first to suggest that arrangements for children upon the separation of their parents be dealt with outside of the courts system, but your idea has some flaws: family members are notoriously biased (often their intervention makes agreement far less likely), and who would pay for the services of the professional committee members?


Post a comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.