Family Law Mediation

– what you need to know

Family mediation is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) which helps you reach decisions about things that are important for you and your family, without having to go through the court process.

The Benefits of Mediation

Mediation gives you the opportunity to take your time and think about the issues that are important to you, whether it be arrangements for your children as they grow up, how to deal with money within the marriage or options of where you will live. The process moves at your pace, which ensures you can carefully consider each issue rather than rushing through it.

Mediators will listen to you to find out what is important to you, and help you make your own choices about how to move forward. Once you and your partner are satisfied with the decisions you have made, you can then instruct a solicitor to complete the legal formalities.

You can also consult your own solicitor during the mediation process, to check that the choices being taken are in your best interests.

Mediation Information & Assessment Meeting (MIAM)

Mediation has become a more central part of family law since the changes in law which now require you to attend a Mediation Information & Assessment Meeting (MIAM) before issuing an application to commence financial proceedings or proceedings under the Children Act. This assessment meeting gives you the opportunity to see how mediation works, and allows the mediator to work out with you whether mediation will be suitable for you and your family. The mediator should discuss how many sessions you may need, how much they cost and whether you are eligible for legal aid to pay for mediation.

In most circumstances, whomever is applying to the court for a financial order or a child arrangements order will have to attend a MIAM. The other person involved is also expected to attend, but they do not have to go to the same meeting as you. There are exemptions, particularly if domestic violence has arisen within the relationship.

If everyone agrees at the first appointment that mediation would work well, you will book further mediation sessions. It normally takes between three and five meetings to come to an agreement, depending on the issues in question.

Mediating with Children

Older children are now also becoming part of the mediation process, if mediation is about child arrangements. If the mediator you have chosen is happy to do so, they can talk to the children of the family about what they would like to happen, so that the parents can make decisions which take into account their children’s wishes as well as their own.

Alison Bicknell

---

This blogpost is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.

Information to support your case

- obtaining it or having to disclose it

It is thought that ”information is power” and making information available to the court and the parties to a claim has long been an integral part of the litigation process. Historically, the court of equity was the initial conduit for the process of the disclosure of information, ”discovery” as it was. It used to be that, at common law, a party could not be a witness in his own case – neither the claimant nor the defendant could be their own witness (!). As a result, the earliest bills in Chancery sought discovery of facts relevant to the claimant’s (then called the plaintiff) case to assist in achieving fair and equal judgment. With the passage of time, although the aims of discovery were recognised as valuable for litigation, its development led to onerous obligations on both parties, in terms of time, risk and cost. Often, it became a weapon which was capable of producing, in equity, as much of an injustice as it initially sought to guard against.

   
Fast forward to the 21st Century and the reforms brought about by ”Access to Justice” and the Jackson recommendations. Discovery, now renamed ”disclosure”, is still considered a vital element of litigation. It is recognised that there are substantial overall benefits to the exchange of information at an early stage of the proceedings - ensuring equality of access to evidence and possibly facilitating early settlement when parties have clarification of the strengths and weaknesses of their case. Discovery was, however, also ripe for reform given the perceived problems with the often disproportionate costs involved (and the possible, resulting undermining of access to justice), the practicalities of putting together often formidable court bundles (which were then largely unlooked at during a trial) and the ever-increasing need to deal with information contained in an electronic format.

So, what is disclosure? According to the Civil Procedure Rules (the ”CPR”), disclosure is merely a formal statement that a ”document exists or has existed”. And what is a document? The definition here includes ”anything in which information of any description is recorded” - written documents, audio tapes, videotapes, photographs, as well as electronic documents (emails, WP documents, and databases) are covered. Also covered is material not readily accessible (for example, electronic documents stored on servers and backup systems) as well as electronic documents which have been deleted. However, it is important to appreciate that it is the information contained within the document and its relevance to the issue(s) in dispute that determines whether or not a document is disclosable. 

It is possible, in certain circumstances, for this disclosure to occur before proceedings have even been commenced. There are specific pre-action protocols across a range of dispute types as well as a general Practice Direction covering pre-action conduct. In these, potential litigants are actively encouraged to disclose relevant documents informally at an early stage (albeit only those documents which support their claim). The objective is to provide parties with ”sufficient information …to allow them to understand each other’s position”. The aim is to aid the potential parties to make ”informed decisions about how to proceed and possible approaches to settlement, possibly avoiding litigation completely”. These pre-action protocols carry much weight with the court. Knowledge of the requirements suggested by them and subsequent compliance with those suggestions is an important consideration for any potential litigant. The court has a discretion to order sanctions against a party in the face of non-compliance – in relation to disclosure, refusing to release documents has led to cost consequences for the non-compliant litigant.

Additionally, the court has various statutory powers (depending on the court/tribunal or the nature of the claim) to order disclosure from a potential party to subsequent proceedings. Under CPR31.16, there are a number of criteria that need to be satisfied for the court to consider an order for what is called pre-action disclosure - the application is between the likely parties to subsequent court (rather than arbitration) proceedings, the documents are going to be disclosable in those proceedings in any event, pre-action disclosure would be beneficial in terms of fairness, assisting in resolution of the dispute without proceedings and the lessening overall costs. Even if these criteria are met, the court has further discretion as to whether to grant such an order. 

In exercising this discretion, the court will consider things such as the nature of the claim, its potential merits and the clarity of the issues involved, the costs (both in granting the order and the impact of not granting the order), the documents sought (their volume and nature), whether the information is available from other sources, and the previous conduct of the parties (this is where compliance or non-compliance with pre-action protocols in relation to disclosure may also impact positively/negatively on a litigant’s application).

  Any documents disclosed at this pre-action stage (whether informally under a pre-action protocol or by court order) can generally only be used for the purposes of the anticipated proceedings.

Once proceedings have been commenced, the court has a further power to order disclosure against a person who is not a party to those proceedings themselves. However, there are limitations as to when such orders may be made. The information sought must only be available from the third party. Additionally, the documents to be disclosed must be likely to support the applicant’s case or adversely to affect the case of another party to the proceedings and disclosure must be necessary to dispose of the claim fairly or to save costs.

Again, even if these criteria are satisfied, it is still the court’s discretion as to whether the order will be made. For instance, no order for disclosure against a 3rd party will be given if compliance would be injurious to public interest. Nor will it be given if the definition of the document or the class of documents is not sufficiently clear and specific in the application itself. The court will also consider the interests of the non-party to protect his privacy and the confidentiality of the documents against the interests of the party seeking disclosure. This is a remedy of last resort; such an order is not going to be given routinely as the court will need to balance the rights of the 3rd party against the need of the applicant in relation to the case (the ability for it to be dealt with fairly or to save costs).

There are other well-established situations (either pre or post the issue of proceedings) where an equitable remedy involving disclosure may be ordered against 3rd parties by the court in very specific circumstances, seeking to achieve very specific results. For instance, these include:-

(a) Norwich Pharmacal orders – where an application can be made for disclosure of documents and/or information from a 3rd party who, while a non-party to the litigation, is somehow involved or mixed up in the wrongdoing (innocently or otherwise), and
(b) search orders (formerly Anton Pillar orders) - a form of mandatory injunction from a master or district judge in the High Court. Such an order allows for entry to the defendant’s premises to search for, copy and remove documents and/or material in relation to the dispute. The aim is to prevent evidence being lost or destroyed. However, given the nature of the application and its potential impact, the application must be based on a very clear case with clear evidence of the document in the defendant’s hands as well its possible destruction.

In deciding whether pre-action disclosure or disclosure from a third party would be appropriate, the court is looking to balance finding a resolution to a dispute without recourse to actual proceedings as against assisting with an applicant’s nebulous claim. The court’s various powers in relation to requiring the disclosure of information (whether pre-proceedings between the parties or from a 3rd party) are important considerations for a potential litigant. Knowing and understanding the jurisdictional criteria that need to be established for any such order are important tools in the litigant’s arsenal.

Alison Bicknell

---

This blogpost is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.

The myth of “common law marriage”

– Equity’s role in providing redress

According to the Office for National Statistics, the number of opposite-sex cohabiting couples in 2013 was almost double the figures from 1996.   In relation to opposite-sex cohabitation, the statistics do appear to confirm a substantive shift away from marriage.  For same-sex cohabiting couples, the increase over the same period is believed to be in excess of 400% (even allowing for the introduction of civil partnership in 2006.)

In a recent, 58% of the respondents thought co-habiting couples who live together for some time “probably or definitely” had a “common law marriage” which gave them the same legal rights as married [or civil registered] couples.  This is despite extensive media coverage across a variety of platforms stressing that cohabitation, regardless of its circumstances and length, does not bring with it a general protected legal status.  The Ministry of Justice has even funded a “Living Together” campaign to address this common misconception seeking to make cohabitants more aware of their legal status (or more accurately their lack of legal status) and how to protect themselves.

In the 2011 census, 10% of adults indicated that they were cohabiting – many are likely to be doing so without realising the full consequences of their position.

While MPs, the Law Commission, senior members of the judiciary and family lawyers may strenuously argue the point (both for and against a change in the law), the fact remains that for those increasing numbers of cohabitees (whether opposite or same sex) there remains no legal recognition of their relationship and therefore, no guaranteed or even presumed rights to ownership of each other’s property when that relationship breaks downs.  Nor is there any statutory guidance regarding the division of assets in these circumstances (compared to on divorce or dissolution of a registered partnership).

It is possible for cohabiting partners to contemplate (however painful it might be to do so) the possible breakdown of their relationship and agree for themselves the ownership of their joint home.  However, in the absence of this foresight, when, on relationship breakdown, property disputes escalate into litigation, cohabitees are reliant on the courts making orders based on legal rules arising from Equity.  There is some perception that, given the current social environment, a more sympathetic judicial approach might be evolving when it comes to the assessment of the property rights of co-habiting partners.  However, as one Supreme Court justice highlighted “the absence of legislative intervention [makes] it necessary for the judiciary to respond by adapting old principles to new situations…..not an easy task.”  However, as another member of the judiciary has also said, “[judges have to] ignore human sympathies and apply the law”.

So how does the judiciary approach these disputes between cohabitees?  What is the law that guides their decision making? They look to Equity’s most recognisable creation, the trust.

 A trust gives rise to a split in the ownership of the property forming the subject matter of the trust.  This split relates to the separation between the “legal” interest in the property – the public face of ownership, associated with the responsibility to manage and control that property – and the “beneficial” interest of the property – those who are actually to benefit from the property (i.e. have a right to occupy, a right to the sale proceeds and/or rental income).  The holder(s) of the legal interest are the trustees while those with the beneficial interest are, unsurprisingly, called the beneficiaries.  The trustees are under a duty to look after the property for the benefit of those beneficiaries. It should, however, be noted that having a “beneficial” interest in the property does not necessarily mean that those beneficiaries have equal interests in that property.

For cohabitees, this trust structure can mean different things depending on the circumstances relating to the “legal” ownership of the property:-

• It is possible for cohabitees to buy property together and for both to be named as the legal owners.  While they are joint, “legal” owners, they may also be beneficial owners of the property.  In the absence of any contrary evidence (i.e. an express written statement by the beneficiaries), there is a presumption in law that the beneficial interests are to be shared equally.  However, it may be the case that, in the circumstances, one beneficiary will have (or believe that they are entitled to) a larger share. 

• It is also possible for only one cohabitee to be named as the sole legal owner.  While there may be a very sound reason for this to have occurred and the sole legal owner may be very clear that he/she has legal ownership for the benefit of both cohabitees (again by way of written document expressly stating this),  it is also a scenario which can give rise to significant dispute. The presumption here is that the beneficial interest mirrors the legal interest – there is no presumption of joint beneficial ownership – and one cohabitee (the one without the legal interest) will find him/herself having to provide sufficient evidence for a judge that a trust actually does exist and they are entitled to some kind of beneficial interest.

As there is no legislation to guide the court, it is equitable principles established in case law that will determine the circumstances and evidence that the court will be looking for to see if a beneficiary is entitled to a larger beneficial interest or is entitled to a beneficial interest at all.

An important consideration to remember is that if the cohabitees agree for themselves the nature of the beneficial interests in their joint home and then documented this in a written deed, the court is unlikely to look beyond this agreement (unless there is a clear error or undue influence). However, more often than not, cohabitees, in the initial glow of their relationship, look at sorting out legal issues as unromantic and there is no agreement to provide clarity and stress-free resolution.

When the court is asked to make a decision, they will be forced to interpret evidence to see if they can identify the intention of the parties in relation to the ownership of the” joint” home.

So what will the court be looking for?

Before the property was bought (or at some time later in the relationship), is there evidence of a common understanding or agreement that the property was to be shared.  Direct financial contributions in relation to the property (i.e. direct payments to the purchase, taking on the burden of/paying off a mortgage, monetarily contributing to an extension) would be a good indication of such an understanding, even if there was no explicit discussions between the parties.  These financial contributions can be taken into account in determining whether a trust exists at all (and the property is therefore shared beneficially) and/or determining the size of any beneficial interest.

Historically, direct financial contributions have been the only indicators that a court would consider to decide these arguments.  Currently, direct financial contributions are, to a certain extent, still the primary considerations in determining whether the parties did have an intention to share ownership of the property, that a trust of the joint home existed notwithstanding that the “legal” interest is only registered in one of the parties (although the court will look closely as to why the legal interest is not in the name of both). 

However, these financial contributions are not the critical factors they once were, especially in determining the size of each beneficiary’s share.  More recently, the court may arrive at its decision by taking a more “holistic” look at the parties’ conduct in relation to the property (rather than the relationship itself) during their period of ownership to determine what the parties intended in relation to the property.  In the absence of any intention being evidenced, the court will look to the parties’ “whole course of dealing” to determine what it considers fair.  The length of time that the parties have co-habited is not necessarily relevant.  However, while financial contributions will still be relevant, now courts will also take into account things such as the advice given to the parties at the time of purchase (or a re-mortgage), the purpose for which the property was acquired, the financial arrangements of the parties, how the parties discharged the property outgoings (i.e. council tax, utilities, repairs, insurance).

As with any court proceedings, the courts will have to rely on evidence to enable them to understand the situation.  Given that “context is everything”, each dispute will turn and be decided on its own facts.   It is to be anticipated that the parties will be called upon to give oral evidence (and should be prepared to do so).  Given the strong feelings that these disputes often arouse and the impact that this can have on oral evidence, courts are likely to place more weight on documents where they are available – a conveyancing file from the time of purchase (or any re-mortgage), bank statements and other financial documents from both before and after the property was bought.

For the foreseeable future, cohabiting couples are likely to remain without guaranteed rights of ownership of each other’s, or what is thought to be joint, property on relationship breakdown.  It is open to couples to regulate their relationship in legal terms should they wish to.  However, what couples must recognise is that if they do not elect to establish their rights for themselves, the mythical concept of ”common law marriage” will not safeguard them.  Upon relationship breakdown, they will be looking to time-honoured equitable principles and the concept a trust for assistance.

Alison Bicknell

---

This blogpost is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.

Resolving Disputes: The Wonders of Mediation

After many years of curiosity, my eyes were finally opened when I recently participated in a mediation. The dispute concerned a property which had excited 3 years of grief, 1 year of court time and tens of thousands of pounds in costs.

I am a sceptic by nature. During my lifetime I have suffered many trials and tribulations, witnessed and experienced many injustices. Indeed ‘Justice’ can often seem elusive and out of reach.

Mediation had been recommended by the Judge. Indeed mediation is recommended by the Courts as a cheap, fast and cost-effective way of resolving disputes.

At the outset, however, I had my doubts. I had rated the mediator’s chance of helping both parties resolve, what appeared on its face, an intractable dispute, which had proved beyond the reach of warring parties and had taxed the minds of their lawyers for years, as hopeless. And yet within 1 day and the expert crafting hands of an experienced mediator, the deed was done and the matter was finally resolved.

Am I astonished? Yes. Can mediation help you? Only you can decide. I, however, am now convinced.  

Prior to the mediation, it had frequently felt as if the parties were banging their heads against an unresponsive, impenetrable and impassable brick wall. The mediation, however, was responsive, fluid and dynamic. The Mediator stepped across the divide and reached out to both sides, creating pathways for both parties to explore issues and enter into a sensible and productive dialogue. Most importantly the mediator listened. The Mediator will also listen to you.

It is clear to me that Mediation has a leading role to play in the resolution of disputes. The word should be spread loud and clear. Mediation could help you.

Be warned those of you who avoid mediation. Courts can impose punitive sanctions against parties who do not mediate (see PGF II SA v OMFS Company 1 Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1288). Indeed there are many stories of otherwise successful parties both Claimants and Defendants losing all or a significant part of their costs for failing to mediate.

Here is a final word from the Judiciary. Mr Justice Norris in the recent case of Bradley v Heslin [2014] EWHC 3267 (Ch) said:

‘I add my voice to that of many other judges who urge that, even when proceedings have been issued to preserve the position, the engagement of a trained mediator is more likely to lead to an outcome satisfactory to both parties (in terms of speed, cost, resolution and future relationships) than the pursuit of litigation to  trial.’

In our case the Mediator certainly created the platform and weaved the dynamic framework upon which resolution was achieved.  

Can mediation work? Yes. I have tried it and know. Mediation successfully resolves most disputes. Mediation could also work for you.

My observation is that mediation hearings create an entirely different dynamic. It is not about winning; it is about reaching an agreement. Therefore, resolution is the only victory.

As told to Russell Evans of Resolve UK Mediation by Jeff Lampert

---

This blogpost is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.

Success Story of a diyLAW Volunteer

– getting pupillage: be yourself

It took Krishma Patel a series of trial and error interviews before she was offered pupillage

I never imagined getting pupillage would be this difficult. It took me four years of hard work, hundreds of applications, hours of practising interview questions and weeks on end reading about scintillating legal topics and current affairs.

While studying law, I participated in a mooting competition in my penultimate year. From the moment I stood up to present my first argument, I knew that I wanted to be a barrister. I decided at that point that I would do everything in my power to get there.

I went on to study the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) at Nottingham Law School. During the course of this year, I attended numerous pupillage talks and networking events. I realised that I had to start thinking outside the box - everyone had got firsts, done a number of mini-pupillages and had marshalling experience.

Early this year, I started volunteering with a company called Help4LiPs (helping litigants in person - now diyLAW). I wanted to play a small part in helping those who had been hit hard by the legal aid cuts. After volunteering (and networking non-stop) for a few months, the opportunity arose to help a litigant with a case. The litigant was claiming a sum of £12m from a bank. I drafted the witness statement for his hearing at the Court of Appeal. If I had not networked as much and hadn't committed myself to volunteering with the company, the chance to work on a case of such magnitude would not have arisen until very late in my career (if at all).

I have three key tips that I hope will help you to attain pupillage:

• First, I encourage you to think outside the box in terms of legal experience. In all of my interviews, the panel didn't want to talk to me about my glittering array of mini-pupillages. They were much more interested in the work I did at Help4LiPs (now diyLAW).

• Second, start your applications early. The practice form on Gateway (the online application service for pupillages) is available much earlier than applications open. It will take you a number of drafts before you are content with your final version. This year it took me nine drafts until I was happy.

• Finally, and most importantly, be yourself in interviews. Obviously make sure you are professional and courteous at all times but don't try to be someone you aren't. You don't get a second chance to make a first impression.

This is a mistake I made time and time again. In interviews I always tried to come across as the person I thought the chambers wanted me to be. In my last interview, I thought I'd see what happened if I was myself. And guess what, I was offered pupillage. To my surprise, they must have liked me. It is a huge relief to know that during pupillage at my chambers I don't have to pretend to be anybody that I am not.

I am very sympathetic to all of those going through applications on the long hard hunt for pupillage. But do not give up. I am proof that with sheer hard work and determination you can do this.

Good luck.

Krishma Patel

This article was originally published here.

---

This blogpost is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.

Benefit from Being a diyLAW Volunteer

Adam Marley, Law Graduate

After 5 years' studying at the Open University while working full time as an airline steward I finally achieved my Law Degree. After the initial elation of receiving my certificate and graduating in front of my family at The Barbican, I was left wondering 'what now?'.

I had spent about 20 hours a week studying over the course of my degree and after graduation, I had all this extra time on my hands. I stumbled across an advertisement asking for volunteers for an organisation providing help and information for people representing themselves in legal proceedings.

I sent off my CV and was called for an interview a couple of days later. The office arrangement was simple, resources limited, but one thing there was no lack of was enthusiasm for the project. I accepted the offer of being taken on as a volunteer and worked on a number of small pieces of work before I picked up a major project to write How-To guides for couples going through divorce and dissolution of civil partnership proceedings.

I was put in touch with a qualified barrister who guided me and provided feedback on my work. Her encouragement was really gratifying and her experience helped me to adapt my academic knowledge and apply it in practice.

Through my contact with Help4LiPs (now diyLAW), I had the opportunity to make contacts in the legal profession, attend meetings and conferences and explore the legal field. Help4LiPs (now diyLAW) is pleased to work with the Brent Community Law Centre which provides legal services to the community in North West London. I am privileged to be working closely with a senior solicitor, assisting her with her caseload and learning the practical application of the law as well as the legal processes that take place behind the scenes. I have had the opportunity to conduct case conferences and meet with clients, as well as to attend court and tribunal hearings. I have seen cases through to their conclusion and have seen the great impact our work has had on the lives of the people we have helped.

In addition to the opportunity at the Law Centre, I am also still involved with Help4Lips (now diyLAW) on a day to day basis. As part of their online strategy, press releases are sent out at regular intervals. I help to source relevant materials for the program coordinator to use. I am also involved in interviewing new volunteers and helping to formulate strategy.

The experience that I have gained through my contact with Help4Lips (now diyLAW) has been stimulating and enjoyable. I can see the effect of the work I do and that is what maintains my commitment.

Krishma Patel, Law Graduate

Help4Lips (now diyLAW) – My experience
I started as a volunteer with Help4Lips (now diyLAW) in February 2014. I was quickly introduced to the team who were very supportive and friendly. My first task was to contact law firms to persuade them to produce guides for litigants in person in different areas of law. This was a challenging and interesting assignment – it allowed me to build my communication and interpersonal skills.

Through my work with Help4LiPs (now diyLAW), I was able to gain exposure to the Brent Community Law Centre, where I also work as a volunteer. I currently assist in the promotion and development of the Young People’s Law Service in Brent. This has included organising talks and speaking at schools as well as organising and participating in fundraising events. It is a varied role, providing the opportunity to meet a range of individuals.

In addition to this, at Help4LiPs (now diyLAW) I was provided with an opportunity to assist a LiP with a long-running case relating to banking and insolvency law. It is a relatively high profile case and had I not been working with Help4LiPs, I believe that the opportunity to work this closely on such a large and complex case would not have arisen. It has allowed me to build drafting and analytical skills, both of which will assist me in my career at the Bar (when I get there!).

Aside from all of the above, working with Help4LiPs (now diyLAW) has allowed me to form and build a network of contacts. Everybody at Help4LiPs (now diyLAW) has been extremely supportive of my career aspirations and have always put me forward if and when any interesting opportunities arise. It has genuinely been an invaluable experience with so many interesting people. I really have learnt so much!

Anoud Said Abu Odeh, Law Graduate

After graduating with an LLB Law degree from Queen Mary, University of London, I went on to certify as an attorney in the State of New York. One of the requirements that candidates need to fulfil before completing their certification is 50 hours of pro bono. It was very difficult for me to find a programme or project that suited the type of pro bono work New York would accept. I was finally put into contact with Help4Lips (now diyLAW), which made available to me different options of projects and placements that I could work on to complete my hours.

I completed my hours at Brent Community Law Centre. Help4Lips (now diyLAW) helped me get into contact with them and arranging my pro bono placement with them was very simple, efficient and straightforward. BCLC was very flexible with me in terms of dates, working hours and even gave me the choice as to which department of law I would like to work with.

I chose to work with the immigration department at BCLC. The immigration solicitors at the centre were very engaging and their approach with volunteers was very hands-on, which ensured that I learnt a lot while working at the centre. They allowed me to work on a multitude of tasks with them, such as meeting clients – I even interviewed a potential client on my own – researching and organizing documents of evidence for trial, answering the advice line and administering the centre in general. I was given an induction of the center on my first day, introduced to the staff and was readily provided with any assistance I needed; whether it was simply how to operate the computer system at the center or whether it was something a little more complex and substantive, such as how to conduct research in search of evidence for a certain case. Most of our work focused on helping clients with their asylum claims.

BCLC is a small centre that is visited by many different clients every single day. The work ethic and commitment of all the solicitors and volunteers to the operation of the centre, its clients and their needs was inspiring and abundant. Helping the many people that came knocking on its door on a daily basis in urgent need for legal advice was extremely gratifying. On top of that, everyone at the centre was very friendly and I felt like I was amongst friends rather than colleagues. I would recommend a placement at BCLC to anyone.

---

This blogpost is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.