You will not be amazed to hear that as a divorce lawyer among the concerns that I'm frequently asked is, 'when is my best time to apply for divorce in order to get the highest settlement?'.

The prize they want is their partner (or spouse's) pension and I give them a very simple response: the longer the marriage - the bigger the claim.

Take Trudy whose 2nd marriage was to Eric, a rich residential or commercial property designer who had a couple of residential or commercial properties, ISAs and investments. To Trudy, the genuine prize was Eric's pension which deserved more than ₤ 1 million.

The marriage pertained to an end after 5 years, but when Trudy attempted to claim against Eric's pension she was devastated to be told by her lawyer that instead of the half-share that she had determined in her mind that she would be granted, she was incorrect.

Eric could, in fact, ring fence all the pension that he had developed up prior to the marital relationship. This meant that Trudy might only claim a small percentage that had actually accumulated throughout their short time together.

The judge felt that the excessiveness of Trudy's claim was too expensive and that the bulk of the wealth in the marriage had originated from Eric and this was reflected in the settlement that Trudy received.

So while she got a capitalised settlement to show the way of life that they had delighted in together, it was no place near her expectations. The moral of this story? A short marriage equals less assets granted.

It could not have actually been more different for Gloria, who was wed to Frank for more than thirty years. Frank admitted to having affairs with females who he referred to as 'the employed assistance', thinking it did not really count as cheating. It did to Gloria. As the pensions stacked up during their 3 decade relationship, Gloria was able to claim half of it and was granted equality of all the pensions.

Vanessa Lloyd Platt, a top divorce attorney, says the longer the marriage, the bigger the divorce claim

Frank might not call fence one penny of it. And thanks to the length of the marriage, Gloria got what is called a 'Joint Lives Order' for maintenance. Simply put, this suggests Gloria would be given upkeep for life, although this is uncommon today as a lot of upkeep payments are for a set term just.

It was not helped by the fact that Frank had not been forthcoming over the real degree of his cost savings and had at the last moment attempted to move funds offshore. He was given a punitive award and Gloria took advantage of several thousands more on her side of the divorce formula. The ethical here is that dishonesty does not pay - especially in a divorce court.

So that's short and long marital relationships - what about a longer than typical length of marital relationship (12 years) for state 15 years?

Here the court will equalise the capital of the pension unless wealth has actually been accumulated before or undoubtedly, for a duration, after separation.

It is always important that a pensions expert analyse the value of a pension so the proper figure can be determined.

Which is where Gemma came unstuck. She had a 16-year marriage to City broker Paul. His pension faced hundreds of thousands of pounds. Gemma was none too troubled by the pension however, like many other halves I see, she wanted the security of staying in the home that she liked. So instead of declaring any of Paul's pension she traded it off against the worth of the home.

This is called a 'set-off', but as a lawyer I would constantly suggest to any client that an actuary report is gotten first and all choices are thought about.

Wives in particular can bring out a lesser deal when they select this choice. The ethical here is that you may feel young and all set to start afresh, but do not be too quick to trade away your future pension.

Vanessa states that in a marriage longer than the average of 12 years, the court will equalise the capital of the pension unless wealth has been accrued before or, for a period, after separation

Another question I'm typically asked is whether an arbitrator will take into consideration all of the couple's assets to increase a settlement.

Many individuals seem to think that arbitrators will go simple on the parties - and partners in particular - might get away with more by utilizing a mediator, than if the matter is before the court.

This is a fallacy, as Neil discovered. The business director believed that mediation would imply that he could put pressure on Judy to settle. It had actually been a long marriage covering twenty-eight years and he believed that Judy was not the brightest. He felt he could bluff his way through and bamboozle the mediator.

What Neil had not reckoned upon was the tenacity and cleverness of the conciliator who firmly insisted that all information be produced for the meetings. The conciliator could see that Neil was being obstructive in responding to queries about monetary deals and movement of cash in between subsidiary business.

Little had Neil presumed that the arbitrator had actually been a forensic investigator for HMRC, before becoming a matrimonial arbitrator. After lots of sessions the mediator suggested a settlement figure which Neil was outraged by and insisted they go to court. Unfortunately for Neil - the exact same settlement figure was reached in court. It's worth remembering that mediation can be a far better way of dealing with matters but is never a soft choice.

Mediators will assist the couple and advise actuaries to work out pension departments whatever the length of the marital relationship. The courts are now encouraging the celebrations to think about options to court procedures more than ever. Arbitration is also being motivated. All these alternatives are available simply put, medium and long marital relationships.

This is the factor EVERYONE is separating ... and why your marriage is at risk without you recognizing

So no matter the length of your marriage, I recommend all my clients not to have impractical expectations of what the last figure ought to be. It's vital to realise that you can not punish your soon to be ex-partner in the courtroom. Unless you can demonstrate that the behaviour of your spouse has actually had a monetary effect, the conduct or behaviour will be disregarded.

Let me introduce you now to Henry, who thought that he was being particularly smart when he moved his shares in the household business to his sibling, cashed in the capital from his pension and gave it to a friend and bought himself a Lamborghini.

This was because Claudia, his wife of twelve years had actually started divorce procedures. At the end of the litigation, the court discovered that he was intentionally attempting to minimize the assets offered to Claudia and added back all the value of the pension, the expense of the Lamborghini and the shares to his side of the equation and after that divided all of it in half. Henry's actions were so contrived that his attempts to drain the assets absolutely backfired on him. Oh and Henry needed to sell the Lamborghini.

The ethical of the story when it concerns how to increase your settlement? Don't try to be too clever, play reasonable and honestly, or risk the very opposite of what you intended to accomplish. Divorce can be a minefield, and it does not need to explode for either of you if you both take reasonable actions towards fixing matters.

* All names have been changed to protect client identity.