My Time on the Family Procedure Rule Committee

I have served nearly 6 years on the Family Procedure Rule Committee (FPRC) as a barrister member. You get two terms of 3 years and then you make way for someone else. My time is almost up.

Prior to appointment I am not sure exactly what I expected. I had some vague notion of five or six people sitting round a table with biscuits, with a trusted-old-hand District Judge taking a bit of drafting off with them for the weekend. How wrong I was.

The FPRC is the family law equivalent of a military-industrial process. In advance of meetings a substantial set of pre-reading is sent out to all attendees. In the plenary meetings, there are usually about 20 people in the room in the Royal Courts of Justice, with an equal number or more attending remotely.

Members can choose whether to attend in person or remotely. I have done both. Remote attendance can be convenient, but you get a better feel for the room when in person. Most officials attend remotely and pop up to speak to particular agenda items. There are two or three officials in the room, managing the administrative burden of the session, taking minutes and sorting the tech.

The FPRC is the committee where it happens. Practitioner committees can call for change about this or that, but unless it involves changes to primary legislation, it is the FPRC that usually decides how it is going to be. It is a huge privilege to sit in the room with the good and the great and make a modest contribution to the direction of family law.

It can be slightly daunting to have The President, a Lord Justice, a brace of High Court Judges, two Circuit Judges and two District Judges weighing what you have to say. But the appointment to the FPRC is a public appointment. You are there on merit. You are there to speak truth to power. You sometimes simply have to take a depth breath and go for it. Sometimes, your arguments land and change the course of the discussion. Sometimes, you are politely moved on.

The FPRC evolves over time with different personalities coming and going, but the atmosphere is always collegiate and respectful.

It is now almost impossible to get a pet topic onto the agenda. The FPRC runs a tiered agenda. It is a publicly available document. Tier One issues are the priority and where the firefighting happens. Tier Two issues will be dealt with when the decks are clear on Tier One. Tier Three sometimes feels like an oubliette where good ideas go to die.

Those involved with financial remedies will be aware of the blight of delay caused by poor pension disclosure. With my Pension Advisory Group hat on, I pitched a reformed Form P to fully modernise pension disclosure. It is a matter of public record that it has been triaged to Tier Three. I doubt it will see the light of day.

There are currently about 40-odd potential agenda items which require attention, if time would allow.

One of the biggest lessons I have learnt in my time on the FPRC is that there are limits on what can get done with the resources that are allocated to the FPRC. This is just a hard fact of public resource allocation.

Mostyn J called for a modest rule amendment to FPR Part 3 in 2014 and it only eventually came to fruition in 2024. You need to play a long game.

Those who criticise the work of the FPRC would do well to attend a public meeting, held annually, to see for themselves the volume of work and the competing demands for agenda slots. The notion that you can sound off via email to the FPRC and expect immediate change is for the fairies.

But sometimes magic does happen. When interviewed for appointment I was asked what rule would I change? I said I would introduce costs for an unreasonable refusal to engage with NCDR. Led by Karen Barham, I had been involved in pitching ideas about Part 3 reform for some time prior to my appointment.

Part 3 came to the top Tier One at just the right time for me. It was an issue where I knew I could make a meaningful contribution. Much of the work of the FPRC is done in sub-committees. My first suggestion for the Early Resolution Working Group was to call for Karen Barham. It was a hugely enjoyable experience being tasked to update the rules and protocols in this regard.

Not that anyone will thank me, but I pitched the need to modernise PD 27A. I thought it could be done quickly and would make life less confusing for litigants in person. It took about 2 years and several consultations. The process of reform can be painstaking. I almost wish I had kept my mouth shut.

The second big learn for me is how impressive the officials are. The drafting acumen of the officials is a marvel to behold. It is a real pleasure to work with different kinds of lawyers and officials whose contribution to family law is immense but is often not seen or understood by those engaged only in litigation.

The role is unpaid (albeit travel expenses are provided for). I regard it as a privilege to have been part of the committee. I do not regret the first Monday of the month being booked out for the FPRC. Meetings are usually finished by 1 pm and so it is often possible to slip in a conference in the afternoon. But sometimes I do wonder about diversity. Are the practitioner roles now limited to those who can afford to take time out of the diary?

I would encourage others to apply to join the FPRC. We live in interesting times. I have learnt so much about the process of rule making, its complexity and limitations.

My experience has made me a more astute lawyer but also a less starry-eyed campaigner about what is capable of change.