In the latest in our Finances after Fifty series we talk to one of New Zealand's leading divorce lawyers Lady Deborah Chambers about breaking up, moving on and her working class origins.
Lady Deborah Chambers KC is one of New Zealand’s leading trust litigation and relationship property lawyers. At age 65, she has herself been married twice – the first time to the father of her two adult daughters, and then to the late Sir Robert Chambers KNZM QC, a Supreme Court judge who died in 2013.
Growing up, my family was white-working-class. We had virtually no money. My parents used to have a meeting every Thursday night to try and sort out the bills and how much money was left over but, often, there wasn't much. The grocery shopping was quite stressful; I can remember my mother having to take things out of the trolley at the check-out. At times, she didn't eat because there wasn’t enough food for everyone. We didn’t have a car. Going to the beach was an absolute performance, because we had to catch the bus which came every two hours.
That didn't mean we were miserable. It was still a very happy childhood, because I had two parents who loved me and there was a community. We lived in a State Advances house; there were no hedges and there were kids running around everywhere and playing together. I was conscious of the financial stresses on my parents, because they couldn't completely hide it – they just couldn’t – but it didn't dominate our lives. We were slightly oblivious to anyone outside our bubble. I didn’t wear shoes, which I didn’t think was negative because just about every kid in the neighbourhood had no shoes. And when Mum finally got me a pair, they were Roman sandals, which I thought were dreadful.
Where I live now, (in Remuera, Auckland), there are obviously people who have inherited their money and have never strived, but there are also quite a few people like me, who climbed the ladder. Because in New Zealand – it's a long way off perfect – but we do have social mobility, which is a great thing.
I felt my first shift out of the working-class world when I got my first Bursary check for university and I went and lived in a $10-a-week dump of a flat in Parnell. I loved punk rock. I got involved in all of that, and I had so much fun. I was a feminist. And I was, of course, a good lefty, a good Labour Party supporter, I joined the Princes St branch. All kind of totally predictable, really, for a girl from Glenfield experimenting with the world.
A lefty now? Not as much, darling, no, no, no. I mean, I still want the same things – I'm socially liberal, I hate unemployment and people not getting a fair chance at life. But I'm no longer sure that just shelling out money is actually the way to change all that. But I suppose my heart is still there because, of course, my family were Labour voters through and through. So I still have that wish to have fair play, but then I think people on the right also want fair play, they just have a different view of how you achieve it. I just no longer believe that the left has a monopoly on wanting and knowing how to get the best for people.
My hourly rate is... a lot. Because I only do the big stuff. I only want to do the big complicated cases, because that's what I'm good at, and there are not that many people who can do that work, so that's why I charge – a lot.
A lot of my work is money-focused. Because, by the time my clients see me, they've either gone through an emotional divorce, or they're getting help with that – I'm not trained as a counsellor and I push them off pretty quickly to go and see a good psychologist, someone who's got expertise in that emotional area. So that leaves children, if they have them, and money to fight over. Emotions do come through those two issues: Hurt, fear, lack of love, fear of being alone, lack of control, used to being in control, no longer in control, used to having money, no longer having money.
Getting financially halved is not a great experience. It's completely different litigation from when you're acting for a big company, and it's other people's money, it's the shareholders' money. With divorce, it’s your clients’ money.
I like to reassure my clients. Because when you’ve lost your financial security, and you've lost the person you loved, that is a particularly stressful period. I try and get them to look at the long range. In five years, or hopefully a lot less than that, you'll be through this, you'll have your own independent life, you'll be leading it how you want to, you may well have met someone else, and you will be okay.
Yes, some people never get over a divorce and are devastated but, to be frank, I think it's a smaller and smaller group. I don't think it helps to blow it up as just a really, really difficult period. You're better to see it as a period of change and transition, often a period of enormous growth where people learn to make the best choices for themselves and their family. Most people are very well-intentioned toward the person they’re divorcing; they don't mean to be bastards, most people are good folk.
As for what motivates those who aren’t – and they are out there – it’s control; often they've got a controlling style relationship, and they don't like giving up that control. Or it’s greed: ‘I like money, and I want to keep as much as possible’. It's hurt: ‘they hurt me so much, I'm going to get them back through their wallet’. And it's public face too – people feel they've been mistreated, and people are judging them on that.
Going through my own divorce made me a better lawyer. In particular, I got that sitting there in that purgatory, waiting for the money to be released was a nightmare. My ex-husband and I dealt with things reasonably well but, nevertheless, it took a year or so, and I didn't like it at all. So I really like to see people getting through the financial divorce as quickly as they can, so they can move on. Also managing my children through that process, and learning what was in their best interests, assisted me to be a better lawyer. Obviously, I would have preferred not to have gone through it in the first place, but that was something that came out of it.
One of the things I see – it’s a stereotype, but for good reason – is the husband, the man, having the financial resources, the business that makes the money, which he keeps; and the wife comes out with far less, and little or no earning capacity. But it’s surprising the number of women in that situation who take the funds they're getting and say, ‘well, actually, I can live quite happily on this amount. I don't need all the toys’. I think women are quite good at adjusting. We often have better social connections, and maybe we're driven by slightly different things.
But I also see women who’ve never managed money, who’ve paid for everything with a credit card, and they come out of divorce with a big stack of money and go through it pretty bloody quickly. And that's a real pity when that happens. But most people step up to the situation, take the reins and actually quite prefer it. I mean, don't we all prefer to make our own decisions and know exactly what we're doing with our own money?
It was the traditional wives who got married when divorce rates were lower who really got hammered. Younger women have grown up in a society where divorce is a thing, and they know as they walk down the aisle that they need to protect their financial position, because of the possibility of either separation or their husband’s death. Younger women are better educated and more aware of the likelihoods in life.
With blended families, and stepchildren, wills can be complicated and it’s an issue that’s really exploded in recent years, with the way New Zealanders now live their lives, which is generally not with just one primary relationship. Particularly when there's actually a pot of money there, out come the lawyers and a piece of litigation is just not what people need when someone has died in their family. It's very, very hard to repair that. You see families divided and the scars don't heal.
When my daughters were growing up, I said to them, ‘well darlings, if you want to be a flower arranger or a creative writer, that's absolutely fine, you go for it, but just recognise you're not going to have the standard of living you've got now’. I just wanted them to know there is a direct connection between your lifestyle and what you choose to do in life.
It’s a million times better being middle class than working class. I'd like to make everyone middle class. I'd like to see everyone coming up, as we all would, because it's just a much better life. You're freer, you see more, you experience more.
I enjoy lovely dinners out and wine. I enjoy travel and seeing the world, I enjoy clothes and fashion and being able to just buy whatever I like at the supermarket without worrying. I suppose that's a reflection of going shopping with my mother when I was a small child. I enjoy being able to buy books and go to films and concerts whenever I want to. I love entertaining at home – and also having a lovely home. These are great pleasures to me.
Yes, I think I will keep working, because I enjoy it very much. I enjoy my colleagues, I enjoy helping people. It takes decades to get good at this, so I may as well enjoy it while I've finally got the skills. I try to be objective about my work. I warn people before they go into court: We could lose. But do I like losing? No. I don't go in there to lose, I go in there to win.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
SHARE ME