Criticism towards an intended reform of family legislation, which aims to see an increased number of divorce cases trialed in the District Court, appears rather self-centred when voiced by individuals in the legislation sector. The proposed amendment is a part of a broader endeavour to overhaul family law services, introducing family divisions within the High Court, Circuit Court, and District Court. This is engineered to produce a more streamlined and approachable system.
The ambition is to delegate non-disputed family law issues to the adjudication of the District Court as a way of reducing expenditure for those involved in the proceedings. This holds true for divorce cases where assets don’t exceed €1 million; these adjustments are mainly geared towards hastening cases where an agreement has already been reached by the conflicting parties over the terms of their separation or divorce.
The influence of legal charges on solicitor’s fees and any argument against the suggested reforms put forth by the legal sector needs to be observed from this perspective. The protraction of court cases in higher legal bodies results in an increase in their fees.
Hence, it’s not startling to find that The Bar of Ireland, that acts on behalf of barristers, unified with the Family Lawyers Association, has taken the step to urge the Government to annul this clause of the Family Courts Bill 2002, which is currently under review in Oireachtas. Their assertion that the District Court is over-encumbered seems to ignore the resources that the Government means to allocate to the new family courts, but a healthy measure of scepticism could be justified here.
Furthermore, the claim that the District Court’s summary nature is inappropriate for the delicate discussions that mould divorce and separation cases seems to misconstrue the goal. The idea is that the District Court will preside over modest settlements that have been mutually agreed upon, decreasing the respective parties’ stress and costs.
There is the likelihood of initial issues, but the legal community should feel obligated to adjust to the required changes to support those they assert to protect, as opposed to resisting them.