13 ms·

Lawyer divorces wrong couple through dropdown selection error

98 points by jackweirdy 2y ago

greatgib 2y ago
That is the Idiocracy in real life.
- dogb0wl 2y ago
  Hilarious how that movie mocks youth but society being like this today is not really due to the youth It’s almost like it was some adults having a laugh at others expense not realizing even making such a movie is bread and circuses Our vanity won’t let us believe we’re just like prior generations of people with fancier technology. Just the same old idiocy, mockery, cynicism, poor effort across contexts (most of which are made up social hallucinations); poor stewards of social and environmental reality
CRConrad 2y ago
Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40045262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40045262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40047102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40047102
razodactyl 2y ago
Yet we have to type the name of our repo in GitHub to confirm a deletion... Imagine the headaches if a life event happened in between the divorce and un-divorce. Oops.
mewpmewp2 2y ago
I don't understand, aren't signatures from parties involved required for this?
- SpaghettiCthulu 2y ago
  My understanding is that the lawyer was authorized to act on the behalf of one party, and the other party was happy to sign the agreement that they were sent.
- CRConrad 2y ago
  Clicking "send" or "buy" is signing stuff nowadays. Well, in most civilised countries; perhaps not in the most backwards of them.
- wvenable 2y ago
  A signature is merely evidence. It's neither sufficient or necessary for agreements. It just happens to be very strong evidence so we tend to think of it as the absolute sign of agreement but legally that isn't the case.
RecycledEle 2y ago
They lawyer has not even agreed to fix their error. This is another reason society is better off without the people who become lawyers.
- flosstop 2y ago
  I believe the lawyers who were at fault went to court to try and have the judgement set aside but it was the judge that refused
  - SpaghettiCthulu 2y ago
    Then the lawyer is at fault and should be forced to cover any damages resulting from this error to their client.
    - alistairSH 2y ago
      Yes, that's what the court eventually ruled.
- meepmorp 2y ago
  > They lawyer has not even agreed to fix their error. How do you suggest the lawyer fix their error?
  - dgacmu 2y ago
    Marry the client?
  - infamouscow 2y ago
    Presumably lawyers can figure that out. That's what they were hired for in the first place.
  - BizarroLand 2y ago
    My guess is that a lawsuit would follow and whomever messed up would be on the hook for any losses between what the final divorce settlement was and what it most likely would have been had it been properly negotiated, plus any emotional damages coming from misapplied parenting rights agreements and the like. Given that they were using online lawyers, likely that is not very much. If this was in America, depending on the couple's total wealth and circumstances it could run into the several hundred thousand / low millions. I don't know the laws in the UK or how that would play out there though.
nobodyandproud 2y ago
> Vardag said the mistake happened after the wrong name was clicked on from a drop-down menu on the divorce portal. She claimed that court staff had admitted this had happened a few times and that it felt like a design flaw. I don’t know enough, but it looks like software engineers will be blamed in short order. Good luck!
- byset 2y ago
  Or the UX designer… or the lack of a UX designer
- pajko 2y ago
  Are you sure you want to delete the marriage of XXX and YYY? Yes / No
danielvf 2y ago
You can see the UI for UK's divorce lawyers in this training document[1] pdf. It's not actually that bad, but the payment flow only shows case numbers, not names. ---- However, the headline for this article is a bit misleading. It sounds like the lawyers just divorced a random married couple, and the judge refused to undo it. But if you go through the article, and put together the clues like a game of Dog Crimes, you get the following sequence of events: 1) The wife hired a speciality divorce law firm. 2) The law firm had already completed all divorce paperwork and uploaded documents into court web system for the wife divorcing the husband. 3) The law firm accidentally selected this "case" to submit and pay for, rather than another intended case. 4) Per UK law the husband would have been officially notified of the completion of the divorce. 5) The wife was not happy about this surprise. 6) The wife's law firm went to court to undo the divorce. 7) The husband hired his own lawyers to keep the divorce. 8) Given that all the paperwork was correct filed, and one member of the couple wanted to keep the divorce the judge let it stand. [1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/978622/Submitting_a_case_with_share_a_case_function_April_2021.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- Ekaros 2y ago
  So only issue really was that wife's filing went active earlier than she would have wanted... And husband sensibly decide just to take the opportunity...
  - Wololooo 2y ago
    Happy little accident.
  - shubb 2y ago
    No, it sounds like her lawyer essentially agreed to an unfavourable divorce settlement that was still being negotiated. She may have lost out anything from custody of her children to millions of dollars.
    - gizmo686 2y ago
wintorez 2y ago
Bad UI can ruin lives.
darepublic 2y ago
The law itself feels like a bunch of bad spaghetti code that professional grifters live off of
knighthack 2y ago
I am with the High Court judge on this one. There was no procedural flaw in the process; it was purely the mistake of the lawyer. The system should not be blamed, when the lawyer could have acted carefully. Hundreds of divorces can proceed a day without issue; why is one fatal mistake by one lawyer suddenly cause to blame the system entirely? And let's not be mistaken - the lawyer was negligent. Observe the grandstanding of the boss, however: > Vardag said: 'The young lawyer who made the slip with the drop down menu on the new divorce portal is one of the best of the next generation. Not sloppy, not careless. Totally committed, extremely able. That young lawyer, our brilliant young lawyer, genuinely needs support to deal with the trauma of it all. ...Is all that posturing necessary? "...one of the best of the next generation", really? A "brilliant" lawyer making this sort of mistake, which could have been avoided had the lawyer actually paid attention? If the junior was mistaken, there is no need for this sort of grandstanding. Negligence need not to be glossed over, or made as if it was not.

98 points by jackweirdy 2y ago

greatgib 2y ago

That is the Idiocracy in real life.

dogb0wl 2y ago
Hilarious how that movie mocks youth but society being like this today is not really due to the youth It’s almost like it was some adults having a laugh at others expense not realizing even making such a movie is bread and circuses Our vanity won’t let us believe we’re just like prior generations of people with fancier technology. Just the same old idiocy, mockery, cynicism, poor effort across contexts (most of which are made up social hallucinations); poor stewards of social and environmental reality

CRConrad 2y ago

Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40045262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40045262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40047102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40047102

razodactyl 2y ago

Yet we have to type the name of our repo in GitHub to confirm a deletion... Imagine the headaches if a life event happened in between the divorce and un-divorce. Oops.

mewpmewp2 2y ago

I don't understand, aren't signatures from parties involved required for this?

SpaghettiCthulu 2y ago
My understanding is that the lawyer was authorized to act on the behalf of one party, and the other party was happy to sign the agreement that they were sent.
CRConrad 2y ago
Clicking "send" or "buy" is signing stuff nowadays. Well, in most civilised countries; perhaps not in the most backwards of them.
wvenable 2y ago
A signature is merely evidence. It's neither sufficient or necessary for agreements. It just happens to be very strong evidence so we tend to think of it as the absolute sign of agreement but legally that isn't the case.

RecycledEle 2y ago

They lawyer has not even agreed to fix their error. This is another reason society is better off without the people who become lawyers.

flosstop 2y ago
I believe the lawyers who were at fault went to court to try and have the judgement set aside but it was the judge that refused
- SpaghettiCthulu 2y ago
  Then the lawyer is at fault and should be forced to cover any damages resulting from this error to their client.
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    Yes, that's what the court eventually ruled.
meepmorp 2y ago
> They lawyer has not even agreed to fix their error. How do you suggest the lawyer fix their error?
- dgacmu 2y ago
  Marry the client?
- infamouscow 2y ago
  Presumably lawyers can figure that out. That's what they were hired for in the first place.
- BizarroLand 2y ago
  My guess is that a lawsuit would follow and whomever messed up would be on the hook for any losses between what the final divorce settlement was and what it most likely would have been had it been properly negotiated, plus any emotional damages coming from misapplied parenting rights agreements and the like. Given that they were using online lawyers, likely that is not very much. If this was in America, depending on the couple's total wealth and circumstances it could run into the several hundred thousand / low millions. I don't know the laws in the UK or how that would play out there though.

nobodyandproud 2y ago

> Vardag said the mistake happened after the wrong name was clicked on from a drop-down menu on the divorce portal. She claimed that court staff had admitted this had happened a few times and that it felt like a design flaw. I don’t know enough, but it looks like software engineers will be blamed in short order. Good luck!

byset 2y ago
Or the UX designer… or the lack of a UX designer
pajko 2y ago
Are you sure you want to delete the marriage of XXX and YYY? Yes / No

danielvf 2y ago

You can see the UI for UK's divorce lawyers in this training document[1] pdf. It's not actually that bad, but the payment flow only shows case numbers, not names. ---- However, the headline for this article is a bit misleading. It sounds like the lawyers just divorced a random married couple, and the judge refused to undo it. But if you go through the article, and put together the clues like a game of Dog Crimes, you get the following sequence of events: 1) The wife hired a speciality divorce law firm. 2) The law firm had already completed all divorce paperwork and uploaded documents into court web system for the wife divorcing the husband. 3) The law firm accidentally selected this "case" to submit and pay for, rather than another intended case. 4) Per UK law the husband would have been officially notified of the completion of the divorce. 5) The wife was not happy about this surprise. 6) The wife's law firm went to court to undo the divorce. 7) The husband hired his own lawyers to keep the divorce. 8) Given that all the paperwork was correct filed, and one member of the couple wanted to keep the divorce the judge let it stand. [1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/978622/Submitting_a_case_with_share_a_case_function_April_2021.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

Ekaros 2y ago
So only issue really was that wife's filing went active earlier than she would have wanted... And husband sensibly decide just to take the opportunity...
- Wololooo 2y ago
  Happy little accident.
- shubb 2y ago
  No, it sounds like her lawyer essentially agreed to an unfavourable divorce settlement that was still being negotiated. She may have lost out anything from custody of her children to millions of dollars.
  - gizmo686 2y ago

wintorez 2y ago

Bad UI can ruin lives.

darepublic 2y ago

The law itself feels like a bunch of bad spaghetti code that professional grifters live off of

knighthack 2y ago

I am with the High Court judge on this one. There was no procedural flaw in the process; it was purely the mistake of the lawyer. The system should not be blamed, when the lawyer could have acted carefully. Hundreds of divorces can proceed a day without issue; why is one fatal mistake by one lawyer suddenly cause to blame the system entirely? And let's not be mistaken - the lawyer was negligent. Observe the grandstanding of the boss, however: > Vardag said: 'The young lawyer who made the slip with the drop down menu on the new divorce portal is one of the best of the next generation. Not sloppy, not careless. Totally committed, extremely able. That young lawyer, our brilliant young lawyer, genuinely needs support to deal with the trauma of it all. ...Is all that posturing necessary? "...one of the best of the next generation", really? A "brilliant" lawyer making this sort of mistake, which could have been avoided had the lawyer actually paid attention? If the junior was mistaken, there is no need for this sort of grandstanding. Negligence need not to be glossed over, or made as if it was not.