Romance and the law

August 18, 2008

The FT carried a lengthy piece in its weekend magazine on pre-nuptial agreements, with the paper’s chief feature writer, Richard Tomkins, arguing that pre-nups actually encourage marriage rather than undermine it.

Blade isn’t so sure. He recalls the following, somewhat satirical take on pre-nups from the Independent on Sunday, and fears that even though it was pegged to February 29th 2003, a leap year, its barbs still ring true.

“Will you marry me?” are words that many of us have uttered, some more than others and one or two even on bended knee. The words are usually accompanied by a chthonic sigh of endless love, a querulous urgency and, often enough, oodles of Dutch courage.

It takes a man to propose, that’s what society says. Except for today. For it is a leap year, and this very day, one of those Saturnalian inversions of the norm has been carved out, rather like the fiestas in Spain where all can run amok, even the bulls. Yes, today, February 29th, women can propose. They can utter the words “Will you marry me?” with equanimity, free from censure or bemusement. The politically correct may scoff – after all, why should a woman not propose at any other time, if she feels like it – but there are more than a few men who will wake up this morning in terror. They have cruised along for years, putting off the question of wedlock, and for whatever reason their partners have elected not to upset the applecart. But today, the known world implodes, and anything can happen.

The good news is that there are lawyers out there who can help. To assist in the smooth running of modern-day marriage they have crafted all kinds of romantic documents. There is the prenuptial agreement, which helps a couple to love each other by codifying the idea of separation of assets at an early, pre-divorce stage. Prenuptial agreements can come with all kinds of bells and whistles, for example the ‘no cheating’ clause, as pioneered by Jennifer Lopez before her marriage to stripper-prone new husband Ben Affleck, while other ‘prenups,’ as the family lawyers call them, provide for increased payments for each act of adultery. There is also the ‘postnup,’ an agreement signed during a marriage that defines how assets will be divided in the event of divorce. “Will you sign this postnup?” were words uttered by the lawyers to American basketball superstar Michael Jordan and his wife when they decided to step away from the brink.

I was mulling this over because a friend will, this very day, be one of the men waking up in fear that his dread of commitment will be exposed by a leap-year-legitimised marriage proposal. “What can I do if she proposes?” he said. He asked me to help him, as friend and lawyer. “Go away for the day,” I said. No good, he said, she had booked a hotel for the weekend. “Come on, you’re a lawyer, help me!” he said.

So I had a think and talked to one or two family lawyers. This term has always struck me as apposite, for is there anyone more commensurate with the ideal of the family than lawyers? An elegant family lawyer with bags of decorum told me that it was simple, my friend should ring her up. She would be very happy to help him. He rang her and she told him that there were various ways of dealing with an unwanted proposal, short of saying “no.” He could offer the proposer a cohabitation agreement instead of marriage. Or, if he was worried about his wealth, he could say “yes, that sounds great, I have always loved you, too. But I will only marry you if we sign a prenuptial agreement. Later, we can follow it up with a postnuptial.”

My commitment-phobe friend was unaccountably depressed for days on end after this conversation. The nail in the coffin was when the lawyer’s bill arrived. “To our professional charges in connection with your possibly being the subject of a marriage proposal,” it said. And now, today, he will be waking up in a hotel in the Cotswolds, ducks waddling on the lawn outside, the old mill gently ruffling the water, a stoical waiter braving the discontented murmurs of townies from London, men like him and women like his partner, sitting down to breakfast, a strangely chthonic sigh weaving through the air as the words “Will you marry me?” are uttered, and my friend will be saying, “I know it might not sound terribly romantic, but how about a cohabitation agreement?” and next day he will ring back the decorous family lawyer and say, “Will you draft that agreement?” and she will say, “Yes.”

marriage.jpg

 

One Response to “Romance and the law”

Whilst I agree that pre-nups are not the most romantic of documents, I think its important to draw a distinction between ‘American’ pre-nups, and those in use in the UK. In America, my understanding is that one can put whatever one likes in a pre-nup – leading to some pretty ridiculous clauses. In the UK, since pre-nups are not necessarily legally binding, only serious matters such as asset division and custody can be dealt with. Ridiculous clauses would just be thrown out by the courts.

In my view, any process which helps make divorce more private and less costly should be encouraged. Witness the recent Crossley case where the Judge allowed a truncated one day hearing to settle a multi-million pound divorce due to the existence of a pre-nup – saving everyone involved time, money and heartache – and freeing up court time for more complex matters.

Comments

Please submit comments to Swordplay below.

If you’re Joey Barton, attack is not the best form of defence

May 17, 2012

Interesting times, these, in the life of Joey Barton.

If the violence displayed by the QPR captain at Manchester City last Sunday was remarkable, his subsequent conduct on Twitter has been astonishing. Barton appears to have radically reinterpreted the notion that attack is the best form of defence, lashing out at all and sundry via a series of tweets whose ultimate effect is entirely self-destructive.

In the past 24 hours, Barton has accepted one charge of violent conduct at the Etihad Stadium but denied another. The FA seems set to throw the book at him, and his club has declared that it will deal with the matter after the result of the FA investigation. Conspiracy theorists might conclude that QPR’s management team and board hope that the FA ban Barton for so long a period (four months and more) that their reported desire to rip up his contract can only be bolstered.

What, then, should Barton do? Should he:

(a) Keep his head down and say nothing, or

(b) Issue a sensible statement in which he acknowledges that both his conduct at the Etihad and subsequent tweets have brought QPR into disrepute, and

(c) Add an apology to said statement, or

(d) Go to Portugal, log onto Twitter and tweet that the world is against him but that he doesn’t care because everyone is a moron and he’s worked really hard to get where he is and if anyone is nasty to him again he is going to expose their secrets.

The answer is not (d).

The moral of the story is that if you’re a loose cannon, when you turn attack into defence there is a danger that you will blow yourself up.

Gunning foglessly for clarity

May 15, 2012

A fine piece, this, on Winston Churchill’s gift for language and the obscurantism that goes with so much corporate communication.

But wait, what’s this? Could this injunction have been phrased rather more successfully:

Be concrete, not abstract. Use metaphors to get your message across.

Metaphors are, by definition, not exactly concrete. But be that as it may: there is a lot of sound advice in Clare Lynch’s piece and a revelation, too. We had never heard of the Gunning Fog Index.  But it exists, and reveals the age at which someone would have to leave full-time education to understand given text.

We’re pleased to display our own Gunning Fog rating for the above words. That of the Churchill speech cited by Ms Lynch was 9.698.

The Gunning Fog index is 9.585

Spin at the Leveson Inquiry

May 9, 2012
Leveson witch hunt

The idea that Lord Justice Leveson and his Inquiry’s QC, Robert Jay, are in need of PR advice is intriguing.

Surely their respective tasks ought to be immune from spin? Then again, perhaps the way in which they execute them is deserving of some communications advice. Either way, times have changed. A similar inquiry from yesteryear (and such do exist) would surely not have been accompanied, albeit informally, by communications advice.

Pictured courtesy of this Flickr user: a portrait of the Leveson Inquiry.