You can see the UI for UK's divorce lawyers in this training document[1] pdf. It's not actually that bad, but the payment flow only shows case numbers, not names.
----
However, the headline for this article is a bit misleading. It sounds like the lawyers just divorced a random married couple, and the judge refused to undo it.
But if you go through the article, and put together the clues like a game of Dog Crimes, you get the following sequence of events:
1) The wife hired a speciality divorce law firm.
2) The law firm had already completed all divorce paperwork and uploaded documents into court web system for the wife divorcing the husband.
3) The law firm accidentally selected this "case" to submit and pay for, rather than another intended case.
4) Per UK law the husband would have been officially notified of the completion of the divorce.
5) The wife was not happy about this surprise.
6) The wife's law firm went to court to undo the divorce.
7) The husband hired his own lawyers to keep the divorce.
8) Given that all the paperwork was correct filed, and one member of the couple wanted to keep the divorce the judge let it stand.
So only issue really was that wife's filing went active earlier than she would have wanted... And husband sensibly decide just to take the opportunity...
> Vardag said the mistake happened after the wrong name was clicked on from a drop-down menu on the divorce portal. She claimed that court staff had admitted this had happened a few times and that it felt like a design flaw.
I don’t know enough, but it looks like software engineers will be blamed in short order.
Hilarious how that movie mocks youth but society being like this today is not really due to the youth
It’s almost like it was some adults having a laugh at others expense not realizing even making such a movie is bread and circuses
Our vanity won’t let us believe we’re just like prior generations of people with fancier technology. Just the same old idiocy, mockery, cynicism, poor effort across contexts (most of which are made up social hallucinations); poor stewards of social and environmental reality
My understanding is that the lawyer was authorized to act on the behalf of one party, and the other party was happy to sign the agreement that they were sent.
A signature is merely evidence. It's neither sufficient or necessary for agreements. It just happens to be very strong evidence so we tend to think of it as the absolute sign of agreement but legally that isn't the case.
I am with the High Court judge on this one. There was no procedural flaw in the process; it was purely the mistake of the lawyer. The system should not be blamed, when the lawyer could have acted carefully. Hundreds of divorces can proceed a day without issue; why is one fatal mistake by one lawyer suddenly cause to blame the system entirely?
And let's not be mistaken - the lawyer was negligent. Observe the grandstanding of the boss, however:
> Vardag said: 'The young lawyer who made the slip with the drop down menu on the new divorce portal is one of the best of the next generation. Not sloppy, not careless. Totally committed, extremely able. That young lawyer, our brilliant young lawyer, genuinely needs support to deal with the trauma of it all.
...Is all that posturing necessary? "...one of the best of the next generation", really? A "brilliant" lawyer making this sort of mistake, which could have been avoided had the lawyer actually paid attention?
If the junior was mistaken, there is no need for this sort of grandstanding. Negligence need not to be glossed over, or made as if it was not.
Why? This was an administration error. The fact that the decree was acted upon incorrectly doesn't invalidate the decree itself, which says "These two people should get divorced". If the firm needs an additional decree so that they can divorce the right people (e.g. because the original decree has been executed and is no longer valid), then that's what they can ask the judge for.
Otherwise, the victims in this case have the UK tort system available to them to seek a remedy for any damages they may have suffered. They can also just get re-married and ask the firm to cover those associated costs.
danielvf|1 year ago
----
However, the headline for this article is a bit misleading. It sounds like the lawyers just divorced a random married couple, and the judge refused to undo it.
But if you go through the article, and put together the clues like a game of Dog Crimes, you get the following sequence of events:
1) The wife hired a speciality divorce law firm. 2) The law firm had already completed all divorce paperwork and uploaded documents into court web system for the wife divorcing the husband. 3) The law firm accidentally selected this "case" to submit and pay for, rather than another intended case. 4) Per UK law the husband would have been officially notified of the completion of the divorce. 5) The wife was not happy about this surprise. 6) The wife's law firm went to court to undo the divorce. 7) The husband hired his own lawyers to keep the divorce. 8) Given that all the paperwork was correct filed, and one member of the couple wanted to keep the divorce the judge let it stand.
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Ekaros|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
razodactyl|1 year ago
Imagine the headaches if a life event happened in between the divorce and un-divorce. Oops.
nobodyandproud|1 year ago
I don’t know enough, but it looks like software engineers will be blamed in short order.
Good luck!
byset|1 year ago
pajko|1 year ago
Yes / No
CRConrad|1 year ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40045262
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40047102
greatgib|1 year ago
dogb0wl|1 year ago
It’s almost like it was some adults having a laugh at others expense not realizing even making such a movie is bread and circuses
Our vanity won’t let us believe we’re just like prior generations of people with fancier technology. Just the same old idiocy, mockery, cynicism, poor effort across contexts (most of which are made up social hallucinations); poor stewards of social and environmental reality
mewpmewp2|1 year ago
SpaghettiCthulu|1 year ago
wvenable|1 year ago
CRConrad|1 year ago
Well, in most civilised countries; perhaps not in the most backwards of them.
knighthack|1 year ago
And let's not be mistaken - the lawyer was negligent. Observe the grandstanding of the boss, however:
> Vardag said: 'The young lawyer who made the slip with the drop down menu on the new divorce portal is one of the best of the next generation. Not sloppy, not careless. Totally committed, extremely able. That young lawyer, our brilliant young lawyer, genuinely needs support to deal with the trauma of it all.
...Is all that posturing necessary? "...one of the best of the next generation", really? A "brilliant" lawyer making this sort of mistake, which could have been avoided had the lawyer actually paid attention?
If the junior was mistaken, there is no need for this sort of grandstanding. Negligence need not to be glossed over, or made as if it was not.
wintorez|1 year ago
darepublic|1 year ago
RecycledEle|1 year ago
This is another reason society is better off without the people who become lawyers.
flosstop|1 year ago
EPWN3D|1 year ago
Otherwise, the victims in this case have the UK tort system available to them to seek a remedy for any damages they may have suffered. They can also just get re-married and ask the firm to cover those associated costs.
meepmorp|1 year ago
How do you suggest the lawyer fix their error?