The new divorce battleground is not the courtroom

Date: 22 Jan 2026

Karen Jones

Modern family breakdown now plays out across boardrooms, borders and private processes. 

High net worth divorce is becoming less about courtroom theatre and more about private, strategic resolution. With courts under strain and delays driving up cost and risk, mediation, arbitration and private financial dispute resolution are now the default, pushing decisive moments behind closed doors and often across multiple jurisdictions. As families grow more internationally mobile and wealth structures more complex, family law is increasingly intertwined with tax, succession, immigration, business valuation, cryptocurrency and reputation management. The result is a shift towards earlier planning, preventative advice and multidisciplinary teams, where speed, privacy and long term wealth protection matter more than public litigation, even as the emotional drivers of conflict remain unchanged.

Third party professionals review divorce assets, pensions, property, businesses, trust assets and shares to split.

The conflict has not disappeared. It has simply migrated into private process, where speed and privacy matter more than theatre. Instead of headline hearings, the decisive moments now happen earlier, behind closed doors, and often across more than one jurisdiction.

Ed’s note: If you are featured in this article, you may take one paragraph and link back to Citywealthmag.com

See the Top 75 Family lawyers list 2026 If you would like to be considered for a Top list please fill out this submission link

Last year, the question being asked in family law circles was whether the market had lost some of its drama now that Russian oligarch divorces had slipped from view. A year on, that question feels misplaced. Family law has not become less interesting. It has become more important. The stories that make the front pages have changed, but the legal stakes have not.

What has changed is where the action takes place. The modern high net worth divorce is increasingly resolved away from the courtroom, shaped by process, planning, risk mitigation and negotiation rather than judicial spectacle. Private financial dispute resolution, arbitration and early neutral evaluation are no longer alternatives but the default. Lawyers are not becoming softer. They are becoming more strategic.

Yet beneath this calmer, more choreographed exterior, the same human emotions continue to drive risk. As families become more internationally mobile, wealth structures more complex and children’s lives more global, the consequences of getting things wrong have become sharper and harder to unwind. Family law now sits at the centre of that risk, intersecting with tax, immigration, succession and reputation in ways that would have been unthinkable even a decade ago.

To understand why the profession is changing, you have to start with the system it is working around. The market is being reshaped by court pressure points that have little to do with personalities and everything to do with timing, resolution and preventative planning.

State of the family market

Rosie Schumm, Partner, Forsters, who advises on the use of cross-border nuptial agreements in succession planning, shares her thoughts. “The UK family law market in 2026 is in a moment of real transition, not quite crisis, not quite renewal, but a mixture of pressure, reform, and technological disruption that’s reshaping how practitioners work and how families access justice. Several themes in particular look set to carry defining weight.”

“The key problem is court delays and systemic strain. There have been reductions in sitting days, particularly in the London Financial Remedies Court, which has created an unpredictable landscape. When the court timetable stretches, the case strategy changes, putting at risk the main incentive – to settle early, privately and with control.”

Sitting days in court refers to the official days judges are scheduled to hear cases and conduct judicial business, a key metric used to fund and manage court capacity.

“This leads to spiralling costs, wasted preparation, and the need to update valuations or evidence when cases drag on. For families, the emotional and financial toll is significant, whilst for practitioners, it’s a constant logistical headache. This strain is pushing the market towards NCDR (Non-Court Dispute Resolution) alternatives.”

“2026 is seeing a strong policy and cultural push towards mediation, arbitration, and private FDRs (Family Dispute Resolution). NCDR is increasingly encouraged by the courts and expected to become a more formalised part of the judicial process. The 2024 rule changes made parties accountable for not attending NCDR and removed or modified many of the exemptions to a couple needing to attend a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM).”

“In financial remedy proceedings, the court may consider failure to attend a MIAM or NCDR as relevant conduct when determining costs orders. In family proceedings more generally, a failure to engage in NCDR may result in a costs order. So, practitioners who can offer NCDR services are gaining a competitive edge.”

A costs order is a court instruction requiring one party in a legal case to pay some or all of the other party’s legal expenses. Alongside dispute resolution, the next pressure point is who the law protects and who it still leaves exposed.

Cohabitation law reform is on the horizon

Schumm continues. “Consultations are underway on financial protections for unmarried couples, who presently have few legal options when they separate. This could reshape a substantial segment of the market, given the rise of cohabiting families as a significant percentage of the population at large.”

Nuptial agreements and financial remedies: more scrutiny and potential reform

Schumm adds, “The courts are showing a greater willingness to interrogate the fairness of marital agreements. The landmark case PN v SA highlighted how coercive control can undermine free consent in financial arrangements. This signals a shift towards deeper analysis of power dynamics, and not just the formal validity of agreements. For high-net-worth practitioners, this will likely mean more nuanced litigation and advisory work.”

PN v SA is a significant 2025 UK Family Court case that awarded a wife over £230 million in a divorce, making it one of England’s largest settlements, primarily by setting aside a later post-nuptial agreement (PNA) due to the husband’s coercive control. “The Government is considering reform of the law of PNAs as part of its overall reform of the law relating to financial remedies, with consultation expected to be published in Spring 2026.”

Children’s law, domestic abuse, and safeguarding wealth

Schumm says, “2026 will be expected to bring continued emphasis on domestic abuse and coercive control, with courts increasingly sensitive to non-physical forms of harm. Child-focused decision-making and reforms aimed at reducing adversarial conflict. These areas remain resource-intensive and emotionally demanding, with high public interest.”

Suzanne Kingston, Consultant, Penningtons Manches Cooper and Carey Olsen with thirty years experience in family law matters adds her opinion: “Having ‘without prejudice‘ (WP) conversations in big divorce cases in mediation in a confidential setting is essential. It encourages openness.” Anything said or written under ‘WP’ is inadmissible in court, preventing admissions or concessions from being used against you later.

On older adults divorcing, a trend from a few years ago, noted by Citywealth, Sarah Green, Partner, Michelmore’s law firm and a Resolution Accredited Specialist, shares her view, “I’ve seen an increase in ‘silver splitters’ in the last two to three years. In the last 12 to 18 months, I have had a few cases with over-80s, often second marriages, where children want to get involved, often driven by inheritance prospects.”

James Pirrie, Director at Family Law in Partnership explains his philosophy, “These conversations are about helping clients make wise choices: identifying and pursuing the options now that will continue to make sense three months, three years or even thirty years or more down the road.”

The system is under strain and the move away from the court

Lawyers are not softer; they are managing process because the court cannot. Litigation is now the least controllable option particularly because of reputational exposure. Notably recently with the Earl and Countess Spencer divorce. Hughes Fowler Carruthers represents Lady Karen Spencer (Frances Hughes and Bryan Jones). Courts are also starting to formalise that expectation, with parties required to show they have considered non court options before issuing proceedings.

Antonia Felix, Partner, Mishcon de Reya who advises on cohabitation disputes and private law children cases says, “There is now a clear obligation on parties to consider non court dispute resolution, including mediation, arbitration, early neutral evaluation and collaborative law. Unless there are special circumstances such as domestic abuse, the court will expect parties to have tried some form of NCDR before making an application about child arrangements, finances or property. Fully contested financial remedy and children proceedings can take 12 to 18 months, and costs can escalate quickly as cases drag on, so parties who want a quicker, more private resolution are increasingly pushed towards NCDR.”

“Parties can engage in NCDR directly or with legal teams advising in the background or attending with them. Barristers often remain involved, acting as mediators or as private judges. Experts are also frequently needed in high net worth or complex cases involving assets abroad, businesses or cryptocurrency. If identified early, expert evidence can feed into disclosure and negotiations rather than delaying matters, although some pension reports can still take months. Instruction of experts can increase up front spend, but it can reduce overall cost and risk by giving both sides a clearer understanding of value, structure and tax exposure, and can make settlement more achievable for the financially weaker party.”

Suzanne Todd, Head of Family at Withers, who has spent decades dealing with international family law financial cases often involving family businesses, inherited wealth or sophisticated trust and pension issues says. “For 2026 we are looking forward to the Law Commission‘s proposal for reform of the law concerning financial remedies on divorce, maybe even codification of the existing case law to some extent.” Todd has also been elected President Elect Designate of the International Academy of Family Lawyers and will be Global President in September 2026.

Codification of existing case law means that the principles, rules, and interpretations developed by judges through previous court decisions (common law) are collected, organised, and enacted into a formal, written statutory code or legislation.

“Big picture-wise,” Says Todd, “It is hoped that this will include reform of the law concerning the rights for cohabitants and maybe a change in the law for prenuptial agreements. On a slightly more micro-level, the Law Commission has identified specific areas for reform which could include spousal maintenance, pensions, conduct and how this should affect the financial outcome, and whether the court should be able to make financial orders for children over the age of 18.”

“The direction of travel is heading towards a rise in NCDR, non-court dispute resolution appointments, and this reflects client demand as clients seek alternative ways to reach an outcome rather than court proceedings, as well as the strain on the court system and an understandable desire to avoid protracted expensive litigation. Options include mediation, arbitration, collaborative law, our Uncouple one couple one lawyer model and, of course, good old solicitor negotiation without the need for court proceedings. But it’s still the case that you need to know what your legal position is before you can start your NCDR journey. AI doesn’t quite cut it in that respect yet.”

“Divorce ends the institution of marriage, but most adverse tax consequences, such as they are, can often be mitigated by sensible tax planning, though it’s important to get good tax advice before you negotiate your agreement. Divorce ends the Marriage Allowance, which some couples are eligible for, but CGT relief protects transfers during marriage and during the early divorce phase. Stamp Duty exemptions can also be used on divorce when there is a formal agreement or court order, and when changing main residence. As for maintenance payments made to spouses, these are generally neither tax deductible nor taxable, so no tax disadvantage there and the same goes for child maintenance. Pension sharing orders do not result in a tax charge (and pension payments are simply taxable in the usual way when benefits are drawn down). And whilst spouses can make use of the unlimited spouse exemption for Inheritance Tax Purposes and can transfer unused thresholds under the nil-rate band which can protect up to £1m of assets, again, decent tax mitigation measures can be taken and this is always part of the picture when assets are to be transferred as part of a divorce settlement.”

“It’s also worth noting that tax transfers during marriage hit the headlines last year thanks to the case of Standish v Standish, which involved an £80m tax savings scheme which went awry. There, a husband transferred c£80m of assets into his wife’s name for tax purposes. The wife then claimed these assets belonged to her, or at the very least, had become ‘matrimonialised’, which would have made them vulnerable to the sharing principle. The Supreme Court disagreed and confirmed that transfers between spouses for tax purposes did not, without some other compelling evidence, result in the assets being shared between them.”

In short, the Supreme Court ruled that moving assets between spouses purely for tax planning does not automatically make those assets jointly owned or subject to division on divorce, unless there is clear evidence they were intended to be shared.

Todd makes her final point, “Business assets, private equity (carry and coinvest) and cryptocurrency assets have always been considered by the court when computing and then distributing assets on divorce. The Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025, which codifies the position that digital assets are ‘personal property’, eliminates any previous ambiguity about this. Crypto assets (Bitcoin, non-fungible assets including digital collectibles, for example) can be slightly tricky to identify and track down, but the Family Court is alive to all of the issues here and can always make adverse inferences against a spouse who is trying to hide assets, whatever their nature. This is bread and butter work for family lawyers and the courts, as shown by the recent case of Culligan v Culligan 2025, in which £20m in bitcoin, originally purchased for £10,000, were not properly disclosed and is a reminder that concealment of any asset on divorce can have serious consequences for the concealer.”

In this case, the husband, Anthony Culligan, faced ‘litigation misconduct’ and costs orders due to his delayed and incomplete disclosure of assets.

The direction of travel is clear. Courts are encouraging people to try other routes first. Lawyers are adapting by building process into the strategy from the outset.

Anna Worwood, Head of Family Law and Partner, Private Wealth Group, Penningtons Manches Cooper, who specialises in all areas of family law, particularly high value financial and complex private law children cases, shares her thoughts. “On 29 April 2024, Non-Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR), an amendment to the Family Procedure Rules, was introduced and this extended the definition of NCDR to include mediation, arbitration, early neutral evaluation (including private FDRs) and collaborative law. Before issuing a court application, the applicant must attend a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM) unless they are exempt and then seven days before the first hearing of a court application, the parties must send to the court and each other an FM5 form which is an open document setting out whether they have attended NCDR, why NCDR is no longer suitable and the reasons for non-suitability. Whilst the change to the family rules has stopped short for now of making NCDR mandatory, it backs the courts’ ability to encourage NCDR by costs consequences. The courts can make and have made costs orders where one party refuses to take part in ‘NCDR’.”

Once that framework is in place, the private market fills the gap, with clients paying for speed, privacy and a decision maker who can actually hear the case.

Green at Michelmore’s law firm continues. “With increased court delays and a move towards transparency within the family court, many HNW, UHNW, high profile individuals and celebrities are opting to find ways to reach a swift, cost-effective conclusion outside of the court arena. For many, this can take the form of a Private FDR or Early Neutral Evaluation, where, together with their legal representatives, parties meet with a private, paid-for evaluator, who gives a steer as to likely outcome at court. The aim is to encourage and facilitate negotiation between the parties. With an experienced private ‘judge’ and top legal advice, parties usually attend with both solicitor and barrister. In most cases, this can lead to a swift settlement after a day or two of focused discussion.”

“There is the additional cost of the private evaluator, in addition to solicitor and barrister costs, but this front-loading of fees is often a more cost-effective way to reach a settlement and avoids the risk of years of litigation hampered by court delays, and a potential lack of privacy within the family court.”

“For those wanting a binding decision if they are not going to reach an agreement, arbitration is often an appropriate alternative, which offers the same benefits in terms of time, cost and privacy, where the outcome is that the arbitrator’s award is made into an order of the court and, as such, is binding on the parties.”

Green adds a final comment, “In divorce cases where businesses are involved, particularly more complex business structures, the court is likely to appoint a single joint expert forensic accountant to produce a valuation report for the court, advising as to business valuation, values of shareholdings, issues of tax and liquidity. This can sometimes lead to delay whilst proceedings are paused for a report to be produced, and of course the additional costs of instructing the accountant, which can often be tens of thousands of pounds. Many individuals also opt to instruct a ‘shadow’ forensic expert to review and advise in the background too, again at further expense.”

What starts as a financial solution is now spreading into other parts of family work. The same arguments apply wherever delay makes conflict worse.

Alex Verdan KC, Partner, Arbitrator and Head of Children law team, Stewarts, has over 35 years’ experience in family law and offers his considered opinion on the topic. “As for pertinent family law issues, in my cases relating to private law children disputes, I would say the biggest likely change in 2026 for our HNW clients is likely to be a tangible increase in the number of children cases, including international relocation ones, being resolved through arbitration as opposed to through the courts. There are many reasons for this, including a growing realisation by lawyers that family arbitration offers a better outcome for families than the traditional court one, especially given the delays in the court system in London and the lack of court time available to deal with these private law disputes.”

For many firms, this is not only about keeping cases out of court. It is about building settlement into the model, early and decisively.

Daniel Chalmers, Partner, Edwards Family Law, who is known for high-net-worth financial disputes including international assets and UHNW clients like celebrities and sports professionals, says. “A rising trend would be the continued take up of parties engaging in Alternative Dispute Resolution, particularly private FDRs. Private FDRs are becoming increasingly popular among lawyers and clients as an expedited, more cost-effective way to resolve disputes. Mainly due to the severe backlogs of court listings, as well as pressure from the judiciary for parties to resolve disputes outside of court, their popularity is increasing and there are far more private FDR judges than ever before. There is also an increase in transparency in Family Courts; Pre-Nuptial and Cohabitation Agreements and a greater shift towards the use of AI.”

“A top-of-mind concern in my practice area for me currently is parties seeking to protect their business assets on divorce. Whether this is businesses started by one party or a joint venture between spouses, protecting business assets is a major concern for clients when businesses become contested territory. The process of dividing business assets can be legally and emotionally complex. For business owners divorcing, the stakes are high. How a business is valued, divided, and addressed in a divorce settlement can affect not just personal finances but a company’s viability, employees’ livelihoods, and professional reputations.”

Sam Hall, Founding Partner, Hall Brown Family Law, adds his view. “Non-court and non-confrontational resolution will continue to accelerate, especially for high-value cases. Clients are increasingly intolerant of the cost and public exposure associated with court. The future of the profession will favour those who can resolve complex financial disputes through mediation, non-court dispute resolution and collaborative approaches whilst still delivering technically robust outcomes.”

“The post-Covid landscape means that clients are now living, working and holding assets across multiple jurisdictions. Family lawyers will therefore need to operate confidently across numerous territories, working closely with corporate advisers to deliver cohesive, joined-up solutions. In essence, family law will continue to evolve into a more preventative, strategic, and integrated area, protecting both personal relationships and long-term wealth.”

Uncontested divorce and strategic cooperation

Many divorces are procedurally uncontested but strategically complex. Cooperation is often the route to preserving value. Being reasonable can be a hard-edged financial strategy. Cooperation often comes down to arithmetic. Even where a couple agrees the broad shape of a deal, tax and structure can decide whether it is affordable and whether it holds.

Mark Harper, Partner, Hughes Fowler Carruthers, who is co-author of three leading textbooks on family law, adds his thoughts. “It is very rare indeed for there to be an uncontested divorce just for tax reasons. Divorce is more complicated than that. However, it is true that now you can transfer assets between spouses within three years of any separation, without triggering CGT, which is a valuable deferral of the payment of any latent CGT (Capital Gains Tax).”

“In the more complex international divorces, tax determines how a financial settlement is structured. Not understanding the tax ramifications, particularly regarding foreign tax, can be painful. I recall a well-known law firm advising in a case in which their client agreed the ‘usual tax indemnity’, meaning that the wealthy husband agreed to pay all taxes consequent upon the implementation of the financial agreement. No one appreciated the fact that the wife was a US citizen and failed to check the US tax implications. That led to a tax bill of several million dollars, which ultimately had to be paid by that law firm.”

Harper continues. “Obtaining a divorce in England is now much simpler. It is all done online through the court portal. It is very straightforward and easy to obtain a divorce on an uncontested basis. However, it is sorting out money or children issues which is more complex. In the Central Family Court, because of a requirement to make more judges available to prioritise children cases, many financial hearings are being cancelled and relisted on a double-booked basis.”

In family courts, ‘double-booked’ means the court schedules two or more cases for the same time slot, expecting some to settle or be quick, leading to potential cancellations or postponements.

“This is having a significant impact and encouraging people to consider arbitration, or the system of private Financial Dispute Resolution appointments before a retired judge or a KC to act as a private judge. Most financial cases now settle, and an agreement is reached at the private FDR. I have had three high value highly litigious financial cases settle at the FDR in the last 18 months even though everyone involved thought that the cases would go to trial. Barristers are instructed to represent the clients at the private FDRs or in arbitration, but if there are fewer final hearings or trials, then that means less barrister time.”

On the different nature of assets to divide, Harper says, “Whenever crypto or businesses are involved in a divorce, that always makes it more complex, and often more expensive.”

With a USA perspective, Joshua S. Rubenstein, Partner, Global Chair, Private Wealth Department, Katten, New York, who is a globally renowned expert in the field of international trusts and estates law and litigation, has his say. “Given human nature, and anger over real and perceived transgressions by the other party, I think that bitterly contested divorces will likely remain the norm. But for those couples who can get past that, divorce can be a wonderful planning opportunity.”

“First, the transfer between spouses incident to divorce is usually tax free, as an allocation of marital property. That in and of itself can create useful opportunities. Second, if there are minor children, transfers incident to divorce for their benefit are usually tax free, as being an acceleration of what would otherwise have been one’s support obligation. And the wealthier the family, the larger the amount that can be given tax free to or for children in discharge of one’s support obligations.”

“Third, normally when one dies, there is no way to deduct the amount one leaves one’s children, even if required to do so by a divorce decree, as there is no consideration for leaving them a bequest, just a requirement to do so. But if the non-titled spouse in a long-term marriage accepts much less than what would otherwise have been his or her share of marital property, in exchange for the titled spouse’s agreement to leave it to the children of the marriage, then the bequest to children that he or she makes at death is supported by consideration and should be deductible. So yes, increasingly, educated divorcing couples are recognizing the unique planning opportunities that divorce can provide.”

Renato Labi, Partner, Hughes Fowler Carruthers, who has wide experience in dealing with financial disputes within divorce proceedings and following cohabitation, and in complex private law children cases, says, “As far as tax is concerned, there are a few tax rules which benefit divorcing spouses. Assets passing between spouses do not trigger a capital gains tax charge and, if the asset is a property which needs to be transferred, it will not incur stamp duty. For these tax exemptions to apply, these transfers need to be pursuant to a court order.”

“Tax traps can abound where a family’s financial arrangements are complex and international. The long arm of the IRS means that Americans who are living in England and who divorce need to be especially careful, as the tax treatment of the family home, spousal maintenance and so on is completely different.”

“A Family Court Judge probably won’t report tax evasion which emerges during a divorce. Judges take the view that it is important for parties to be encouraged to provide full disclosure of their assets, and they are unlikely to do so if they think the Judge will report them to HMRC (although angry spouses have been known to threaten to report them). There is always a risk that HMRC will follow up on a reported case where they think there has been non-payment of tax. Even if the judgment is anonymised in the law reports, it may be relatively easy for the taxman to identify the parties from the details in the judgment.”

“Not only are the Courts slow, they are going to get slower. The President of the Family Division recently wrote to all family practitioners to say that we should expect more hearings to be bumped in favour of care cases involving children and local authorities which take precedence. For many years we have been forgoing Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) hearings in court for private FDRs which take place in a barrister’s chambers at a time of the parties’ choosing. Arbitration is increasingly becoming popular as a quicker and more private means of resolving disputes. All of this means plenty of work for barristers!”

“Where businesses need to be valued as part of the divorce process, we jointly instruct accountants, tax experts and, in the case of crypto, crypto experts. Although crypto can present a real problem: if one spouse says the other has crypto in a cold wallet, and that is denied, it can be very hard to prove either way. There is always need for expert evidence in high value cases. Family businesses will inevitably be dragged into a divorce, and it is rare for a couple who are both involved in a business to continue working together after their divorce.”

Labi adds his final thought, “It is not necessarily the case that all these tax and valuation issues make divorces much longer. They carry with them a fair deal of expense, but if parties want to resolve matters amicably, they will do so, and if they want a fight, they will always find something to fight about.” Echoing Rubenstein’s comments above.

Trevor Egan, Partner US/UK Tax, Buzzacott, a recognised authority on the US/UK tax treaty and the use of US treaties in general and is enrolled to practice before the US IRS, offers a technical, tax viewpoint. “Divorce is a tax-free transaction in the UK, so long as one does it properly. Basically, assets need to be exchanged within three tax years of the tax year of divorce or separation. The same rule applies to civil partners. However, not so ‘common law spouses’, for whom there are no special tax breaks granted on the termination of the relationship.” This may change with upcoming legislation though.”

“Similarly, US rules mostly allow for the tax-free transfer of assets incident to divorce; one important exception, which we see frequently, is where a US person divorces a non-resident alien.”

An alien is any individual who is not a U.S. citizen or resident.

“In such a case, the US person transferring assets to the non-American can be liable to US tax on a deemed capital gain, calculated as if the asset was sold to the other party at fair market value. A counterintuitive result which can come as an unpleasant surprise to the party giving up their assets. Very important in such cases to consider the assets available for distribution. The trick is to transfer those items carrying the least US gain, if possible.”

Egan continues, “One area where US-US divorces can run into problems is where there is the sharing of non-US pension rights. The transferring spouse can still be considered US taxable on the pension income ultimately payable to the other party.”

This exacerbates the need for specialist tax advice in cross-border marriages, particularly as pension assets increasingly represent a significant component of divorce settlements.

That focus on structure is also why more families are seeking advice before a relationship breaks down. The question is no longer only how to exit. It is how to protect the next generation from the fallout.

Preventive family law and succession control

Jeremy Levison, a Founding Partner, Levison Meltzer Pigott, shares his view. “Whilst pre-nuptial agreements are becoming more commonplace and whilst, provided they are prepared in the correct manner, their effectiveness is becoming more respected, the fact is that the courts can still ‘invade’ the terms if they feel this is justified.”

“One of the more common motives for a pre-nuptial agreement is the wish of parents to protect family wealth from an errant son or daughter-in-law in the event of a divorce. As things currently stand though, no matter how hard a parent might try, for example, placing funds into trust, pre-nuptial agreements and the like, it can never be 100% guaranteed that in the event of a divorce some part of the family wealth might not find its way into the hands of the errant spouse.”

“Looking at this from the parents’ point of view, I think this is wrong. In my view, parents should be able to guarantee, 100%, that assets passed down to their children should be sacrosanct.”

Sam Hall, Manchester family lawyer representing many sports stars, makes a further comment on preventative measures. “We are increasingly being instructed at a preventative stage, often as part of a wider wealth and succession planning route, rather than specifically in response to a relationship breakdown. Whilst I get contacted on several fronts, the most common example involves elderly parents who are establishing inheritance tax planning; specifically, Family Investment Companies “FICs”; and are keen to ensure that the family wealth is preserved within the bloodline.”

“A Family Investment Company (FIC) is a private company set up to hold and manage family wealth, acting as a central vehicle for investments like property, shares, and cash, offering structured wealth transfer, tax management and control by senior members while benefiting younger generations through different share classes. FICs provide a formal way to pool assets, separate ownership from control, and plan for long-term succession, often using bespoke articles of association to define dividend and voting rights.”

Hall continues. “In these cases, advice is typically sought in relation to pre- and post-nuptial agreements and other wealth protection mechanisms for children or grandchildren who are marrying or already married, with the strategic aim of reducing exposure on divorce.”

“The ever-increasing trend of relationship breakdowns and the growing complexity of modern wealth structures has meant that high-net-worth individuals are recognising that proactive family law advice is fundamental to effective long term wealth preservation. Early engagement enables risks to be identified and managed before disputes arise, delivering greater certainty and significantly reducing the potential for costly and adversarial proceedings.”

Anest Mathias, Associate, TV Edwards Solicitors with expertise with vulnerable clients, international surrogacy and same sex parenting, adds her view. “There is an increasing growth in the number of people wanting to formalise arrangements at the beginning of relationships. This can be pre-conception agreements, cohabitation agreements, trust deeds and pre-nuptial agreements.”

“There is also becoming a two-tier system on relationship breakdown. For those that can afford to pay privately, the benefits of paying for an arbitrator or evaluator are immense and matters are finalised relatively quickly. Those that cannot, or who have difficult opponents, face significant delays and lengthy periods of uncertainty, meaning they simply cannot move on from a broken relationship.”

Once you frame family breakdown as risk management, it stops being purely legal. It becomes a coordination exercise, with lawyers pulling in the right expertise at the right moment.

Divorce as a multidisciplinary exercise

Divorce is no longer a two-lawyer exercise. Family lawyers now coordinate tax, trust, valuation, immigration and reputation advice. This is why family law has moved to the centre of private client work.

Kate Stovold, Partner and Mediator at The International Family Law Group, adds her view. “The factual matrix of a couple’s finances on divorce is almost always complex, incorporating business assets and other corporate structures, cryptocurrency, family trust arrangements and pensions, to name but a few. Following the disclosure process, the involvement of expert third parties is often essential to ensure that the financial landscape is intricately analysed and understood. Whether a PODE (pensions on divorce expert) to assist with pensions, a forensic accountant to interrogate company accounts, a specialist trusts barrister to advise on family wealth structures or your own financial remedies counsel, it is an important and enjoyable part of my role to curate an expert team. As an aside, it is also important to me that these experts can work with and not just for my clients, always ensuring that they feel engaged and involved in the process with the aim of improving the client’s experience during their divorce.”

Where that expertise is deployed can matter as much as what it says. In global families, the first fight is often over where the case will be heard then also dealing with the intricacies of splitting a company.

Protecting a listed company while settling a divorce

Sean Hilton, Partner at law firm Stevens & Bolton adds his view. “The primary issue, and complicating factor, in dealing with a FTSE company, was that the value of our clients’ shares was the primary asset in the case, and as he was the primary shareholder we could not risk devaluing those shares by the very fact of the divorce. I worked closely with our corporate and corporate tax teams to put in place a structure for the company that will allow the wife to realise the value of some of the shares, over time, without an unduly negative impact on the company. This process did require consultation with other shareholders which was handled by the client and the company directly. These complexities did mean a wider legal team and thus some additional costs, but we were able to keep it all in house at S&B and importantly resolve things without the need for court proceedings. With that sort of case it is important to establish a client’s priorities early on – here our client wanted to protect the business and was willing to make concessions in other areas. His concern was that his ex-spouse would want to maximise capital now which would jeopardise the company, but with some honest conversations with both legal teams we were able to convince the spouse that it was in everyone’s best interests for the company to be protected.

“It is a common practice for business owners to transfer shares to their spouses to benefit from lower tax rates on income and dividends. An unexpected consequence of this is that a spouse then has shares in a business which they may not actually have any real interest in, and the spouse retaining the company then has to consider how they can negotiate a transfer of the shares back to them. I am more commonly using nuptial agreements that will sit alongside shareholders agreements to avoid this trap. A shareholders agreement can require the ‘receiving spouse’ to have to transfer their shares back to the ‘transferring spouse’ on separation, and the nuptial agreement can provide for the value to be given to those shares. These arrangements work particularly well for smaller owner-operator businesses, perhaps with only two or three Directors. These sorts of businesses frequently restructure for efficiency or to facilitate growth, so there are several opportunities to undertake a review on this sort of issue. They are also the sort of companies that could be most effected in the circumstances of divorce. With a two Director business it is likely to put real strain on a company if the spouse of one Director is effectively seeking a quarter of the company, this being half of that Directors half share of the business.”

England remains the divorce forum of the world

Despite reform elsewhere, England remains the destination. Foreign divorces do not guarantee finality. Part III remains a shadow risk: the potential for a spouse to bring a financial claim in England and Wales even after a divorce has been finalized in a foreign country.

Kate Clark, Head of Family and Partner, Mishcon de Reya, who acts in high value financial disputes, says, “High Net Worth families are often internationally mobile. It isn’t unusual for a HNW or UHNW family to have homes in multiple jurisdictions and to have lived in various jurisdictions at different times. If a marriage breaks down, this can lead to one spouse seeking a divorce in one jurisdiction that they perceive to be more favourable to them and the other seeking a divorce in another jurisdiction, again, because they perceive a more favourable outcome there.”

“While Dubai and Italy have become attractive destinations for HNW families to move, those who have retained connections to England and Wales may nonetheless find that the financially weaker party attempts to progress a divorce in the UK, given England’s reputation for being more generous towards them. Where spouses considering divorce have links to several different countries, it’s always worth taking advice as to how best to proceed. Courts in different jurisdictions can treat issues regarding children and finances very differently and not understanding the differences can ultimately prove to be a costly mistake.”

“In terms of the Abu Dhabi Civil Family Court, it is still a relatively new system, but one which has generated a lot of interest. I think it’s too early to tell whether couples with a choice of jurisdictions will favour proceeding in Abu Dhabi over England, but for some couples, it is an attractive proposition.”

“Couples today generally want to avoid the no-holds barred battles that used to be more commonplace on divorce. Where the couple has a high public profile, they are additionally much more aware of any potential negative publicity arising out of hard-fought court proceedings. Lengthy proceedings are expensive, both financially and emotionally. There is also now a much greater focus on non-court dispute resolution, and a greater number of options available for couples, from mediation and neutral evaluation to arbitration and the “one couple, one lawyer” model. These have many advantages, both in terms of being quicker and less expensive than court but also being confidential, while the public can’t attend family court proceedings, journalists can, and a couple’s anonymity can’t be guaranteed once they enter the court arena.”

“Family law is generally forward-looking so when a couple separates, whether in respect of finances or children, the court looks to arrangements for a future. The ideal is to set matters up so that both spouses and any children can move on with their lives in a positive and constructive manner.”

Clark continues, “However, there aren’t set formulae when considering division of assets or how children should spend their time. While matrimonial assets will usually be divided equally, questions can then arise as to what the matrimonial assets are, what they are worth, whether they should be shared as they are, or some sold, how assets such as pensions should be treated and the list goes on. In respect of children, the court’s focus is on the best interests of the individual child or children. But parents can often disagree as to what is in fact in a child’s best interests. From that perspective, if spouses have a very clear picture as to their assets and how they should be divided and what is best for their children, family cases can be relatively straightforward. Where those matters aren’t agreed, things can become quite difficult.”

Middle East moves

Schumm adds her thoughts on the UK exodus to Dubai. “Until recently, Dubai was often viewed as a safe haven from English family orders. That picture is changing but enforcement remains uncertain. Any perceived conflict with UAE public policy or Sharia principles may still block enforcement. Child-related orders remain particularly problematic to enforce. Clients often overestimate enforceability; strategic planning must assume partial or delayed enforcement at best.”

“Even where a divorce takes place in Dubai or Abu Dhabi, the wealth-holding spouse may still face exposure in England. Under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, English courts can grant financial relief following a foreign divorce where the overseas provision was inadequate in certain circumstances, so a UAE divorce does not necessarily bring finality if there are strong English connections.”

That jurisdictional pull is strengthened by mobility. Families move more. Assets move faster. And once a move happens, the legal risk can change overnight.

International mobility, immigration and relocation risk

Moving country is legally and emotionally destabilising. Tax, immigration and family law must be sequenced. Family law defines the downside risk.

Joanna Grandfield, Partner and Head of the London family team at law firm Mills & Reeve, says. “UHNW clients are ever more mobile, driven as it is by shifting tax regimes, political change and global uncertainty. This is a trend which isn’t going to change any time soon. Professional advisers must be alert to cross-border structuring, jurisdictional risks and the need for agile, multi-jurisdictional planning as well as alert to evolving compliance, citizenship and asset protection regimes. For those of us working in this sphere, non-court dispute resolution, especially mediation and arbitration, is now the norm, offering privacy and more control for those involved.”

Anna Worwood, Head of Family Law, Partner, Private Wealth Group, Penningtons Manches Cooper, adds, “As in many international family cases, we have faced issues and challenges such as establishing which country or countries has or have jurisdiction and which jurisdiction is the most convenient or appropriate forum for divorce proceedings, obtaining full details of the client’s worldwide, complex financial arrangements and presenting a clear picture of those arrangements including the structures in which assets are held and related tax liabilities. Many issues have arisen from a lack of trust and cultural differences between the parties and their families. Like all high-profile cases, it has been key for confidentiality to be maintained between the parties and for the parties’ privacy to be respected.”

Marco Mesina, Founding Partner, Move to Dolce Vita, an Italian tax attorney specializing in relocation and wealth structuring for high-net-worth individuals, based out of Milan and Rome, adds his view on the seismic trend of UK individuals moving to Italy. “One of the most significant rising trends in my practice this year is the growing importance of timing and legal certainty in cross-border relocations, particularly considering increasingly frequent legislative changes affecting high-net-worth individuals. In Italy, for example, recent amendments to preferential tax regimes including changes to lump-sum taxation thresholds and eligibility conditions have made advance planning and interaction with the tax authorities essential.”

“Clients are no longer willing to rely on informal interpretations or post-move adjustments; they seek certainty before relocating assets, families, and business activities. As a result, advance tax rulings, coordinated tax-immigration strategies, and precise control over residency timelines have become central to almost every mandate.”

“This trend reflects a broader concern among internationally mobile clients: avoiding exposure to unexpected tax liabilities or compliance risks caused by regulatory changes implemented with limited transitional guidance. It means advisors need to combine technical tax expertise with immigration law, wealth structuring, and practical execution, rather than treating these areas in isolation.”

“One of the key developments I foresee is that leaving one’s country of origin will become increasingly complex and regulated. Many European governments are either introducing or seriously considering exit taxes and enhanced reporting obligations, making tax-driven relocations more scrutinised and costly if not properly planned.”

“Despite this trend, I believe the next ten years will be pivotal for international relocations, cross-border tax planning, and global wealth management. Rather than slowing mobility, these measures are pushing high-net-worth individuals and families to adopt more sophisticated, long-term strategies. We are already seeing a shift in mindset: families now understand that it is no longer sufficient to rely on a single country for tax residency, asset protection, or succession planning. Structuring wealth across multiple jurisdictions, maintaining more than one residence, and holding multiple citizenships are increasingly viewed as essential components of resilience and risk management.”

Mesina explains his final point, “As a result, the industry will continue to move towards integrated advisory models combining tax, legal, immigration, and wealth planning expertise, with a strong focus on compliance, substance, and forward planning rather than reactive solutions.”

Mobility is not only about money. It can also determine where children live, who can travel, and which country has the final say.

Children, surrogacy and the dark edge of mobility. Cost pressure is driving risk. Lack of regulation creates legal and ethical exposure.

Natalie Sutherland, Partner, The International Family Law Group, an experienced divorce and children solicitor and adviser on UK and international surrogacy arrangements, shares her thoughts on a new landscape in the surrogacy space. “I’m seeing intended parents choosing destinations such as Nigeria, Ghana and Albania, which seem to be emerging destinations for international surrogacy, but which do not have robust legal frameworks. In the past 12 months we’ve seen several Nigerian cases where the surrogates have been anonymous, which is hugely concerning.”

“In addition, online, unregulated or known sperm donation is becoming increasingly popular as it’s more financially accessible than purchasing sperm through a sperm bank and having fertility treatment in a clinic. Single women and same sex female couples choose this method as it’s less medicalised, cheaper and often it’s because they want their child to know their biological origins, rather than having to wait until the child is 18 to access identifying information via the HFEA.”

The HFEA is the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the United Kingdom’s independent regulator of fertility treatment and research involving human embryos. Established by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, it was the first statutory body of its kind in the world.

“However, this route is fraught with risk. With a clinic, a donor is medically screened and can only donate to 10 families, whereas sperm donors donating outside of a clinic do not have these family limits and aren’t medically screened. Importantly, there is no legal protection for single women or unmarried same sex female couples from the donor being a legal father, which can cause additional heartbreak if they then seek contact. There can also be undue pressure for the donation to be via sexual intercourse rather than through artificial insemination, which also has legal parentage ramifications.”

Barbara Corbett, Senior Partner, Corbett Le Quesne, based in Jersey, Channel Islands, shares her work and thoughts. “Child relocation and abduction is an increasing area of litigation internationally. More countries are moving to equal parental responsibility so there are fewer countries where ‘custody’ or ‘residence’ give a residential parent free rein to relocate without the permission of the other parent.”

“In Jersey (Channel Islands) we have recently had a change in the law equalising same sex parents’ rights and providing a legislative framework for assisted reproduction and surrogacy. This is something I had been campaigning for many years, through the Law Commission. It came into force in November and this firm put on a party for many of the people involved in seeing the legislation through and also families who will now be able to register their children with both parents.”

“Different rules in different jurisdictions frequently cause issues when people move. Of all the things they consider, like tax and employment, most people don’t look at potential differences in family law or succession law, and this can lead to nasty surprises.”

Corbett continues, “Celebrities have frequently embraced civilised divorces in the past. When there is enough money for everyone, it is, no doubt, easier to be civilised. No fault divorce is now available in England. In Jersey, Channel Islands too, we are due to get no fault divorce soon. This again is something I and my firm have been advocating for many years. In 2014 I wrote a Law Commission paper on the subject. The new law, which is going through the States of Jersey, largely follows the recommendations I made in that report.”

All of this is forcing the profession to change how it works. Technology is part of that shift, but it is not the story on its own.

AI, technology and the future practitioner: Technology as support not substitution

On the use of AI, Rubenstein comments. “We have strict laws and case decisions on the use of AI in litigation in the US. It is a useful and valuable preliminary research and drafting tool, but it cannot be used in lieu of attorney or judge created work product. AI is part of life, and it, like everything else, has pros and cons and is not a substitute for judgment.”

Also, in New York Gretchen Beall Schumann, Founding Partner and leading family lawyer at Schuman LLC says, “Family lawyers will be looking at the further impact of AI on increasing firm efficiency, as well as anticipating the ongoing development of new practice rules and guidelines to address the use of AI in litigation.”

Grandfield adds a further view. “AI is streamlining disclosure and process management, which is very helpful when working with clients who have the sort of complex arrangements that ours often do but cannot replace the nuanced judgment required in UHNW cases. Divorce by AI? Full automation is not on the horizon for UHNW divorces. The complexity of assets, reputational concerns and family dynamics still demand bespoke legal advice and strategic oversight.”

Hilton adds, “Clients will expect family lawyers to be more sophisticated in their use of AI and efficiency tools to streamline processes like disclosure. I also expect that fewer cases will be litigated in court, and as a profession we will all need to adapt and change to embrace more bespoke out of court options.”

Kingston offers a further opinion. “AI will profoundly change the way we practice. It has been slow to come to family law but once there are transformational products the change will happen overnight.”

Clark adds her view on the use of tech, “I see a greater use of technology, including online dispute resolution platforms, virtual hearings, and digital document management. Plus, a greater emphasis on the emotional and psychological wellbeing of clients, with more holistic support offered alongside legal advice.”

Conclusion

Family law has not become quieter. It has become more central to the private wealth industry.

The spectacle of headline grabbing oligarch disputes may have faded, but the underlying complexity of modern family breakdown has intensified. Today’s drama is less visible, but no less consequential. It lies in timing, jurisdiction, immigration status, tax exposure, children, reputation and long-term wealth preservation. The stakes are higher because the margin for error is smaller.

The shift away from court is not a retreat from conflict, but a recognition that outcomes matter more than theatre. Non-court resolution, preventative planning and early strategic advice now sit at the heart of high value family work. The most effective practitioners are no longer simply litigators, but conductors, coordinating tax advisers, forensic accountants, immigration specialists, corporate lawyers and reputation managers to control risk before it crystallises.

International mobility has sharpened this reality. Families move more often, assets are spread more widely, and legal systems collide in unpredictable ways. England remains the divorce forum of choice not because it is aggressive, but because it is adaptive, discretionary and capable of dealing with complexity. At the same time, new fault lines are emerging around relocation, surrogacy, citizenship and child protection, exposing ethical and legal gaps.

Technology will accelerate change, but it will not replace judgment. AI may streamline process, but it is human behaviour that still drives outcomes. Relationships remain emotional. Decisions remain personal. And when they go wrong, the consequences are rarely confined to one jurisdiction, one generation or one balance sheet. In that sense, family law has not softened. It has matured. It now sits at the crossroads of private wealth, global mobility and human risk. The noise may be lower, but the impact has never been greater.

Forsters’ Citywealth Leaders List profile

---

Subscribe to the Citywealth Weekly Newsletter to learn more about Private Wealth Management.

---

Read More: Top 75 family lawyers 2025

Forsters appoints new managing partner | Citywealth News

The new divorce battleground is not the courtroom

Forsters welcomes family lawyer Rosie Schumm | Citywealth News

See the Citywealth Top 100 Global Guardians

Attend the Citywealth Forum in New York and London