4 ms·

Wrong couple divorced after computer error by law firm Vardag's

46 points by vinni2 3y ago

sp332 3y ago
I see where the judge is coming from, but hopefully they were able to get this fixed before it started affecting their tax or benefits status. Edit: looks like I misread about the fixing it part. Still, I wonder what the situation would look like if a couple were legally divorced for only a couple of weeks.
- csours 3y ago
  I really don't see where the judge is coming from. How would the judge expect this to be resolved?
  - sp332 3y ago
    I assumed getting married again?
  - galangalalgol 3y ago
    Probably expects Vardag's client to sue them for losses. Honestly, accidentally filing for the divorce of a client you were supposed to be preventing the divorce of is pretty bad. It may be a huge firm, but that ought to lighten their pockets quite a bit, and someone will probably lose a job.
    - zimpenfish 3y ago
      > you were supposed to be preventing the divorce of I don't think they were preventing, per se, as much as "wanting to negotiate on behalf of Mrs Williams to get the most out of Mr Williams" (who is presumably happy with this accident because it avoids all that faff since Mrs Williams, I assume, has no negotiating position now they're actually divorced.)
      - graemep 3y ago
        That is not how the system works in the UK. the financial arrangements are a separate case from the divorce itself (as a child arrangements) and can take place from any time after the conditional order (what used to be called the decree nisi) is made onwards (including after the divorce is completed by the final order).
        CRConrad 3y ago
        But surely not agreeing to the divorce in the first place can be used as pressure in the financial case.
        graemep 3y ago
        Possibly, but you cannot delay long. If the spouse who applied for the divorce does not ask for the final order within three months of the first date they could, then the other spouse can apply for the final order.
        zimpenfish 3y ago
        > the financial arrangements are a separate case from the divorce itself I'm guessing that's things like child care, handling of pre-nups, 50/50 split of main domicile, etc. but doesn't cover "extras" like boats, other houses, etc.? Which is why people hire expensive lawyers like the ones in the story for negotiating their divorce settlements...
        graemep 3y ago
        It covers everything. The divorce case itself is ONLY the ending of the marriage and it cannot be contested except on very narrow grounds (wrong jurisdiction or case already in progress)
  - ralferoo 3y ago
    Maybe the judge doesn't see the need for this to be resolved. The lawyers for the party who didn't want the divorce, but had been given the authority to represent the client, submitted the request for divorce. The other party agreed. The divorce was finalised. All done. The lawyers who requested the divorce want to cancel it, but there's no legal process for doing that, given that they instigated it, had the authority to act on their client's behalf and there was no administrative mistake made by the court. Especially as the guy is perfectly happy with the outcome, under what basis could the court rescind the divorce and compel him to become re-married? Even more so when the outcome is clearly that they will ultimately end up divorced anyway (or else they wouldn't have engaged the divorce lawyers) and the only issue is about the terms of the settlement between the two parties.
    - CRConrad 3y ago
      > under what basis could the court rescind the divorce and compel him to become re-married? They wouldn't really compel him to become re-married, he'd just never have been un-married in the first place.
  - andrewaylett 3y ago
    The affected couple were in the process of getting a divorce, but reaching the stage where it's finalised takes time and negotiation. It seems that one of the parties is quite happy not to have needed to go through this phase. I'd hope that even though this error leaves the couple divorced earlier than expected, it won't mean that the former-wife will forfeit her right to whatever support she should be able to expect.
- hbrav 3y ago
  The problem, if you read to the end, is that one half of the former couple is very happy with this outcome, and the other half is very much not.
  - akdor1154 3y ago
    And it looks like the disagreement is over financial arrangements, not so much whether they want to remain a loving couple.
- guitarbill 3y ago
  It seems like the husband was quite ok with the accident, hence the ruling: > Mr Williams' legal representatives argued a final order of divorce is a "once-and-for-all" order, which cannot be set aside by the consent of the parties and may only be rescinded by the court if found to be either void or voidable. It isn't like two other random people that didn't want to be were accidentally divorced.
  - CRConrad 3y ago
    > It isn't like two other random people that didn't want to be were accidentally divorced. Arguably, yes, that is exactly what happened here: If the lawyer intended to do this for some other couple and only did it for this one by mistake, then the couple that were divorced now are the "two other random people". (And as for "didn't want to be", isn't that what this whole system with preliminary application, waiting period, and final application is for? As long as you haven't made the final application, then no, it isn't regarded as, well, final that you really want to go through with it.)
xn 3y ago
The journalist seems to have submitted the article for publishing by mistake as well. > Lawyers for Mrs Williams argued that as the order had been made by mistake it should simply be "set aside", describing the error as someone at the firm simply "clicking the wrong button". [missing paragraphs describing what the hell happened.] > Mr Williams' legal representatives argued a final order of divorce is a "once-and-for-all" order, which cannot be set aside by the consent of the parties and may only be rescinded by the court if found to be either void or voidable.
- Gunax 3y ago
  What other details do you need?
  - pstrateman 3y ago
    I think he missed the Mr vs Mrs
  - xn 3y ago
    It says "Mrs Williams applied for divorce in January 2023". Then the application for a final divorce was submitted accidentally. Then Mrs Williams wanted the divorce set aside. Why? Mr Williams didn't want it set aside. Why?
margalabargala 3y ago
What happened here is that one member of a couple wanted a divorce, and the other member's lawyers accidentally submitted that person for divorce rather than a different client. So basically the judge's argument is "those were your lawyers, you paid for them to act on your behalf, so this action they took on your behalf is valid." It's not a "computer error" except that the lawyer who screwed up happened to be using a computer while doing so. If this were 50 years ago, and the lawyer wrote the wrong client's name on a document, would we call it a "pen and paper error"?
- ZiiS 3y ago
  Yes; writing the wrong name on paper is certainly a "pen and paper error". The only difference is this has never implied it was the paper's fault. "Computer error" only implies bad software because it is so often due to bad software (though I have no insight if that applies in this case).
- observationist 3y ago
  Depends entirely on the software. If it was confusing and poorly put together such that it was difficult or unclear whose name gets put where and so forth, then there's a case to be made (!) that the lawyer intended and expected the software to do one thing, when it actually did another. Some things should require human control and agency involved at every step from conception to completion. Even if the software merely enabled such a mistake to be made, that means the software is interacting with a system that is not equipped to handle failure modes gracefully. It's half baked, and as seen, the system can have profound and lasting impact on people's lives. If the stakes are high, the diligence and care have to be escalated as well. Marriage, divorce, bankruptcy, and other situations should be human only until we are entirely certain that programmatic access is not going to result in hiccups and disruptions.
  - graemep 3y ago
    If you do it yourself (I did) its a reasonably straightforward webapp, and you do not really need a lawyer (its no-fault, and the divorce is separate from financial and child arrangements cases). You just fill in some forms, then wait a few months and fill in another form. The problem here is that when lawyers deal with it for you they can mix up different cases, but the problem is that if you authorise the lawyer to act for you (as in this case) you cannot then disclaim responsibility for what they did under that authority.
tobr 3y ago
Is an error a “computer error” simply because a computer was involved?
- margalabargala 3y ago
  It's a "computer error" in the same way that if you type an address into your favorite map nav software, it will show you directions to that address, rather than whatever secret unknown place you really wanted to go to. If you accidentally send nudes to your parents, that's actually an "SMS error". If you drive your car off of a cliff, that's a "pavement error". If you intended to go to bed early, but actually stay up late playing video games/watching TV/reading/whatever, then that is a "clock error".
Gunax 3y ago
We always enjoy the finality of legal process until we are on the losing side. I don't know why UK law is made that way, but nothing should be final, for precisely this reason--clerical errors can happen.
- tossandthrow 3y ago
  where I am at cases generally expire after 5 years. I think that is super important. if you never see finality you can worry that some entity will come and change the assumptions at any time. say that you made a transaction based ona valuation. 15 years later the IRS comes and rewrites that valuation and because this is so late you have absolutely no recourse.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
This judge's ruling seems egregiously wrong to me. In general the law does not follow "finder's keepers" rules. I know this case happened in the UK, but this is remarkably analogous to the case in the US where Citibank, due to a clerical error, accidentally wired $500 million to Revlon bondholders. An appeals court in the US said that money needed to be repaid, https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2022/10/second-circuit-reverses-ruling-500-million-wire-transfer-paying-off-revlon-loan-returned https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2022/10/second....
- ralferoo 3y ago
  How is it egregiously wrong? The couple were getting a divorce anyway, the woman just wants the divorce cancelled so they can continue "negotiations" on the terms. But in terms of law, her lawyers acting on her authority requested the divorce, the other party agreed and the divorce was finalised. The due process was followed. What should happen next is that the woman sues her lawyers for negligence, demanding compensation to the tune of the amount that she failed to negotiate in the divorce.
- colonwqbang 3y ago
  Mr Williams doesn't wish to be married to Mrs Williams anymore. If tearing up the divorce decree the judge would be forcibly re-marrying Mr and Mrs, against his wishes. I think the decision made by the judge is the only reasonable one. If Mrs lost money due to the mistake, her recourse is to sue her incompetent lawyer.
Someone 3y ago
The article is about human error, not computer error. A law firm had divorce cases for two clients, and an employee authorized to act on behalve of one half of a couple accidentally clicked that their client agreed with the divorce settlement, intending to do so for another client.
karaterobot 3y ago
Your wife's new legal name is TAARGÜS TAARGÜS
CRConrad 3y ago
Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40043949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40043949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40047102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40047102

46 points by vinni2 3y ago

I see where the judge is coming from, but hopefully they were able to get this fixed before it started affecting their tax or benefits status. Edit: looks like I misread about the fixing it part. Still, I wonder what the situation would look like if a couple were legally divorced for only a couple of weeks.

csours 3y ago
I really don't see where the judge is coming from. How would the judge expect this to be resolved?
- sp332 3y ago
  I assumed getting married again?
- galangalalgol 3y ago
  Probably expects Vardag's client to sue them for losses. Honestly, accidentally filing for the divorce of a client you were supposed to be preventing the divorce of is pretty bad. It may be a huge firm, but that ought to lighten their pockets quite a bit, and someone will probably lose a job.
  - zimpenfish 3y ago
    > you were supposed to be preventing the divorce of I don't think they were preventing, per se, as much as "wanting to negotiate on behalf of Mrs Williams to get the most out of Mr Williams" (who is presumably happy with this accident because it avoids all that faff since Mrs Williams, I assume, has no negotiating position now they're actually divorced.)
    - graemep 3y ago
      That is not how the system works in the UK. the financial arrangements are a separate case from the divorce itself (as a child arrangements) and can take place from any time after the conditional order (what used to be called the decree nisi) is made onwards (including after the divorce is completed by the final order).
      - CRConrad 3y ago
        But surely not agreeing to the divorce in the first place can be used as pressure in the financial case.
        graemep 3y ago
        Possibly, but you cannot delay long. If the spouse who applied for the divorce does not ask for the final order within three months of the first date they could, then the other spouse can apply for the final order.
      - zimpenfish 3y ago
        > the financial arrangements are a separate case from the divorce itself I'm guessing that's things like child care, handling of pre-nups, 50/50 split of main domicile, etc. but doesn't cover "extras" like boats, other houses, etc.? Which is why people hire expensive lawyers like the ones in the story for negotiating their divorce settlements...
        graemep 3y ago
        It covers everything. The divorce case itself is ONLY the ending of the marriage and it cannot be contested except on very narrow grounds (wrong jurisdiction or case already in progress)
- ralferoo 3y ago
  Maybe the judge doesn't see the need for this to be resolved. The lawyers for the party who didn't want the divorce, but had been given the authority to represent the client, submitted the request for divorce. The other party agreed. The divorce was finalised. All done. The lawyers who requested the divorce want to cancel it, but there's no legal process for doing that, given that they instigated it, had the authority to act on their client's behalf and there was no administrative mistake made by the court. Especially as the guy is perfectly happy with the outcome, under what basis could the court rescind the divorce and compel him to become re-married? Even more so when the outcome is clearly that they will ultimately end up divorced anyway (or else they wouldn't have engaged the divorce lawyers) and the only issue is about the terms of the settlement between the two parties.
  - CRConrad 3y ago
    > under what basis could the court rescind the divorce and compel him to become re-married? They wouldn't really compel him to become re-married, he'd just never have been un-married in the first place.
- andrewaylett 3y ago
  The affected couple were in the process of getting a divorce, but reaching the stage where it's finalised takes time and negotiation. It seems that one of the parties is quite happy not to have needed to go through this phase. I'd hope that even though this error leaves the couple divorced earlier than expected, it won't mean that the former-wife will forfeit her right to whatever support she should be able to expect.
hbrav 3y ago
The problem, if you read to the end, is that one half of the former couple is very happy with this outcome, and the other half is very much not.
- akdor1154 3y ago
  And it looks like the disagreement is over financial arrangements, not so much whether they want to remain a loving couple.
guitarbill 3y ago
It seems like the husband was quite ok with the accident, hence the ruling: > Mr Williams' legal representatives argued a final order of divorce is a "once-and-for-all" order, which cannot be set aside by the consent of the parties and may only be rescinded by the court if found to be either void or voidable. It isn't like two other random people that didn't want to be were accidentally divorced.
- CRConrad 3y ago
  > It isn't like two other random people that didn't want to be were accidentally divorced. Arguably, yes, that is exactly what happened here: If the lawyer intended to do this for some other couple and only did it for this one by mistake, then the couple that were divorced now are the "two other random people". (And as for "didn't want to be", isn't that what this whole system with preliminary application, waiting period, and final application is for? As long as you haven't made the final application, then no, it isn't regarded as, well, final that you really want to go through with it.)

xn 3y ago

The journalist seems to have submitted the article for publishing by mistake as well. > Lawyers for Mrs Williams argued that as the order had been made by mistake it should simply be "set aside", describing the error as someone at the firm simply "clicking the wrong button". [missing paragraphs describing what the hell happened.] > Mr Williams' legal representatives argued a final order of divorce is a "once-and-for-all" order, which cannot be set aside by the consent of the parties and may only be rescinded by the court if found to be either void or voidable.

Gunax 3y ago
What other details do you need?
- pstrateman 3y ago
  I think he missed the Mr vs Mrs
- xn 3y ago
  It says "Mrs Williams applied for divorce in January 2023". Then the application for a final divorce was submitted accidentally. Then Mrs Williams wanted the divorce set aside. Why? Mr Williams didn't want it set aside. Why?

margalabargala 3y ago

What happened here is that one member of a couple wanted a divorce, and the other member's lawyers accidentally submitted that person for divorce rather than a different client. So basically the judge's argument is "those were your lawyers, you paid for them to act on your behalf, so this action they took on your behalf is valid." It's not a "computer error" except that the lawyer who screwed up happened to be using a computer while doing so. If this were 50 years ago, and the lawyer wrote the wrong client's name on a document, would we call it a "pen and paper error"?

ZiiS 3y ago
Yes; writing the wrong name on paper is certainly a "pen and paper error". The only difference is this has never implied it was the paper's fault. "Computer error" only implies bad software because it is so often due to bad software (though I have no insight if that applies in this case).
observationist 3y ago
Depends entirely on the software. If it was confusing and poorly put together such that it was difficult or unclear whose name gets put where and so forth, then there's a case to be made (!) that the lawyer intended and expected the software to do one thing, when it actually did another. Some things should require human control and agency involved at every step from conception to completion. Even if the software merely enabled such a mistake to be made, that means the software is interacting with a system that is not equipped to handle failure modes gracefully. It's half baked, and as seen, the system can have profound and lasting impact on people's lives. If the stakes are high, the diligence and care have to be escalated as well. Marriage, divorce, bankruptcy, and other situations should be human only until we are entirely certain that programmatic access is not going to result in hiccups and disruptions.
- graemep 3y ago
  If you do it yourself (I did) its a reasonably straightforward webapp, and you do not really need a lawyer (its no-fault, and the divorce is separate from financial and child arrangements cases). You just fill in some forms, then wait a few months and fill in another form. The problem here is that when lawyers deal with it for you they can mix up different cases, but the problem is that if you authorise the lawyer to act for you (as in this case) you cannot then disclaim responsibility for what they did under that authority.

tobr 3y ago

Is an error a “computer error” simply because a computer was involved?

margalabargala 3y ago
It's a "computer error" in the same way that if you type an address into your favorite map nav software, it will show you directions to that address, rather than whatever secret unknown place you really wanted to go to. If you accidentally send nudes to your parents, that's actually an "SMS error". If you drive your car off of a cliff, that's a "pavement error". If you intended to go to bed early, but actually stay up late playing video games/watching TV/reading/whatever, then that is a "clock error".

Gunax 3y ago

We always enjoy the finality of legal process until we are on the losing side. I don't know why UK law is made that way, but nothing should be final, for precisely this reason--clerical errors can happen.

tossandthrow 3y ago
where I am at cases generally expire after 5 years. I think that is super important. if you never see finality you can worry that some entity will come and change the assumptions at any time. say that you made a transaction based ona valuation. 15 years later the IRS comes and rewrites that valuation and because this is so late you have absolutely no recourse.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

This judge's ruling seems egregiously wrong to me. In general the law does not follow "finder's keepers" rules. I know this case happened in the UK, but this is remarkably analogous to the case in the US where Citibank, due to a clerical error, accidentally wired $500 million to Revlon bondholders. An appeals court in the US said that money needed to be repaid, https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2022/10/second-circuit-reverses-ruling-500-million-wire-transfer-paying-off-revlon-loan-returned https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2022/10/second....

ralferoo 3y ago
How is it egregiously wrong? The couple were getting a divorce anyway, the woman just wants the divorce cancelled so they can continue "negotiations" on the terms. But in terms of law, her lawyers acting on her authority requested the divorce, the other party agreed and the divorce was finalised. The due process was followed. What should happen next is that the woman sues her lawyers for negligence, demanding compensation to the tune of the amount that she failed to negotiate in the divorce.
colonwqbang 3y ago
Mr Williams doesn't wish to be married to Mrs Williams anymore. If tearing up the divorce decree the judge would be forcibly re-marrying Mr and Mrs, against his wishes. I think the decision made by the judge is the only reasonable one. If Mrs lost money due to the mistake, her recourse is to sue her incompetent lawyer.

Someone 3y ago

The article is about human error, not computer error. A law firm had divorce cases for two clients, and an employee authorized to act on behalve of one half of a couple accidentally clicked that their client agreed with the divorce settlement, intending to do so for another client.

karaterobot 3y ago

Your wife's new legal name is TAARGÜS TAARGÜS

CRConrad 3y ago

Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40043949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40043949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40047102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40047102