Lee became a partner in 2001, managing partner in 2018, and heads the firm’s family law team. A resolution accredited specialist in financial and children matters, Lee has practised exclusively in Family Law throughout his career and was a founding member of the Family Law Panel in 2005. He acts for a broad range of clients, with particular expertise in complex financial cases involving business owners, company valuations, shareholdings and liquidity issues. Lee also advises on the treatment of family discretionary trusts and the review of existing maintenance arrangements. He has extensive experience acting for members of the armed forces, police and fire services, particularly in cases involving significant pension assets, where he is experienced in challenging valuations and securing accurate pension assessments.
What was your career path to your current role?
I trained as a solicitor at Clough & Willis and qualified in 1997. I then progressed from assistant solicitor to partner in 2001, and subsequently took on responsibility for heading up the Family team. I became the managing partner in 2018.
I have practised exclusively in family law throughout my career, which means I have had the benefit of seeing the law and the way cases are conducted change considerably over nearly three decades. Alongside the family work, becoming managing partner has given me a completely different perspective on running a law firm as I deal not only with clients and cases, but also with people, strategy, recruitment and the day-to-day realities of running a modern legal practice.
I have always remained involved in the technical side of family law, particularly financial cases, rather than moving entirely into management. I still enjoy the forensic element of financial work and the challenge of getting to grips with complicated assets, business interests, pensions and the wider financial picture.
Did you have any other career ambitions?
I had planned on being a dentist in the Navy. So, clearly, things took a slightly different turn. I have always had great admiration for our armed forces and interestingly, during my legal career, I have acted for and against a significant number of members of the armed forces. That has given me some particular experience of dealing with cases where pensions and other service-related benefits form an important part of the financial picture.
What keeps you motivated in your work?
Generally speaking, it is the ups and downs of practising law on behalf of clients. Family law is rarely predictable and every case brings a different set of personalities, circumstances and financial problems. I particularly enjoy the forensic side of financial work. You can start with a set of accounts, pension information, company structures or other financial documents and gradually build up a picture of what the real financial position is. That process can be both challenging and rewarding. You have to ensure your client understands it and can make informed decisions.
Experience also plays a part. After many years of dealing with financial cases, you develop an instinct for where a sensible settlement might ultimately land, although, as I always tell people, that doesn’t mean you can predict the outcome with certainty in Court.
The other motivation for me now is steering the partnership, helping to develop the legal and other partnership businesses. Being managing partner adds another dimension to the day. I enjoy trying to make sure that the firm continues to develop while retaining the personal and approachable service that clients expect from Clough & Willis.
What has been the best development in family law in the last 20 years?
For me, one of the most significant developments was the financial proceedings pilot scheme which our area was involved in, and which ultimately became adopted nationally as the procedure we use today.
I would also point to the development of the Law Society’s pre-action protocol. Although it front-loaded much of the costs and work, I think it had a positive effect on reducing the cases that would otherwise had to come before the court.
It helped to both weed out some of the general litigators who were perhaps dabbling in family law without the necessary specialism, and encouraged parties to exchange all required information and disclosure at an early stage. Previously it often required the issuing of proceedings simply to secure what was often basic but required disclosure.
In financial cases, having the relevant information early is hugely important. It allows people to have a much more informed discussion about settlement and, in appropriate cases, avoid unnecessary litigation saving costs, delay and stress.
And the worst?
The closure of so many local courts. There used to be a real sense that you were part of the local civil justice system. You knew the court, the staff and often the other practitioners appearing there. Now, increasingly, you can feel more like a client of the system rather than a part of the civil justice system.
I also have concerns about the increasing restrictions on client choice and what seems to me to be an almost forced approach to mediation. I am not against mediation, far from it. In the right case, with the right mediator and at the right stage, it can be an extremely effective way of resolving family disputes- particularly children matters. But there is a difference between encouraging people to consider an alternative dispute resolution process and effectively making them go through a process regardless of whether it is appropriate for their particular circumstances. Family cases are very fact-specific, and the system needs to retain enough flexibility to recognise that.
If you could bring in one new piece of legislation for the sector, what would it be and why?
I would like to see well-thought-out legislation dealing with long-term cohabitants. The important words there are ‘well thought out’. The law relating to unmarried couples can produce some very different outcomes from those available to married couples, despite the fact that people may have been living together for many years, raising children and building up assets together.
However, any legislation in this area needs to be carefully considered. There are genuine differences between marriage and cohabitation, and legislation should not simply try to replicate the matrimonial regime without thinking through the consequences.
If I were allowed to make a less controversial procedural change instead, I would look at the £250,000 limit for the fast-track procedure in financial remedy cases, particularly where pensions are involved.
The current limit can create practical difficulties because a pension may need specialist actuarial advice. You can find yourself issuing proceedings and pretty quickly on seeing the pensions when disclosed needing to ask the court to adjourn a hearing This unnecessarily leads to another court fee and additional work, whilst the parties agree the identity and framework of instruction of a pension actuary. There is then the wait of potentially several months for the report. It is a good example of how a procedural rule which looks straightforward on paper can create immediate practical difficulties in a real case.
What piece of legislation would you take off the statute books and why?
I would look again at the child support legislation, at least insofar as it applies to married people where the paying parent is self-employed. You constantly hear examples of people being frustrated by the operation of the system and, in my experience, the court forum can look at the overall financial circumstances in a much more nuanced way. The CMS assessment formula can easily be applied to all income (not just that earned but also dividends).
The court also considers income, needs, ability to pay and be mindful of the incentive for somebody to continue working. That can be particularly important where you have a self-employed paying parent and the question is what their true income actually is. The Court are at least better equipped to forensically examine that.
I accept that the formulaic, one-stop-shop approach of the Child Maintenance Service is designed for volume and is intended to provide a relatively straightforward system. It works best for those genuinely employed by a third party.
What’s the best piece of advice anyone ever gave you regarding your career?
“Those people ahead of you won’t always be there.” It is a simple observation, but an important one.
You should never assume that the person above you in an organisation will always be there to provide the next opportunity or to make the next decision. You have to develop yourself, take responsibility and be ready when an opportunity comes along. It is probably even more relevant now that I am involved in running the firm. Succession and developing the next generation of lawyers is something every partnership has to think about. In many older law practices we are merely the current custodians.
What advice would you like to give to someone just starting out?
Don’t be short-term in your career decisions. The legal profession is a long game. A job or opportunity which looks attractive today isn’t necessarily going to be the one that gives you the best career in five or ten years’ time. Look at what you are going to learn, who you are going to learn from and what sort of lawyer you want to become.
Oh yes, and always meet your witness. It sounds obvious, but particularly as technology makes it easier to communicate remotely, there is no substitute for actually sitting down with somebody and understanding them. You learn so much more.
Tell us something people may be surprised to know about you…
I was an entrant in Mr Junior East Coast in 1987, or was it 1986?, but I think I had to withdraw late on as I had exams to revise for. I will leave the exact year to history! It is probably not the sort of thing people expect to hear from a family lawyer and managing partner, which is perhaps why it has survived as one of my more interesting claims to fame.
If you’d like to appear in a future profile, email press@todaysfamilylawyer.co.uk
