Why did you choose to specialise in high-net-worth family law following your work as a tax lawyer at Freshfields?

In some ways, moving into family law after five years working in corporate law at Freshfields was a natural and logical choice for me.

My time at Freshfields, latterly as an Associate in the Tax Department, was a truly excellent training. I was able to work with some incredible lawyers and on hugely complex matters and to establish strong bonds with a great cohort of fellow trainees, several of whom remain friends today.

After six years in higher education, it was invigorating to be working and to be able to observe closely and learn so much from experienced colleagues. I also enjoyed quite significant responsibility for drafting, negotiating and client care.

Yet, although I always found my work in corporate law satisfying, I knew early on that it was not my calling. I also knew that I was well suited to working in law, but I got no buzz out of the deal culture and was convinced that I wanted something different in my professional life.

Over the course of many months looking at alternative areas of the law to specialise in, the one that I kept coming back to was family law.

This was a recurring theme in the helpful conversations I had with many other lawyers, several of whom I had simply cold-called because their work looked interesting to me. All were generous and kind with their advice and guidance, without which I might not have been able to make the positive move to be where I am now.

So, why family law? I think in part this stems from deep-seated interests. I have a history degree and was always drawn to social history in particular.  During my undergraduate degree at Cambridge and post graduate studies at the University of Chicago, my studies focused on the lives of ordinary people, the social structures and the interactions and practices that shape them. I was always fascinated by the insight these studies provided.

Family law had the same irresistible pull. My decision was made, but with a somewhat atypical CV, I needed a foot in the door.

As I was contemplating my next step, a job opportunity opened up at Hughes Fowler Carruthers. It seemed perfect although I did not know what to expect. The firm had a stellar reputation and being interviewed by a panel of the top four family law partners at the firm, all at the top of their game, was daunting. Happily, they were prepared to take a gamble on me.

Though I was delighted to be given this chance, in reality it meant going back to square one, effectively returning to NQ status, as well as embarking upon a path with a very steep learning curve.

Challenging though this was, I am glad to say the choice of moving from corporate law into family law has been more than worthwhile. Seven years after those interviews – and two children and maternity leaves later – I was made a partner.  Another decade on from that, and I remain fascinated by the work and the move into family law remains one of the best decisions I have ever made. No two days are the same and the rewards of unpicking a knotty case, negotiating a good outcome or securing a result for a client are immense.

What differences have you found working in family law compared to other practice areas within the legal profession?

Family law and family lawyers are special, although you would perhaps expect a family lawyer to say that. I am convinced, however, after many years working alongside others who have pursued the same route within law, that most have a genuine and deep interest in the human condition and are naturally empathetic individuals.

That is not necessarily a universal quality within the legal sector.

But it would be a mistake to think of family law as a soft area of the law, or one which is less rigorous simply because the lawyer is required to deal sensitively with people experiencing difficult and often raw emotional circumstances.  I recall my first boss at HFC saying we needed to be “hard boiled” – family lawyers also need a tough skin.

I think what makes it different is that the legal argument, financial analysis and asset protection motivations are rooted in a deeply human dimension, which is absent when interacting with corporate clients.

The asset levels in HNW and UHNW cases can be eye-watering, and therefore the client’s exposures, and stress levels, are very material considerations throughout.

But regardless of the specific financial background involved, clients are almost universally under vast strain and often very scared. They can be at the worst moment of their lives when they first pick up the phone to call.

The subject matter is invariably deeply personal. At an initial meeting you hear a client’s life story, and you need to be able to build a relationship of trust and confidence with the client quickly. Often the advice requires the client to make major decisions quickly at or shortly after our first meeting, particularly where there are competing jurisdictions at play. Crises can flare up fast, so the work can be very fast paced.

Against this backdrop of conflict, fraught emotions and negotiations centring on deeply personal family situations, the law is discretionary and in some ways in a bit of a mess, with outdated statute and a welter of case law plugging the gaps.

Experience has also demonstrated to me on many occasions how the court system is creaking in places and under significant strain.

This can of course make advising a client challenging, but it also offers opportunities for creative solutions, which is one aspect of being a family lawyer which I relish.

How do you approach cross-jurisdictional high net worth divorce cases?

One of the first questions that loom large at the outset of any case is that of jurisdiction. Before anything can start moving forwards for the client, this question needs to be answered.

The key is whether the client has the necessary connections to this country to proceed here. Will the English court be able to exercise jurisdiction?

Alongside this, it is vital to consider whether there are any other jurisdictions with the necessary connection.

If so, the immediate step is to ascertain which jurisdiction might be best for him or her in terms of outcome. This means that fast, local law advice in all other possible jurisdictions is vital.

If it is possible to proceed in England, and that has been established to be the best course for the client, the next question is will the other party submit to the jurisdiction and actively participate in the proceedings here?  Or will he or she challenge the jurisdiction giving rise to a forum dispute? In short, how will he or she respond to being served?

On a more fundamental level, but just as essential, is how can he or she be served wherever they may be in the world?

Additional complexities arise. Has the other party already taken steps to try to secure jurisdiction elsewhere? Will those proceedings continue in parallel so there is in effect a “race”?

It is vital to think tactically and to move fast. This in turn may mean exploring ways to try to slow proceedings elsewhere in order to seek to win the “race” here for the client.

But that is not the end of the process because even if a divorce is concluded elsewhere, there are financial claims that can be made in England following a divorce in another jurisdiction.  The key then is to consider with the client what claims can now be made?

Beyond the jurisdictional questions, is the real substance of the case – what arguments can be run and what claims can be made?

At all stages you need to consider the client’s day to day life alongside the ultimate outcome. Of course, the most imperative consideration is whether there are children. In addition, and of obvious practical importance is the question about what access to funds does he or she have until the big financial issues are resolved, especially if the other party restricts access to funds? Often it will be necessary to make (or oppose) an application for interim funding from the weaker financial party.

The other key consideration is enforcement. This has to inform all stages of the case right from the start. There is little point in achieving a good outcome only to find subsequently that the order that has been obtained is largely unenforceable. Right from the outset, there needs to be consideration about what will happen if the other party does not comply with the final order? What targets are there for enforcement? Are there concerns about assets being dissipated in the meantime?

Along the way, I need to be thinking about publicity. The issue of transparency in the family courts is a live one. As matters stand, there should generally be anonymity in reporting but that may not necessarily be the case, including in other jurisdictions. There needs to be discussions with the client about what impact any publicity might have on them, their family and financial interests, and on the proceedings.

Overall, there needs to be an excellent team in place from the outset – by engaging local lawyers in other jurisdictions to advise, identifying the best barrister for the case, getting the necessary tax and private client expertise onboard and considering the potential needs for reputation management.

How has the world of high-net-worth divorce law evolved throughout your career?

The proportion of cases which revolve around extraordinary wealth, with a previously unimaginable quantum of assets, has grown. There has been a notable increase self-made millionaire and billionaire clients. Entrepreneurs now significantly outnumber inheritors in my case load.

London has always been a wealthy city and remains one of the wealthiest cities in the world, but the concentration of wealth, the rise of UHNW cases and the increase in truly global families has been striking. Many clients now live across multiple jurisdictions, with assets across many more, and are much more transient than perhaps would have been the case 10 or 15 years ago. With each successive year, the job has become more international.

Aligned with this swelling base of international clients, the underlying structure of their wealth has become more complicated.  There has been a diversification in the types of assets held by clients.  More straightforward real estate and pension asset wealth structures have diversified, to be replaced with Private Equity and Venture Capital wealth, and increasingly novel types of digital, tech, crypto, and intangible wealth. This has had significant knock-on impacts in terms of the complexities of identifying and valuing assets in the context of divorce.

Another change has been the rise of pre- and post-nuptial agreements, which has been very marked in recent years. The groundbreaking Supreme Court case of Radmacher in 2010 changed the way the English courts looked at such agreements. Previously such agreements were largely the preserve of overseas clients, who often came from countries where marriage contracts were the norm, but it is now much more routine across the client base, even for English couples who previously might have felt squeamish about such frank discussions.

This has also been fuelled by the transfer of wealth – as the progeny of Generation X, both Millennials and now Generation Z are now receiving wealth generated by their UHNW parents and grandparents on a scale not seen by previous generations. Perhaps because these successive generations have become more conscious of the imposing scale of their inheritance, there has been a greater focus on asset protection.

What do you enjoy doing outside work?

Weekends are spent on the sidelines of my children’s sporting commitments, with thermals for football in January, sunscreen for cricket in June and sweltering in the spectator area of indoor swimming pools year-round.

When I get proper time off, I love to be on or in the sea.  I swam competitively when I was younger and still love kayaking, coasteering, sea swimming and the odd RIB ride, as well as body boarding with my children these days.

I also like to cook, read and go for long walks in the countryside with my dog.

Read Caroline’s interview in Solicitors Journal, here.