Lloyd Platt & Co is a leading matrimonial divorce family specialist firm. It is not just a law firm but a pioneer in the legal industry. The firm has created far-reaching new matrimonial precedents in divorce and cohabitation cases, with the leading case altering the entire direction of the cohabitation industry.
The founder and owner, Vanessa Lloyd Platt, is a well-known matrimonial specialist who, together with her team, has acted for high-net-worth individuals, judges, politicians, television celebrities, pop and rock stars. Some of these identities remain confidential; others have been regularly quoted in the press.
The firm has won numerous awards, and Vanessa regularly writes for the Daily Mail and contributes to The Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Express, and the Daily Mirror, making her the media’s go-to expert.
Tell us more about yourself and your background.
My name is Vanessa Lloyd Platt, I am divorce lawyer having qualified in 1979. My career has therefore spanned many years, and I have come across many different scenarios. I have worked on all kinds of cases with people of different religions, backgrounds and financial circumstances. I first worked at a firm known as Lorenz & Jones where famous singers, actresses and entrepreneurs would regularly attend. Having an innate interest in people, I found matrimonial and divorce cases to be fascinating and my future was then mapped out for me.
When starting a family, I went to work for a local firm in order that I could spend time with my children. I have two sons, Michael who is now aged 44 and who is a leading light in cyber security and Gary now aged 42 who is a well-known divorce lawyer who works for my firm.
After sixteen years working at the local firm, I set up my own niche practice in Finchley, known as Lloyd Platt & Co, which has gone from strength to strength with each successful and satisfied client recommending more.
I have been asked how I got into working in the media and would confirm that my first experience was appearing on the Kilroy talk show. This led to further appearances on other shows such as Vanessa Feltz, Esther Rantzen, Gloria Hunniford and I became a regular contributor to GMTV and Good Morning. When there were any celebrity divorces or any major cases of importance in the media, I would be asked to talk about it and explain the significance. Gradually I found myself as a regular pundit across all television channels, on radio and in the press.
You’ve created legal precedents and launched world-firsts like the “divorce voucher” and “pet nup” – what originally inspired you to think so creatively in a traditionally conservative legal field?
I have always been someone that looks at problems in a lateral and holistic way so that all options are considered. It seemed to me in relation to the development of the divorce vouchers, that some people might be desperate to obtain legal advice about a potential divorce etc but not be in a financial position to obtain this. I therefore considered that if friends and family clubbed together, they could buy one hour of legal advice with the voucher. These were enormously successful and as a firm we were delighted with the result.
As to the invention of the pet-nup which was a world first, it seemed to me that this firm were seeing many cases in which there were disputes over pets, which seemed to be growing in numbers. I wanted to fill what I saw was a very missing gap in the law. Pets are regarded as chattels and the law is far too limited in this area. So together with the Blue Cross Animal Charity, my firm filled the gap so that people could make their own choices in the event of a split up. The firm drew up two Deeds that can be found on the Blue Cross website. The first is a very detailed document with every possible contingency considered where the parties could tick which clauses they wanted. Alternatively, we drew up a very basic document for people who wished for a more a simplistic form of document. The reason why I was inspired to do this was after conducting enormous research in this area and realising that there was a gap in the law which needed to be filled in the public interest.
Your work has changed the direction of the cohabitation industry, what was the moment you realised your case had set a precedent?
The case of Re: P (a child) made headlines around the world. I knew when we were preparing the case that it was very different, and that we wished to break down barriers that were in place for cohabitees. The issue is about the level of housing that could be provided for a cohabitee and the children under what is known as “Schedule 1 of the Children’s Act”. I felt together with my team that the tariffs in place in the law at that time were far too low, so we set about breaking the mould. It would enable there to be a more even playing field between mothers who looked after their children and fathers who were wealthy and who could provide a very different lifestyle. Accordingly, it was imperative that there was a shift in these tariffs. We were repeatedly told on our journey that we would never succeed in changing things, but due to the worldwide research undertaken by this firm, and together with the he exquisite oratory of the barrister in the case, the Judge was persuaded that the law must change. The rest is legal history. We realised when the Judgement was given at Court that we had set an amazing precedent against all odds and the media interest was explosive.
What challenges did you face when launching the idea of divorce vouchers and how did you overcome scepticism from the legal community?
The announcement of the divorce vouchers caused an utter furore at the time. The firm was criticised across the world by religious leaders including the Archbishop of Canterbury. The issue of the divorce vouchers was mentioned in every country across the world in all of the media. This was the case because we had announced that divorce vouchers could be purchased for Christmas. Interestingly the legal community thought this was a brilliant idea, but the religious bodies across the world did not. It did not stop many sales of the divorce voucher and the provision of legal services for people who needed it.
You’ve advised high-profile clients, including politicians and celebrities. How do you manage the pressures of privacy, media interest and legal complexity in such cases?
I have regularly acted for particularly high-profile clients. Some are easier than others to deal with. Celebrities are an entirely different genre in that we will often have to deal with their agents, publicists etc and sometimes the divorces and split ups coincide with the launch of their new film or book. It is vital that as a firm, the client is reined in so that they do not prejudice their case in the media. It is therefore vital in these cases to release a joint statement so that your clients’ interests are protected. As a lawyer you are not permitted to discuss your own case in the media but can freely discuss anyone else’s.
What role do you think empathy plays in family law, especially during emotionally charged divorces or custody disputes?
As a lawyer I do believe that it vital to show empathy and understanding to clients. It is particularly so when dealing with vulnerable clients who may have been abused for years and in situations where you are dealing with a husband or wife who have narcissistic tendencies. It is vital that the client feels confident in you as a lawyer and that you do not simply quote section numbers at them without any understanding of how they are feeling and what they have experienced. It is the caring nature of this firm that has led to our success in having an interesting and varied clientele.
What advice would you give to aspiring female lawyers looking to lead or innovate in their field like you have?
Having been a lawyer for so many years, I have seen many aspiring female lawyers trying to do too much too soon. I would also say that you certainly can have a career in law and a family but do not try to do it all – that leads to burn out. Take time to understand those areas that can be investigated. Undertake the research carefully so that you can develop a new area with full understanding and knowledge. New ideas do not just happen, they are made.
How has your regular media presence shaped public understanding of divorce law and do you feel a responsibility to educate as well as represent?
I have always felt a responsibility to educate as well as represent clients as a lawyer who appears in the media. My forte is to explain very complex issues in simplistic language so that members of the public understand how it might affect them directly. I am aware that many members of the public can totally misunderstand how the law works or what it means, and it is my role, as well as those who also advise in the media to explain exactly what their rights are or are not. For example, the biggest misconception is that if you live together with someone it automatically gives you legal rights. It does not and there is no such thing as a common law husband or wife.
If you could change one aspect of the current legal framework around relationships or family law, what would it be and why?
If I could change one aspect now of the current legal framework around relationships or family law, it would be for grandchildren to have an automatic right to see their grandparents. Having acted for so many disregarded grandparents who have lost touch with their grandchildren with whom they had very close and happy relationship it is the one of the most glaring omissions in the law. By a simplistic change to the Children’s Act, this could be achieved, and my firm have already redrafted the Act in anticipation. However, for reasons that are not understood, the plight of grandchildren and their grandparents is constantly overlooked. In the backdrop of so many children currently having mental health issues, we sincerely believe grandparents are a very good and vital resource. Instead of causing children to wait years to obtain mental health assistance and at the same time cutting off grandparents from the grandchildren, those relationships need to be immediately re-established, I sincerely believe that if grandparents were brought back into the family arena that children would be far more stable and calmer than they currently are.
Looking back on your career so far, what has been your proudest moment and what impact do you hope your legacy will leave on the legal world?
My proudest moment in my legal career besides setting many legal precedents which have impacted on the public, was addressing a Parliamentary group on changing the law in relation to grandchildren’s rights to see their grandparents together with Esther Rantzen. I continue to campaign about this exceeding worthwhile issue. I hope my legacy will be, that with an evolving society and constantly changing needs, the law must change with it to be effective, together with my team I will continue to make any necessary changes and innovations that I believe are vital wherever the opportunity arises or continue to explain legal precedents as simplistically as I can.
