Sometimes I think even the most sympathetic people can look bad when they push too hard and for too much. And sometimes, I think, lawyers can do a great job of undoing their own client's case by being too aggressive (or allowing their client to make over-the-top demands).
Here's an example:
HOW does the media get hold of these things? (In New York, only the parties and their lawyers can see family court filings.)
Makes me suspect that maybe Oksana's lawyers didn't think about the negative implications to their client, by submitting a formal request to the Judge seeking recompense for her personal PR expenses in the form of tax-free child support. Did they anticipate the very real possibility that their client's initial motives and good faith might be questioned? I'm wondering if the judge might be a little circumspect about her now.
And her application sure didn't score brownie points in the the court of public opinion (not like that matters when it comes to judicial decision-making about custody, support and matrimonial decisions, as I've posted before, except when it comes to the significant, out-of-court impact on the careers of public people like Mad Max Mel).
Of course, only the lawyers in the trenches, and their clients, know all the facts and all the nuances of the case. But as the NY Post article indicates, this was probably the best thing that could have happened to Mel under the circumstances. In court, and with the public.