There are a range of responses to the original question. From a legal point of view I can say this:
The FDA is an important hearing. It doesn't last long but the preparation is crucial. You only get one shot at raising questions on the other side's
form E financial statement and you need to be able to argue that those questions are relevant at the hearing otherwise the judge will delete them.
It is unusual for a barrister to attend the FDA in normal times but in the pandemic remote hearings are normal and barristers are more set up to conduct remote hearings although solicitors are catching up.
The amount and complexity of the assets will dictate how much resource you are willing to throw at the question of financial division. The higher the assets the more likely a 50:50 split is likely unless there are mitigating circumstances which is where case law becomes relevant.
Once the FDA is over the preparation for the FDR follows. The FDR is a negotiation appointment where you need somebody is is good at negotiation using the Family Procedure Rules and case law as their base for which to make submissions to the judge. The judge will give an indication of what final order they might make if they were hearing the matter at trial (final hearing). That indication is not binding and no details of what goes on in the FDR will be mentioned at the final hearing.
The FDR is also important because by that stage each party will have the others disclosure which means that the extent of all of the assets is known to both parties. It is important to know this before working out what a
fair settlement is.
Much of the preparation for the FDR is about clarification, particularly so if one party has the wrong end of the stick about specific issues e.g. director's loan accounts, dividends, valuation of partnerships etc.
The final hearing is what happens if the matter doesn't settle. Very few matters go to final hearing as the costs increase exponentially (I would say 50% of the cost of a case will be incurred in that final stage so it is best avoided). The result can be reasonably predicted but there are factors which can affect the result for or against you. For instance, if you are a terrible witness the judge might find that you are not credible which will go against you.
It all goes back to how much you want to spend. There is talk of direct access barristers which might be appropriate in a low value case but where we are talking about 7 figures worth of assets, I would pay for expertise.
Metaphorically speaking you might have decorated your own first property but if you spent a million on a property 25 years later would you decorate that yourself or would you pay for somebody to do the same job but with more expertise than you?
Charles