High profile lambasting of the profession for its voracious excoriation of couples matrimonial asset base has gained momentum in the last twelve months and we have yet to see anyone in the profession taking their accusers to task, so we thought we would.

According to The Times on 7 July, "A woman attempted suicide after becoming embroiled in a divorce battle where "scandalous" legal costs were racked up, amounting to one third of her and her estranged husband's assets, a family court judge said.

In the latest court case to highlight excessive divorce costs, Judge Stephen Wildblood said that the woman and her estranged husband had a "total pot of capital" of around £350,000 and had run up lawyers' bills of some £120,000.

Judge Wildblood said that if "legal costs had been approached sensibly", it would have been enough for the man and woman "to be housed" and have enough money left to "go round".

He outlined the details in a ruling given after the latest hearing at a family court in Bristol.

The judge said he had granted an appeal by the man after a lower-ranking judge had made "too many errors", in his decisions over the division of assets. He will now re-analyse the case at another hearing.

He was told that she had been diagnosed with "depression and anxiety" and had made an attempt on her life after one court hearing.

"The pressure on (her) is immense," said the judge. "She finds herself in a position where her legal costs must be a constant burden and source of anxiety."

He added: "She is now deeply in debt to the very people she has turned to for assistance with the dispute"

Judge Wildblood is the latest of several judges to raise concerns about size of legal bills run up in divorce fights. In November, a High Court judge called for the imposition of a ''costs cap'' on what lawyers could charge estranged couples.

Mr Justice Mostyn suggested the introduction of ''price fixing'' after hearing a case in which a businessman and his estranged wife had run up legal bills of more than £900,000 while fighting over assets worth less than £2.9 million.

The judge said the time had come for law-makers to ''do something'' about excess litigation costs run up by couples arguing over who should get what.

In December, Mr Justice Holman said a family mediator and her millionaire ex-partner spent £60,000 arguing about a difference in offers and claims of around £100,000.

He also told how, in a separate case in the same month, a businessman and his former partner ran up legal bills of £1.3 million in a dispute over £500,000.

In another case late last year, a judge said a couple in their 70s had run up £2 million in lawyers' bills after their 43-year marriage broke down.

Judge Nicholas Francis said the difference between what the man eventually offered and what the woman wanted was ''remarkably proximate'' to £2 million.

In February, a High Court judge criticised a millionaire and his estranged wife who ran up bills of about £90,000 during a fight over £190,000.

Mr Justice Moylan told the pair that spending nearly half the amount in dispute on legal fees was ''clearly'' not ''proportionate''.

All well and good and at one level, few would disagree with the lack of proportionality or the suggestion that the courts time (a scarce and finite resource) is perhaps being misused.

But who is to blame? How is a fee cap as suggested going to assist and in any event, a fee cap is a thinly veiled attack on the lawyers. When the cap is hit, the lawyers will just stop work. No, there are fundamental problems further up the food chain.

Let's just note the obvious for a moment; the lawyers didn't tell these people to split up, nor did they tell them to be at times irrational, unreasonable, duplicitous, malevolent and petulant in their negotiations and demands. Nor can lawyers prevent their clients from not following their advice to apply commercial pragmatism and realism to the situation.

Practicing lawyers did not write the civil procedure rules whose framework within which they must work, they do not control the courts in which they appear, a lawyer generally cannot prevent the other side from appealing and they cannot ethically, without very good cause, decline or cease to act.

And then there is the competence of the judiciary and the extent to which that variable aggravates the problem. The Times article states "The judge said he had granted an appeal by the man after a lower-ranking judge had made "too many errors", in his decisions over the division of assets. He will now re-analyse the case at another hearing."

We couldn't believe what we were reading. A judge of first instance makes a pig's-ear of the job to such an extent that justice demands that the husband be allowed to appeal. But no, it's all about the lawyers "scandalous" legal costs. Perhaps both parties should send their invoices for the appeal to the MOJ. Perhaps someone should sue the MOJ for professional negligence. Yeah right! Good luck with that.

And what of the judges that can't seem to control the process better. They are masters of their courts (as anyone who regularly appears is reminded from time to time). If there are inadequacies in the civil procedure rules then fix them to cut down and better control abuse of process, spurious interlocutories and grounds for appeal.

So, to the professions accusers, can we suggest that you stop blaming the lawyers and take a look a little closer to home? The profession is sick and tired of sitting on the bottom rung.