Well nothing is 100% when humans are involved mistakes do happen but yes the law firm needs to “eat “ the costs and hold accountable the people who messed up but really mistakes do occur in all walks of life
I am not sure how they handle their housekeeping in the United Kingdom, regarding case assessments and avenues of litigation. To prevent these mistakes, we have Legal Assistants and Para-Legals perform an Intake Assessment that grabs the basics and what type of litigation they are seeking. The new intakes are assessed, an appointment is made for a Face-to-Face assessment with one of our counselors, contracts are reviewed, signed and the litigation process starts. Thats the Readers Digest version of the process. Something here went horribly wrong. Their file may have been mis-routed and the Para-Legal filling out the form/motion pack must have been on auto-pilot and just hit send without a preview by a department litigator/solicitor for approval. Our BAR Cards are on the line with any mistake and this would be a big one. Consequences like probation or Dis-BAR. Heads will roll for sure!
could be funny aswell. he tells her: honey, we are divorced, now leave my house. and she can sue the lawyer for spoiling the negotiations. maybe he is now on the hook for the damages? and the damages are the potential alimony payments she would have gotten from him.
@@QALibrary That doesn't make sense. How can one half of a party be unlinked from the party when the other half is still linked to the party if they party doesn't exist? LOL what?
"I want to be un-divorced so I can have a better divorce settlement," It sounds like there are going to be serious finanical consequences for that solicitor, hope she's got good insurance.
@@kennethwiggins4396They already wanted to get divorced, that’s why their file existed. The problem is that they didn’t go through proper procedures and they didn’t divide up their property properly. So now the breadwinner in the divorce gets off scott free because the divorce was granted. And the wife is not happy with that.
@@kennethwiggins4396 They had already filed for divorce, which is why they were in system to begin with. The issue is that the divorce was finalised without a settlement, which it seems has left the wife with nothing. As tempting as it is to be glib being suddenly left with nothing is potentially life ruining. If the courts refuse to reverse the filing or otherwise intervene I can see this ending very badly for the law firm, especially since they've admitted on record that they made the error. It's hard to come back from that.
The problem is the bread winner has the money so the person left with nothing will need to file suit against a law firm. How probable do you think that would be? I guess she might be able to get a good lawyer on contingency since she will either get nothing or what she feels is her share but if the husband is the one that retained the lawyer and she didn't pay for the lawyer can she file against the lawyer. Idk how it works over there but I'm the US usually each side gets their own lawyer so the fact that one law firm handled both sides and one person was paying and that was the side that came out on top seems suspicious
There is also no need. This is a good judge who isn't going to let a lawyer avoid accountability by ignoring the law. If his ex-wife was hurt by her lawyer, she can sue the law firm for damages.
The reason they don't want it finalised is because in the UK solicitors hold you over a barrel until you reach a financial agreement often stretching things out until you capitulate, and agree to their demands. They just handed some Chap a get out of jail free card.
@@Ohdubbs Nah, this couple was divorcing too. The firm was representing the wife. Problem was, the financial stuff had not been agreed on yet, and they basically gave the husband the best terms he could hope for with this 'accident'. Not only did the wife not get anything but the assets that were already hers, but the lawyers also screwed themselves out of stretching out the case and getting way more billable hours.
@@martenkahr3365 good she doesn't deserve any of his stuff. Useless women get bored and then divorce and take half of everything the man has worked to build. Oh no, the gold digger can't take from him
1: Sounds like that ex-husband is happy with the situation. Wonder what kind of deal this caused him to get. 2: Sounds like the woman will have quite the case against her lawyers.
Well, maybe the husband only then discovered that his wife had hired a law firm for divorce counseling. That is enough to make him say: ‘you wanted a divorce? You got it and leave it at that.’
@@joshuahudson2170 You are responsible in Canada for filing a divorce with matrimonial property, in Canada. If you just file a divorce and the order is granted, that is on you. Since Canada follows UK law principles, it is likely that something similar is going on there. If you are the former husband, you should not entertain any idea of settlements.
My divorce was so amicable, we celebrated with a dinner date. No intention of getting remarried, ever, but we did remain very good friends all his life. Yes, it does happen.
@@ChelleLlewes Mine was so amicable I made the cake for her and her new husband's wedding. Gluten free carrot cake with cream cheese frosting, and it was damn good. I now make it once a year to celebrate being single.
My divorce took 5 minutes. My attorney walked in, looked around, went into the Judge's chamber and was back in no time telling me I got everything and she got nothing. Most likely because SHE DIDN'T SHOW UP!
It's far far worse than that. If a divorce was finalized without addressing property disputes and structuring a resolution, It's a huge problem. In a case like this where they're multi-millionaires, the wife could have been to stay at home mom legally entitled to 50% of assets, alimony, etc and instead she's left homeless by this attorney's actions.
I did not realize until the end of the video that only one member of the divorced couple wanted the divorce set aside. Having one person want the divorce makes more sense
Both wanted the divorce. The problem is, one wanted a better deal. Get divorced in my county and you are a male, expect to lose everything. When lawyers tell you , you don't state a chance in this county because you are a male, you might suspect there is something wrong with the system.
@@CraigGrant-sh3in Oh yeah, I know, it's messed up. It sounds like the husband in this case actually got a good result from this. So it makes sense that the court won't just reverse it; if both of them didn't want the divorce finalized yet, it would make no sense for the court not to void it
Will they do that though? Aren't all attorneys friends? I tried looking into malpractice, and it seemed like only another attorney could say a different attorney committed malpractice
@@recoveringsoul755as far as the divorce court is concerned whatever her attornet said is what she wanted. That doesnt mean that attorney gets to do whatever he wants with the power granted it just means its not the divorce courts problem but she can definitely sue her attorney for misrepresenting her
@@olorin3815 having been through 6-7 lawyers and NONE of them doing the 3 things I asked them to, I don't believe they do what the client wants My experience is vastly different.
Another quote from the Judge (via the Evening Standard report on the story): “Like many similar online processes, an operator may only get to the final screen where the final click of the mouse is made after travelling through a series of earlier screens”- it wasn't just clicking a button accidentally.
I bet that husband is happy because the other couple were getting a simple uncontested quick divorce, and him and the ex-wife were in a contested divorce. A simple divorce usually comes with no spousal support of any kind for either party.
Thanks for not blaming the computer. As a retired computer programmer, it annoys me to have people speak as if the computer acted of its own accord. If somebody entered the wrong value or clicked the wrong button, it's a human error. (Computer logic errors are a different story. I spent my career finding and fixing those.)
When I studied programming back in the 80’s our teacher drummed into us that programs should be IP (idiot proof) 😅 meaning to make as many checks as possible on human inputs so to minimize possibility of mistakes.
@@pansepot1490 I often said that it's not fully tested until it's user tested. I once fixed an online program where a user managed to get a weird special character past the edits.
@@pansepot1490We called that monkey proof and I had the reputation of being break most any software. 😂 1 day for WordPerfect. 1 week for Word! Yes there were others too, some non commercial. And yes, the systems all crashed!
I'm guessing that the division of assets hadn't been agreed upon yet, and the wife didn't get what she wanted. Sounds like the law firm is getting sued. I don't think the court is being unreasonable here. It's not like refusing to restore someone who was declared dead.
Good on the judge for upholding this. There is no reason why this should be reversed. The law firm has to deal with the fallout and financial damages personally. There is no reason to undo a legal filing by authorized parties to mitigate damages for the law firm.
@@OConnorTnP1 I never filed the wrong documents with a court and then demanded the court undo the ruling I asked them for. The law firm calling this a computer error is laughable. They filed for a final divorce and it was granted. It does not matter if they did it electronically, snail mail, fax, telegraph, or in person. They filed with the court and got what they asked for on behalf of their client who authorized them to file things on their behalf. The UK is not going to undo their legal system to bail out a law firm that committed clear malpractice against their own client. The fact that you cannot find any new info about this means they settled with the woman and had her sign an NDA of some kind. I personally think the attorney whose credentials were used should have had their law license suspended for a few months just to make it clear this was malpractice and not a computer error. The law firm's public statement is an embarrassment to the profession. That public statement makes this law firm look absolutely incompetent. They should have owned their error and paid the woman they screwed over. Had they did that, none of this would have made the news.
Public defender represented a friend of mine in a domestic case. Despite attempting to contact his lawyer repeatedly, he was unable to get in contact with his assigned lawyer before the hearing. My friend was first in line to the courthouse the day of his hearing, made it through the process of metal detectors, etc. only to find out that his lawyer had plead guilty on his behalf, agreed to a fine and probation. He was arrested for restraining his ex-girlfriend. She had broken into his house and attacked him with a spoon. He called 911 and was arrested. When she did it again a few days after his hearing, the same officers showed up. This time, he had held the bedroom door closed with only him shut inside while waiting for the police. The same officers ended up arresting her when she attacked them. The authority his first lawyer had and used ended up resulting in his second lawyer having to file an appeal rather than having an actual hearing.
The lawyer pled guilty on the lawyers behalf. Who signed the guilty plea? The lawyer. 1) When a person ples guilty, they must admit ON THE RECORD to ALL elements of the crime(s) they are pleding guilty to. 2) a person must have full understanding that entering a guilty ple cannot be reversed. If you watch videos of people pleding guilty in court. there's a reason why it takes a while cause the judge and DA have to ensure all of these things happen. your friend did not admit to any crimes on the record and did not sign any statements of such therefore he's not bound by the agreement.
@@briancollins69 That's not how the Court works. If it was filed, it's final. Doesn't matter if it was a mistake or not. Judges have no oversight, courts have no oversight. As this video proved, the Judge has the final say, and their time and money doesn't give a fuck about Constitution, rights, regulations, laws, ethics or anything. They just want the case to be finished and gone. They will destroy you, your life, your money, your family, your country, whatever it takes, to end the case so they can move on.
@@briancollins69 Plea* and Pleading*. To be clear, I am passing no judgement here on the misspelling. Usually, these kinds of corrections are received as an attack, and I do not want that.
What an amazing stroke of luck for the now divorced husband. I love that she hired the "diva of divorce" to get herself the best possible settlement but their negligence resulted in handing it to him instead, saved him a fortune.
I think they were in the proceedings for a long time as person above is saying and husband probably long ago made his stance clear that he wants a divorce so when wife’s attorney sent a request to finalize the divorce as far as court is concerned they figured out their differences on their own and just wanted to finalize the divorce. Its attorneys fault for misrepresenting the client and probably gonna get sued for it
In Michigan Divorce Court, the judge will ask you "would you ever remarry (your former spouse to-be) again?" If you answer yes, the judge has to option to postpone or not grant you the divorce. So, always say "No".
What is the point in legal representation if they cannot act on your behalf? I think some kind of professional sanction is in order here. The biggest problem here is the silly argument from the firm who is not taking responsibility for their filing mistake. If either of their clients were harmed, they will have to sue their lawyers.
@@_PatrickO "What is the point in legal representation if they cannot act on your behalf?" If they fuck up, and make a mistake, or do something without your consent, it's not "On your behalf" anymore, is it? THAT is the biggest issue I have. If everything was done CORRECTLY, and then the Client later decided they wanted to back out and claim the Lawyer went rogue or something. That's 1 thing, cause "At the time" the Lawyer DID have the authority and consent. But when the Lawyer FUCKS UP, when the GOVERNMENT FUCKS UP and goes rogue WITHOUT CONSENT it should NEVER be allowed to stand! Because this ruling, what Steve is stating, is that BAD LAWYERS can SCAM you, and have the Authority to DEFY you and go Rogue, and the Government will GLADLY accept anything. Meaning, the Government can accuse you of Murder, give you a Lawyer, and have the Lawyer enter a Guilty Verdict without ever even talking to you, and the Judge can accept it and it will be LEGALLY BINDING. ^ That is FUCKED UP, that is NOT DUE PROCESS! That is NOT LEGAL REPRESENTATION! It's a MASSIVE Violation of your rights.
@@westonford6774 It defeats the purpose of having a lawyer. If we make it so a client must sign off on every filing or motion, it would be a joke. I don't think you understand the ramification of this "tiny" change. It also drops standards for lawyers and allows them to make serious errors which is not something we should be dropping standards to allow. This divorce was final, it was not a mistake in law or courts, it was lawyer malpractice if one of the clients didn't get what they wanted due to this malpractice. The people both wanted the divorce and paid their lawyers to handle the filings and court hearings. You can ruin your client's chances in court by submitting motions with the wrong fontsize so it gets rejected and you miss a deadline. So why should this mistake of filing the wrong motion be any different? If your lawyer screws you, your beef is with your lawyer who you chose to represent you.
@@_PatrickO Final order is not any motion. The rule shape preventing the lawyers from filing these without signatures yields only one or two motions per case, if that.
No but you can say "Your honour we are happy with a simple divorce and don't want anything more from our ex" on behalf of someone who really ISN'T happy you just said that.
Its not random ppl tho they had a divorce case already going on and she gave her attorney power to represent her - her attorney misrepresented her and thus its the attorney thats liable for whatever damages she suffered. If it was criminal case there might have been mistrial or something but in this case shes just gotta sue the law firm
I once worked at a company with someone in another group with my same first and last name. When he quit, the IT person who was responsible for cancelling his e-mail and computer access, deleted mine instead. (They tried to undo it, but this IT person was quite thorough. I was able to get some things restored, but I lost access to lots of information.) After hearing this story, I suppose I should be thankful my company didn't say that because the IT guy deleted my account, that my job was gone. Steve is just telling us how it is and when he shares an opinion, I usually agree. While I see where he is coming from, I don't agree today.
Absolutely can get everything back and nothibg was deleted . In fact , only access was revoked. So there is no reason why you shouldn't get everything 100% back technically. Now the IT that messed up may tell you otherwise but that's not true.
Difference in ur case is that there is no 3rd party. IT guy works for the company he made the mistake neither you nor the company wanted to end ur employment so it was just reversed. In the divorce case there is 3 parties 2 spouses and the court thats supposed to be impartial, husband wanted the divorce and wife’s attorney filed divorce papers as well court saw things checks out both parties agree and issued the divorce order. Now husband wants to uphold the order while wife wants it voided, problem is as far as court is concerned both parties agreed and the order is final you cant take it back without a very good reason. Still obviously wife got screwed over by her attorneys mistake and she can probably sue the law firm for whatever she was probably gonna get from the divorce
The more important reason to say no to these kind of mistakes is because it opens the door to abuse. Lawyers could claim clerical errors potentially to try to turn back the clock. Try to , in effect, get a mulligan on the divorce proceedings.
Computers don’t make the mistakes there the tool used in the process of the error. Like saying guns, knives and cars kill or cause accidents..the people in control or lack of control make the error.
It's a civil marriage, which is just some arbitrary thing anyway. People should get private marriages that actually honor nuptials that align with their beliefs.
The divorce should stand. If lawyers can simply go back to court and say "Oops, I want a mulligan", then no ruling would ever stand. This would be true whether or not the client had actually agreed to it or not. They could simply change their mind and then claim otherwise.
Perhaps this type of problem is why New Jersey has a process for divorce on the papers but judges require hearings even when both parties wanted otherwise.
As a CPA, this is a great lesson not to allow unqualified people to operate a states website on the professionals behalf. As a CPA, I must, however, point out that it is actually “control alt delete divorce,” and not “alt control delete divorce.” 😂
They'll just dissolve their corporation, open a new one and then can't be held financially responsible. No, really. It's that easy (at least in the US.)
@@jilbertb Lawyers used to be partnerships (no ltd liability) in England, then LLP (limited legal partnerships) were established , mainly for law , accountants and architects , mostly to do with downside risk being too great for any individuals to bear,
@@jilbertb Yeah, but if it’s a large firm, the costs associated with a restart can be hideous. Every case has to be finished or recontracted, every property owned or leased has to be transferred, and partnership agreements include termination clauses… Easier (especially because they are lawyers) to fight the misrepresentation costs.
You missed what is probably the most important issue. If this is resinced, it sets the precedent that anyone who wants to undo something they actually agreed to, can simply claim it was a mistake and get it undone.
They had been in divorce proceedings for quite a while. This wasn't the case of a lawyer confusing his traffic ticket client with a divorce client. That law firm only handles divorces. The final divorce decree ended up letting the husband keep his stuff, which is why he wants the divorce to stand, while the wife wants it set aside so she can continue the settlement negotiations.
It took me until the end of the video to realize that the couple was already in the process of getting a divorce but hadn’t finalized anything. For the entire video I was like Steve is oddly chill with a couple that didn’t want a divorce being forced to be
Since they already wanted a divorce to begin with, it all boils down to money, and they can just sue the law firm for that. Courts will still have to decide things such as custody, etc anyway in a separate case.
@@kimmieb2u Is it minimalizing things to point out that it could have been a lot worse? They already wanted to have a divorce. Imagine if it had happened to a happily married couple. Is it minimalizing what happened to say that?
Only government can "justify" not correcting a mistake because ,,,,, oh well, just because. And people wonder why more and more people have no faith in government, the courts, etc. I helped oversee after sale support for a major international company and one of the things we prided ourselves on was correcting mistakes when mistakes were made. I always tried to tell people that mistakes WILL be made. They key to proper service is how you react in correcting those mistakes. The problem with government is that no one in government ever pays for bad service. PS: I differ with Steve on this one. This was not an example of someone changing their mind belatedly, it was a matter of someone making a mistake and then everyone wanting to hide behind "process" rather than correct the mistake.
This is a big problem, when technology supersedes actual ‘in person’ decisions. I worry that this is yet another opportunity to say, ‘it’s not my fault.’
Is the judge supposed to go back to the ex-husband and say, hey that divorce you got wasn’t real, you’re going to have to do more fighting with your wife over money?
It's hard to find good analogies for this since it sounds like the system submitted the incorrect paperwork to the correct destination for that paperwork, and the issue was the firm was handling multiple cases simultaneously. It reminds me of some comedy movies like Mrs. Doubtfire where Robin Williams is trying to do two disguises at the same time and ends up mismatching what he's wearing with what he's saying. A "clerical error" would be if the wrong client's name had been attached to the paperwork, but then there'd be a problem in the filing since the case number wouldn't match the name. This was only called a "clerical error" because of how easy it was, but it was certainly a bigger error than that. It would be like a mechanic who is fixing two identical cars at the same time and puts the premium expensive part in the wrong car, sends the car home, and then realizes they made a mistake and wants their part back to replace it with something cheaper. It does remind me of a story you covered many years ago where a bank sent a large sum of money to the wrong account, but it was an account that the bank did owe money on so they kept it all as payment, and the bank wanted their money back.
Simple Fix: Court has a Rescind option with a fee. Whatever's reasonable to the court - $500, $1000, whatever - and a time period. Anything brought through simple court to be rescinded within that time frame just pays the fee. In this instance, the law firm would pony up. And the law firm would be noted for rescinding (frequency, clients, etc) The ability to rescind could be revoked if too frequent. But at least the court's making money, and the people making mistakes are paying.
@@TheLabRatCometh The Judge basically has said Lawers need to be professional (and not just take fees). Dont know if a diff lawyer could petition court for rescinding on grounds of justice ? it is a descretion of the English courts
If i give someone power of attorney to handle my healthcare decisions that doesnt mean they can move into my house and kick my guests out. Did they have unlimited right to represent them? Sounds like that should be in the PoA contract.
If you hire an attorney to handle your divorce, then you're giving them power of attorney to handle your divorce proceedings. That's what happened here.
I'm bothered that the court's jurisdiction is "maintaining the status quo." The fact that something is in place and has been in place for some time is not justification for keeping it in place in light of new information.
Yeah, it was a VERY bad take "We must make it final, because we must reinforce that Final Divorce is final. So we don't care if a mistake happens, or we violate citizen rights, and definately don't give a fuck about what Citizens want, We, the Government, say it's final, so it's final!"
Listen there is a reason the legal process is in place. The court does not make laws. The legislature makes laws in the US. Is that parliment in the UK? So what should be changed to reflect this new information?
Sounds like the lawyer is in for half the ex-husband's assets AND child support until the kids are 21 AND the kids college / university costs AND ex-wife's MAINTENANCE FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE. And legal fees... The ex-wife NEEDS TO GET A BULLDOG OF A BARRISTER TO REPRESENT HER. And I would absolutely LOVE to be a fly on the wall when that negotiation takes place.
UK being European country I would guess child support is automatic and non-negotiable in any divorce conditions, though 21 is the age only for US, in UK it is probably 18.
@@dmitripogosian5084 It may vary by state, and may have changed in the intervening years since my divorce, but in Wisconsin at the time it was 18 and graduated high school.
I worked in the computer center at a university when the HR department gave us the wrong data to add deductions to paychecks. The next pay period paychecks came with a note saying there was a computer error. Grrr... Aargh...
It is a clerical error, because it was a final divorce decree without any actual divorce decree. Something not started can't be finalized. Edit, it sounds like a divorce was in process, and thus there could be a final order. If that is the case, then the divorce is final.
Your "not a clerical error" argument is completely alien to me. When I think "clerical error", I think "entered the wrong number", "checked the wrong box", "used the wrong form", "clicked the wrong button", "sent the wrong order", etc. absolutely applies here. I've never in my life seen someone argue that it specifically means an error that results in disobeying a superior. And even if it specifically meant that, ought that not also describe the relationship between the client and the Firm?
All the papers had been signed, dated and filed at the law firm, they were just waiting with the submission to the court until the last penny had been squeezed from the monied party.
Disagree intensely with Steve's analysis here. This ruling makes a mockery of justice and the court itself. If "The Court" is just a computer which robosigns orders without reviewing or considering them judiciously, then it's not a "Court". It serves no independent purpose, it's just a automated rubber stamp. Secondly, the idea that people's lawyers can go rougue on them, and the client gets punished is a manifest injustice. It seems like "lawyers are officers of the court" when it's convenient for the court, but "lawyers are officers/agents of the client" when the court wants to avoid blame. Shameful.
Still better than getting the wrong leg amputated I suppose.
Yep, better your lawyer, than your surgeon. No amount of money is reattaching your "leg".
@@michaelmoorrees3585I’d be demanding that they rush development on a fully functional automail leg then. They’ll make me whole, or I’d die trying. 😝
Talk about being made whole.
I am guessing you have never met my ex-wife.
That why you write "The other leg" on your good leg.
I feel like a law firm "specializing in ultra high net worth individuals" should have better quality control than this...
Hard to get good "help" these days ..........
Well nothing is 100% when humans are involved mistakes do happen but yes the law firm needs to “eat “ the costs and hold accountable the people who messed up but really mistakes do occur in all walks of life
I am not sure how they handle their housekeeping in the United Kingdom, regarding case assessments and avenues of litigation. To prevent these mistakes, we have Legal Assistants and Para-Legals perform an Intake Assessment that grabs the basics and what type of litigation they are seeking. The new intakes are assessed, an appointment is made for a Face-to-Face assessment with one of our counselors, contracts are reviewed, signed and the litigation process starts. Thats the Readers Digest version of the process.
Something here went horribly wrong. Their file may have been mis-routed and the Para-Legal filling out the form/motion pack must have been on auto-pilot and just hit send without a preview by a department litigator/solicitor for approval. Our BAR Cards are on the line with any mistake and this would be a big one. Consequences like probation or Dis-BAR. Heads will roll for sure!
They’ll blame it on the hired help, Secretaries
Apparently, you'd be wrong. Folks didn't get to be ultra high wealth by spending more on things than absolutely necessary.
"There you go, you're now divorced."
-"Divorced? I asked you to renew my drivers lisence!"
😂
The ex husband that got the actual divorce just got saved a crapton of money, thats why he wants it to stand.
could be funny aswell. he tells her: honey, we are divorced, now leave my house.
and she can sue the lawyer for spoiling the negotiations. maybe he is now on the hook for the damages? and the damages are the potential alimony payments she would have gotten from him.
@@robertheinrich2994it’s an instant win for him, a long term win for her, a loss for the law firm
if you read the BBC report it is the wife (who is still legally married even when the husband deforced) is contesting the ruling
@@QALibrary That doesn't make sense. How can one half of a party be unlinked from the party when the other half is still linked to the party if they party doesn't exist? LOL what?
@@QALibrary >deforced
learn to type ESL
Another violation of the, “Measure Twice, Cut Once” principle.
In this case they just cut and now are trying to get a replacement.
Some of us are dyslexic, and it turns into "cut twice, measure once, I've cut it three times and it's still too short".
Lawyers are not thaught that principle
"I want to be un-divorced so I can have a better divorce settlement," It sounds like there are going to be serious finanical consequences for that solicitor, hope she's got good insurance.
What happens if the couple who was accidentally divorced, later decides to actually get divorced?
Hell of a situation when you have to hire a lawyer to sue your lawyer lol.
@@kennethwiggins4396They already wanted to get divorced, that’s why their file existed. The problem is that they didn’t go through proper procedures and they didn’t divide up their property properly. So now the breadwinner in the divorce gets off scott free because the divorce was granted. And the wife is not happy with that.
@@kennethwiggins4396 They had already filed for divorce, which is why they were in system to begin with. The issue is that the divorce was finalised without a settlement, which it seems has left the wife with nothing. As tempting as it is to be glib being suddenly left with nothing is potentially life ruining. If the courts refuse to reverse the filing or otherwise intervene I can see this ending very badly for the law firm, especially since they've admitted on record that they made the error. It's hard to come back from that.
The problem is the bread winner has the money so the person left with nothing will need to file suit against a law firm. How probable do you think that would be? I guess she might be able to get a good lawyer on contingency since she will either get nothing or what she feels is her share but if the husband is the one that retained the lawyer and she didn't pay for the lawyer can she file against the lawyer. Idk how it works over there but I'm the US usually each side gets their own lawyer so the fact that one law firm handled both sides and one person was paying and that was the side that came out on top seems suspicious
Dude probably got the best divorce terms possible and didn't want the ruling voided.
There is also no need. This is a good judge who isn't going to let a lawyer avoid accountability by ignoring the law. If his ex-wife was hurt by her lawyer, she can sue the law firm for damages.
He did, he got to keep the house because it was under his name, now she's living in a car
@@_PatrickO that's fine. At least she won't get to take what the man worked to build
The reason they don't want it finalised is because in the UK solicitors hold you over a barrel until you reach a financial agreement often stretching things out until you capitulate, and agree to their demands. They just handed some Chap a get out of jail free card.
So does the law firm now have to pay both alimony? LOL
Or at the very least a new wedding
@@Ohdubbs Nah, this couple was divorcing too. The firm was representing the wife. Problem was, the financial stuff had not been agreed on yet, and they basically gave the husband the best terms he could hope for with this 'accident'. Not only did the wife not get anything but the assets that were already hers, but the lawyers also screwed themselves out of stretching out the case and getting way more billable hours.
@@martenkahr3365 good she doesn't deserve any of his stuff. Useless women get bored and then divorce and take half of everything the man has worked to build. Oh no, the gold digger can't take from him
@@CubeInspector It's not always the woman who's the gold digger, but you are right for 99.9999% of the time.
Errors made by clerks are, by definition, _clerical errors._ The now-ex wife needs to sue the divorce attorney.
Band of brothers on this one. Ty
1: Sounds like that ex-husband is happy with the situation. Wonder what kind of deal this caused him to get.
2: Sounds like the woman will have quite the case against her lawyers.
Most likely that it's over
Well, maybe the husband only then discovered that his wife had hired a law firm for divorce counseling. That is enough to make him say: ‘you wanted a divorce? You got it and leave it at that.’
The order's invalid. It's a final divorce order that doesn't handle division of common property.
@@joshuahudson2170 You are responsible in Canada for filing a divorce with matrimonial property, in Canada. If you just file a divorce and the order is granted, that is on you. Since Canada follows UK law principles, it is likely that something similar is going on there. If you are the former husband, you should not entertain any idea of settlements.
@@SergioFlorente He'd been waiting for finalization of the divorce for about a year, with no end in sight. This was not a quick resolution for him.
I've never heard of a divorce going so easy
My divorce was so amicable, we celebrated with a dinner date. No intention of getting remarried, ever, but we did remain very good friends all his life.
Yes, it does happen.
@ChelleLlewes Do you both like Pina Coladas?
@@ChelleLlewes Mine was so amicable I made the cake for her and her new husband's wedding. Gluten free carrot cake with cream cheese frosting, and it was damn good. I now make it once a year to celebrate being single.
My divorce took 5 minutes. My attorney walked in, looked around, went into the Judge's chamber and was back in no time telling me I got everything and she got nothing. Most likely because SHE DIDN'T SHOW UP!
My divorce took 15 minutes. We had no disputes. You take your stuff. I take mine. Bye.
"Your honor, I haven't had a chance to bill my client for all the hours that the divorce was supposed to take."
It's far far worse than that. If a divorce was finalized without addressing property disputes and structuring a resolution, It's a huge problem. In a case like this where they're multi-millionaires, the wife could have been to stay at home mom legally entitled to 50% of assets, alimony, etc and instead she's left homeless by this attorney's actions.
I did not realize until the end of the video that only one member of the divorced couple wanted the divorce set aside. Having one person want the divorce makes more sense
Both wanted the divorce. The problem is, one wanted a better deal. Get divorced in my county and you are a male, expect to lose everything. When lawyers tell you , you don't state a chance in this county because you are a male, you might suspect there is something wrong with the system.
@@CraigGrant-sh3in Oh yeah, I know, it's messed up. It sounds like the husband in this case actually got a good result from this. So it makes sense that the court won't just reverse it; if both of them didn't want the divorce finalized yet, it would make no sense for the court not to void it
Sounds like someone is hiring another attorney to sue the divorce attorney.
^THIS
Will they do that though? Aren't all attorneys friends? I tried looking into malpractice, and it seemed like only another attorney could say a different attorney committed malpractice
@@recoveringsoul755its literally the law firms fault its not even a question she can definitely sue them for screwing her over
@@recoveringsoul755as far as the divorce court is concerned whatever her attornet said is what she wanted. That doesnt mean that attorney gets to do whatever he wants with the power granted it just means its not the divorce courts problem but she can definitely sue her attorney for misrepresenting her
@@olorin3815 having been through 6-7 lawyers and NONE of them doing the 3 things I asked them to, I don't believe they do what the client wants
My experience is vastly different.
How much did the ‘divorced husband’ pay the paralegal to click that box? 😮😉
Worth every penny! 😂😂
Maybe that’s not the only box he’s paying the paralegal to click…sorry, on day 21 at a remote work camp away from the family and civilized discourse.
LOL!
@@krackerbear9315 That's okay, I was failing to suppress the thought myself, and I'm normally much better about not having those thoughts.
As my uncle said (he was IT) in the 1970’s: “Garbage in , garbage out “
That concept is alive and well at the ballot box.
And in the '70s, I would say "Garbage in, Gospel out" If the computer said it, it must be correct.
So do nutritionists.
The issue is computers do as you tell them..not necessarily what you want them to do
@@theodoreolson8529Hahaha.
Another quote from the Judge (via the Evening Standard report on the story): “Like many similar online processes, an operator may only get to the final screen where the final click of the mouse is made after travelling through a series of earlier screens”- it wasn't just clicking a button accidentally.
It required clicking several 'wrong' buttons along the way, which just gives the court more justification to have the divorce stand.
I bet that husband is happy because the other couple were getting a simple uncontested quick divorce, and him and the ex-wife were in a contested divorce. A simple divorce usually comes with no spousal support of any kind for either party.
Next up: Court refuses to acknowledge 25,000 legal divorces after court clerk inadvertently deletes files.
Not a computer error; a mouse actuator error.
The error originated from between the chair and the keyboard.
😂
Thanks for not blaming the computer. As a retired computer programmer, it annoys me to have people speak as if the computer acted of its own accord. If somebody entered the wrong value or clicked the wrong button, it's a human error.
(Computer logic errors are a different story. I spent my career finding and fixing those.)
When I studied programming back in the 80’s our teacher drummed into us that programs should be IP (idiot proof) 😅 meaning to make as many checks as possible on human inputs so to minimize possibility of mistakes.
Software does what you tell it to do, not what you want it to do.
@@pansepot1490 I often said that it's not fully tested until it's user tested. I once fixed an online program where a user managed to get a weird special character past the edits.
@@GamesFromSpace So true.
@@pansepot1490We called that monkey proof and I had the reputation of being break most any software. 😂 1 day for WordPerfect. 1 week for Word! Yes there were others too, some non commercial. And yes, the systems all crashed!
Never share your credentials.
If I did that at work it would become a resume generating event.
I'm guessing that the division of assets hadn't been agreed upon yet, and the wife didn't get what she wanted. Sounds like the law firm is getting sued.
I don't think the court is being unreasonable here. It's not like refusing to restore someone who was declared dead.
I swear Steve, you're the equivalent of a "Ripley's Believe It Or Not".
Good on the judge for upholding this. There is no reason why this should be reversed. The law firm has to deal with the fallout and financial damages personally. There is no reason to undo a legal filing by authorized parties to mitigate damages for the law firm.
That's what malpractice insurance is for
Well it was more so he got to keep the house and she got nothing but a car to sleep in
You never made a mistake?
@@OConnorTnP1you are an adult you are responsible for your own mistakes noone is gonna hold your hand
@@OConnorTnP1 I never filed the wrong documents with a court and then demanded the court undo the ruling I asked them for. The law firm calling this a computer error is laughable. They filed for a final divorce and it was granted. It does not matter if they did it electronically, snail mail, fax, telegraph, or in person. They filed with the court and got what they asked for on behalf of their client who authorized them to file things on their behalf.
The UK is not going to undo their legal system to bail out a law firm that committed clear malpractice against their own client. The fact that you cannot find any new info about this means they settled with the woman and had her sign an NDA of some kind. I personally think the attorney whose credentials were used should have had their law license suspended for a few months just to make it clear this was malpractice and not a computer error. The law firm's public statement is an embarrassment to the profession. That public statement makes this law firm look absolutely incompetent. They should have owned their error and paid the woman they screwed over. Had they did that, none of this would have made the news.
Almost totally missed the fact that the husband, ex-husband pretty much said it's fine there was no error.
In the U.S. one party could lose health insurance. There are tons of side effects.
Not an issue in UK. National Health Service
And law firm would be liable for all her damages instead of the husband… probably
Public defender represented a friend of mine in a domestic case. Despite attempting to contact his lawyer repeatedly, he was unable to get in contact with his assigned lawyer before the hearing. My friend was first in line to the courthouse the day of his hearing, made it through the process of metal detectors, etc. only to find out that his lawyer had plead guilty on his behalf, agreed to a fine and probation.
He was arrested for restraining his ex-girlfriend. She had broken into his house and attacked him with a spoon. He called 911 and was arrested.
When she did it again a few days after his hearing, the same officers showed up. This time, he had held the bedroom door closed with only him shut inside while waiting for the police. The same officers ended up arresting her when she attacked them.
The authority his first lawyer had and used ended up resulting in his second lawyer having to file an appeal rather than having an actual hearing.
The lawyer pled guilty on the lawyers behalf. Who signed the guilty plea? The lawyer. 1) When a person ples guilty, they must admit ON THE RECORD to ALL elements of the crime(s) they are pleding guilty to. 2) a person must have full understanding that entering a guilty ple cannot be reversed.
If you watch videos of people pleding guilty in court. there's a reason why it takes a while cause the judge and DA have to ensure all of these things happen. your friend did not admit to any crimes on the record and did not sign any statements of such therefore he's not bound by the agreement.
@@briancollins69 That's not how the Court works. If it was filed, it's final. Doesn't matter if it was a mistake or not. Judges have no oversight, courts have no oversight. As this video proved, the Judge has the final say, and their time and money doesn't give a fuck about Constitution, rights, regulations, laws, ethics or anything. They just want the case to be finished and gone. They will destroy you, your life, your money, your family, your country, whatever it takes, to end the case so they can move on.
That's just crazy on top of crazy! 😄
@@briancollins69 Plea* and Pleading*.
To be clear, I am passing no judgement here on the misspelling. Usually, these kinds of corrections are received as an attack, and I do not want that.
This is rather US. In Canada, for instance, there are no public defenders or assigned lawyers
"You don't hire knuckleheads…"
What an amazing stroke of luck for the now divorced husband. I love that she hired the "diva of divorce" to get herself the best possible settlement but their negligence resulted in handing it to him instead, saved him a fortune.
"Your Honor, I made a mistake."
"What's that?"
"It's an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong, but that's not important right now." 😊
I guess the Diva of Divorce doesn't get paid for this divorce. 😂
Husband: She divorced me?? Hmm. Oh, OK. I was getting tired of her anyway.
Let the party begin, as Austin Powers said "wait a tic, that means I'm single, shagalopolis
They had been in divorce proceedings for a long time, it isn't that a general lawyer mixed up a traffic ticket client with a divorce client.
I think they were in the proceedings for a long time as person above is saying and husband probably long ago made his stance clear that he wants a divorce so when wife’s attorney sent a request to finalize the divorce as far as court is concerned they figured out their differences on their own and just wanted to finalize the divorce. Its attorneys fault for misrepresenting the client and probably gonna get sued for it
500k! Well done Lehto!! 😎
PARTY TIME!!!
This is why some matters should be handled in person, not virtually or electronically
I wonder if the ex-wife is going to sue the attorney now for the settlement she didn't get.
Why wouldn't she if the attorney screwed up?
In Michigan Divorce Court, the judge will ask you "would you ever remarry (your former spouse to-be) again?"
If you answer yes, the judge has to option to postpone or not grant you the divorce.
So, always say "No".
Seems like the answer to that question should be "only if you can change the world".
That is why you have ALL PARTIES sign the final order before it becomes final. To avoid mistakes
What is the point in legal representation if they cannot act on your behalf?
I think some kind of professional sanction is in order here. The biggest problem here is the silly argument from the firm who is not taking responsibility for their filing mistake. If either of their clients were harmed, they will have to sue their lawyers.
@@_PatrickO "What is the point in legal representation if they cannot act on your behalf?"
If they fuck up, and make a mistake, or do something without your consent, it's not "On your behalf" anymore, is it?
THAT is the biggest issue I have. If everything was done CORRECTLY, and then the Client later decided they wanted to back out and claim the Lawyer went rogue or something. That's 1 thing, cause "At the time" the Lawyer DID have the authority and consent. But when the Lawyer FUCKS UP, when the GOVERNMENT FUCKS UP and goes rogue WITHOUT CONSENT it should NEVER be allowed to stand!
Because this ruling, what Steve is stating, is that BAD LAWYERS can SCAM you, and have the Authority to DEFY you and go Rogue, and the Government will GLADLY accept anything.
Meaning, the Government can accuse you of Murder, give you a Lawyer, and have the Lawyer enter a Guilty Verdict without ever even talking to you, and the Judge can accept it and it will be LEGALLY BINDING.
^ That is FUCKED UP, that is NOT DUE PROCESS! That is NOT LEGAL REPRESENTATION! It's a MASSIVE Violation of your rights.
@@_PatrickOthe point is they enforce your rights. Requiring a signature from the party they represent would in no way diminish that.
@@westonford6774 It defeats the purpose of having a lawyer. If we make it so a client must sign off on every filing or motion, it would be a joke. I don't think you understand the ramification of this "tiny" change. It also drops standards for lawyers and allows them to make serious errors which is not something we should be dropping standards to allow.
This divorce was final, it was not a mistake in law or courts, it was lawyer malpractice if one of the clients didn't get what they wanted due to this malpractice. The people both wanted the divorce and paid their lawyers to handle the filings and court hearings.
You can ruin your client's chances in court by submitting motions with the wrong fontsize so it gets rejected and you miss a deadline. So why should this mistake of filing the wrong motion be any different? If your lawyer screws you, your beef is with your lawyer who you chose to represent you.
@@_PatrickO Final order is not any motion. The rule shape preventing the lawyers from filing these without signatures yields only one or two motions per case, if that.
Wow, how? They must of had a retainer with Ditch'er, Quik & Hyde Family Law Firm.
Congrats on 500k subs!!
He did say on the live stream it would be on Tuesday!
Wait, so you can just... request divorces for random people? And get them granted?
No but you can say "Your honour we are happy with a simple divorce and don't want anything more from our ex" on behalf of someone who really ISN'T happy you just said that.
Its not random ppl tho they had a divorce case already going on and she gave her attorney power to represent her - her attorney misrepresented her and thus its the attorney thats liable for whatever damages she suffered. If it was criminal case there might have been mistrial or something but in this case shes just gotta sue the law firm
There is never a point where you have heard or seen everything 😂 Thank you Mr. Lehto 😊
Truly
I once worked at a company with someone in another group with my same first and last name. When he quit, the IT person who was responsible for cancelling his e-mail and computer access, deleted mine instead. (They tried to undo it, but this IT person was quite thorough. I was able to get some things restored, but I lost access to lots of information.) After hearing this story, I suppose I should be thankful my company didn't say that because the IT guy deleted my account, that my job was gone.
Steve is just telling us how it is and when he shares an opinion, I usually agree. While I see where he is coming from, I don't agree today.
Backups
Absolutely can get everything back and nothibg was deleted . In fact , only access was revoked. So there is no reason why you shouldn't get everything 100% back technically. Now the IT that messed up may tell you otherwise but that's not true.
Difference in ur case is that there is no 3rd party. IT guy works for the company he made the mistake neither you nor the company wanted to end ur employment so it was just reversed. In the divorce case there is 3 parties 2 spouses and the court thats supposed to be impartial, husband wanted the divorce and wife’s attorney filed divorce papers as well court saw things checks out both parties agree and issued the divorce order. Now husband wants to uphold the order while wife wants it voided, problem is as far as court is concerned both parties agreed and the order is final you cant take it back without a very good reason. Still obviously wife got screwed over by her attorneys mistake and she can probably sue the law firm for whatever she was probably gonna get from the divorce
That ex husband is a lucky bastard
Maybe. Or he's gotten to know one of the clerks in the attorney's office really well. 🎉
It’s 4.30 am in Brisbane Australia, and I laughed out loud when you told us the lawyer said the judge made a mistake🥺🇦🇺
Sounds like a monopoly card, "Legal error in your favor, collect $5000"
Next step, sue the attorney!
The more important reason to say no to these kind of mistakes is because it opens the door to abuse. Lawyers could claim clerical errors potentially to try to turn back the clock. Try to , in effect, get a mulligan on the divorce proceedings.
Exactly, you give a leeway, and then there will 'changed minds' after the ruling all over the place
Computers make very very fast and very very precise errors.
As do commenters lol
Computers don’t make the mistakes there the tool used in the process of the error. Like saying guns, knives and cars kill or cause accidents..the people in control or lack of control make the error.
It's a civil marriage, which is just some arbitrary thing anyway. People should get private marriages that actually honor nuptials that align with their beliefs.
To err is human but to really screw things up requires a computer.
@@MattW-vh1ewcomputer error means the programer fucked up.
I've heard of people who found out that they weren't married on paper because the paperwork wasn't filed properly after they got married.
And litigation soon ensued
The divorce should stand. If lawyers can simply go back to court and say "Oops, I want a mulligan", then no ruling would ever stand. This would be true whether or not the client had actually agreed to it or not. They could simply change their mind and then claim otherwise.
"That's an argument for your (malpractice) insurance carrier, not the courts."
Perhaps this type of problem is why New Jersey has a process for divorce on the papers but judges require hearings even when both parties wanted otherwise.
Ben is laying on top the mic in front of SAILING tag. Fourth from right side.
Good spot.
What is "Ben"?
@dvs6121 Benjamin Franklin in the form of the portrait on a US $100 note.
I thought the Titanic had Hit it, then sank to the left of Ben The Iceberg.
@@davidchamlee2058 I can see that. I've seen mirages of Ben before myself.
Wait a tic!
That means I'm single again!
Oh behave!
As a CPA, this is a great lesson not to allow unqualified people to operate a states website on the professionals behalf. As a CPA, I must, however, point out that it is actually “control alt delete divorce,” and not “alt control delete divorce.” 😂
The two are identical.
@@captainjimolchs True, the two are functionally identical. Convention always puts before when specifying the chord as a combination input, however.
@@captainjimolchs Right, it doesn't matter if you press alt or ctrl first. It does matter if you press delete first.
@@jerrylohr3491 Steve is unconventional? No wonder I like him.
They are identical but it’s how I was raised. Maybe it’s a CTRL issue.
The lawyers are pissed because the divorce was settled so quickly by the Judge and they can't make any more money out of the couple, hard luck!!!!
Law firm who made the mistake should be forced to pay the woman what she would have received from her husband had she been appropriately represented.
money from a husband is non taxable, money from a 3rd party potentially gives rise to a tax liability.
They'll just dissolve their corporation, open a new one and then can't be held financially responsible.
No, really. It's that easy (at least in the US.)
@@jilbertb Lawyers used to be partnerships (no ltd liability) in England, then LLP (limited legal partnerships) were established , mainly for law , accountants and architects , mostly to do with downside risk being too great for any individuals to bear,
@@jilbertb Yeah, but if it’s a large firm, the costs associated with a restart can be hideous. Every case has to be finished or recontracted, every property owned or leased has to be transferred, and partnership agreements include termination clauses… Easier (especially because they are lawyers) to fight the misrepresentation costs.
Husband is running down the street yelling hallelujah I'm free I'm free at last
Saw this 'Headline' and Clicked IMMEDIATELY ! ! !
😆😆😆
I think Steve just coined the phrase 'Control-alt-divorce'
What’s that lawyer’s email address again - asking for a friend 😂
I loved to comment about minimalism right at the end. I really appreciate that last 5 second pearls of wisdom right at the end of each video !!
Ben is on top of the mic in front of the I of the SAILING license plate.
You missed what is probably the most important issue.
If this is resinced, it sets the precedent that anyone who wants to undo something they actually agreed to, can simply claim it was a mistake and get it undone.
In America - portals decide if people are in love Steve
😂
The man that found himself divorced should count his blessings and run for freedom
Congrats on 500K
Without hearing the story from Steve, I bet it was one of the most Amicable separations ever. Neither knew that they were getting divorced LOL
They had been in divorce proceedings for quite a while. This wasn't the case of a lawyer confusing his traffic ticket client with a divorce client. That law firm only handles divorces. The final divorce decree ended up letting the husband keep his stuff, which is why he wants the divorce to stand, while the wife wants it set aside so she can continue the settlement negotiations.
Man, the alimony that law firm is going to have to pay. Until death do you part, kinda like a Boeing Whistle-blower.
Get another lawyer to sue that lawyer and then go take a long nice vacation together!
I've never been this early to a Steve Lehto video!
Me either.
AND. ???
It took me until the end of the video to realize that the couple was already in the process of getting a divorce but hadn’t finalized anything. For the entire video I was like Steve is oddly chill with a couple that didn’t want a divorce being forced to be
Since they already wanted a divorce to begin with, it all boils down to money, and they can just sue the law firm for that. Courts will still have to decide things such as custody, etc anyway in a separate case.
Please don't minimize the effects. There are a LOT of decisions that were inadvertently made for her.
@@kimmieb2u Is it minimalizing things to point out that it could have been a lot worse?
They already wanted to have a divorce. Imagine if it had happened to a happily married couple.
Is it minimalizing what happened to say that?
Why did the court approve a divorce with no signed agreement by the parties?
Only government can "justify" not correcting a mistake because ,,,,, oh well, just because. And people wonder why more and more people have no faith in government, the courts, etc. I helped oversee after sale support for a major international company and one of the things we prided ourselves on was correcting mistakes when mistakes were made. I always tried to tell people that mistakes WILL be made. They key to proper service is how you react in correcting those mistakes. The problem with government is that no one in government ever pays for bad service. PS: I differ with Steve on this one. This was not an example of someone changing their mind belatedly, it was a matter of someone making a mistake and then everyone wanting to hide behind "process" rather than correct the mistake.
This is a big problem, when technology supersedes actual ‘in person’ decisions. I worry that this is yet another opportunity to say, ‘it’s not my fault.’
How many times you here "I would like to help you but computer does not allow me"
The attorneys screwed up but wtf is wrong with the judge
Nothing?
Is the judge supposed to go back to the ex-husband and say, hey that divorce you got wasn’t real, you’re going to have to do more fighting with your wife over money?
@@electricpaper269 Judge is supposed to reject motion filed by a different attourney at the same law firm.
It's hard to find good analogies for this since it sounds like the system submitted the incorrect paperwork to the correct destination for that paperwork, and the issue was the firm was handling multiple cases simultaneously. It reminds me of some comedy movies like Mrs. Doubtfire where Robin Williams is trying to do two disguises at the same time and ends up mismatching what he's wearing with what he's saying.
A "clerical error" would be if the wrong client's name had been attached to the paperwork, but then there'd be a problem in the filing since the case number wouldn't match the name. This was only called a "clerical error" because of how easy it was, but it was certainly a bigger error than that. It would be like a mechanic who is fixing two identical cars at the same time and puts the premium expensive part in the wrong car, sends the car home, and then realizes they made a mistake and wants their part back to replace it with something cheaper.
It does remind me of a story you covered many years ago where a bank sent a large sum of money to the wrong account, but it was an account that the bank did owe money on so they kept it all as payment, and the bank wanted their money back.
Sounds like a malpractice suit to me.
100%
“I do not recall that, senator!”
Simple Fix: Court has a Rescind option with a fee. Whatever's reasonable to the court - $500, $1000, whatever - and a time period.
Anything brought through simple court to be rescinded within that time frame just pays the fee. In this instance, the law firm would pony up. And the law firm would be noted for rescinding (frequency, clients, etc) The ability to rescind could be revoked if too frequent. But at least the court's making money, and the people making mistakes are paying.
what if you die between first jugdement and the rescind ?
The court doesn't WANT a rescind option the court wants you to act like adults and own your fuckups.
@@TheLabRatComethBeing an adult comes with fucking up. To deny that is to deny humanity.
@@TheLabRatCometh The Judge basically has said Lawers need to be professional (and not just take fees). Dont know if a diff lawyer could petition court for rescinding on grounds of justice ? it is a descretion of the English courts
@@highpath4776 It is also a needless clog to have to go through countermeasure motions.
😂😂😂 Steve Love ♥️♥️♥️🌹🌹🌹 your sense of HUMOR during these Awesome/Educational Readings…♥️🌹😂🙏
If i give someone power of attorney to handle my healthcare decisions that doesnt mean they can move into my house and kick my guests out. Did they have unlimited right to represent them? Sounds like that should be in the PoA contract.
If you hire an attorney to handle your divorce, then you're giving them power of attorney to handle your divorce proceedings. That's what happened here.
I would definitely be suing that law firm, all to hell and back!
I'm bothered that the court's jurisdiction is "maintaining the status quo." The fact that something is in place and has been in place for some time is not justification for keeping it in place in light of new information.
Yeah, it was a VERY bad take "We must make it final, because we must reinforce that Final Divorce is final. So we don't care if a mistake happens, or we violate citizen rights, and definately don't give a fuck about what Citizens want, We, the Government, say it's final, so it's final!"
Listen there is a reason the legal process is in place. The court does not make laws. The legislature makes laws in the US. Is that parliment in the UK?
So what should be changed to reflect this new information?
@@Jirodyne So you think it is OK if the court make a judgement, and then one party changes its mind and asks to annul the judgement ?
Sounds like the lawyer is in for half the ex-husband's assets AND child support until the kids are 21 AND the kids college / university costs AND ex-wife's MAINTENANCE FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE.
And legal fees...
The ex-wife NEEDS TO GET A BULLDOG OF A BARRISTER TO REPRESENT HER.
And I would absolutely LOVE to be a fly on the wall when that negotiation takes place.
UK being European country I would guess child support is automatic and non-negotiable in any divorce conditions, though 21 is the age only for US, in UK it is probably 18.
@@dmitripogosian5084 It may vary by state, and may have changed in the intervening years since my divorce, but in Wisconsin at the time it was 18 and graduated high school.
Never look a gift horse in the mouth....run dude, you're freeee 😂
E-filing now means that attorneys no longer need to certify that they have read the filing and that it is not frivolous.
I worked in the computer center at a university when the HR department gave us the wrong data to add deductions to paychecks. The next pay period paychecks came with a note saying there was a computer error. Grrr... Aargh...
It is a clerical error, because it was a final divorce decree without any actual divorce decree. Something not started can't be finalized.
Edit, it sounds like a divorce was in process, and thus there could be a final order. If that is the case, then the divorce is final.
Your "not a clerical error" argument is completely alien to me. When I think "clerical error", I think "entered the wrong number", "checked the wrong box", "used the wrong form", "clicked the wrong button", "sent the wrong order", etc. absolutely applies here. I've never in my life seen someone argue that it specifically means an error that results in disobeying a superior. And even if it specifically meant that, ought that not also describe the relationship between the client and the Firm?
shouldn't the husband have a say in the divorce as well?
Presumably, he's satisfied with the divorce... 10:25
All the papers had been signed, dated and filed at the law firm, they were just waiting with the submission to the court until the last penny had been squeezed from the monied party.
Buried somewhere in the fine print, the clients signed the law firm’s “Hold Harmless” clause.
classic PEBKAC error
Or an id 10 t error.
😂
My wife and I had a crazy night in Vegas and we woke up divorced.
Disagree intensely with Steve's analysis here. This ruling makes a mockery of justice and the court itself. If "The Court" is just a computer which robosigns orders without reviewing or considering them judiciously, then it's not a "Court". It serves no independent purpose, it's just a automated rubber stamp. Secondly, the idea that people's lawyers can go rougue on them, and the client gets punished is a manifest injustice. It seems like "lawyers are officers of the court" when it's convenient for the court, but "lawyers are officers/agents of the client" when the court wants to avoid blame. Shameful.
Idea: paying off an attorney to take the fall for this "blunder" might be cheaper than losing half your money to your ex 😂