When I was in my 20's, my father used to call me a "girl-lawyer" just to see if he could get a rise out of me, which, of course, he did. By the time I was in my 30's, cranking out the hours at BigLaw, the ranks of women lawyers had swelled so much no one paid much attention to gender - except for the proverbial "glass ceiling." And after I'd been a divorce lawyer for roughly a decade, I'd grown tired of being asked by men if it was "better" for them to hire a woman lawyer; I'd also grown accustomed to women who were clearly more comfortable confiding in a female lawyer, while others were happier to be represented by more testosterone than I'd ever have.
Then I found myself tossed onto a few websites, defining me as a fathers' rights advocate. I had some women calling me a woman-hater, and some men saying, yeah, Terri gets it, unlike all those feminist b****s.
Okay, let me set the record straight.
First, I suppose I am something of a feminist, if that's what you call a woman who firmly believes woman and men have the same rights to citizenship, educational and career opportunities, personal choices, etc. I hardly consider that an extreme position. I was raised on the notion that girls could do anything boys did, and I focused on getting a kick-ass education so that I could, in fact, do whatever I wanted. (Being a divorce lawyer wasn't my childhood dream, though, in all honesty...) As a teenager, my views were shaped, reinforced and supported at my all-girls' high school, where I'm pleased to say Sen. Gillibrand (class of '84) is returning to give the commencement address this weekend.
Second, I have, in fact, won many bitter custody battles for male clients, where the kids ended up living with their fathers. Translation: I have represented men who were, I believe, deprived or about be to deprived of access to their kids, to the severe detriment of the kids. And in those cases, the judge agreed with our presentation of the evidence that the father provided the better living environment for the kids for a variety of reasons, usually centering around emotional/psychiatric issues.
Third, I have negotiated many deals (lost count a long time ago) for male clients, where the terms included shared parenting (decision-making and access time) between both moms and dads. In those cases, both parties agreed that the kids would live fuller, happier and better lives, and receive the maximum emotional, educational and personal advantage by having significant access to both their parents.
Fourth, I've done the same thing for female clients over the years. I've also helped - dads, don't gasp - women to relocate with the kids, where courts have accepted the evidence presented that the kids would thrive in that new place with their mom. That the move was not being done to punish the dad, that the move was reasonable and necessary, that adjustments during weekends, vacations and summers could accommodate the need for parenting time with the dad, etc. etc.
Fifth, I loathe beyond words the abuse of legal process, the gamesmanship and the bull***t that preludes and accompanies most custody battles. It happens on both sides - men and women. The way people drag friends and family in to take sides against their spouse, the PR (formal, when it's a high-profile matter, and informal, where people notify their surrounding communities of their private issues). The way people, mostly women - sorry, that's been my experience, ladies - obtain bogus ex parte orders to throw their spouses out of the house and cut off all access to the kids. How child protective service agencies get contacted - again, mostly by the women, in my experience, to bust into homes and grill often-clueless kids about their parents' manner of showing affection. How one or both parents are so fixated on hating the other that they ignore the radioactive damage they're inflicting on their hapless, helpless kids.
So does all this make this "girl" (not so much now, at my age) lawyer a fathers' rights advocate? No. The concept of furthering the rights of one gender over another is an anathema to everything I believe in. I never saw any of my custody cases as a battle between the sexes. To me, it's been a battle between parents - my client (whom I believed in and advocated for as the better, more nurturing parent) and the opposing party - with the ultimate goal of doing the best thing for the kids rather than assuaging the ego of the father or the mother. And if my client - man or woman - was more interested in his/her ego than what was best for the kids, I wouldn't be representing him/her.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Consensual? Is this a Joke?
Like my prior post says, I'm far more fascinated by the DSK crime scandal than Arnold's. Yeah, both are, at heart, the same old story of powerful teststerone-laden men who think they're invulnerable, until they are undone by sex - one too many attempts to lord it over seemingly defenseless objects of their lust. But DSK has all sorts of international, high-powered criminal/political/economic themes, including that perennial favorite of mine, conspiracy theories.
For anyone not in the know, DSK (the common nickname for Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a French Socialist Party leader and freshly-resigned head of the International Monetary Fund), is accused of having sexually assaulted an African maid in his elegant suite at the Times Square Sofitel, while he was in NYC to visit his daughter. The details are laid out here: http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/nationworld/report/052211_dsk_maid/details-emerge-alleged-assault-by-dsk/
DSK was yanked out of his first-class seat on an Air France flight from JFK to Paris, right before it left the gate, within hours of the incident. He spent a few days in a solitary cell on Riker's Island before he was finally let out on bail. Not exactly the digs he's used to.
Anyway, initially, DSK's lawyers claimed he was innocent because he had already checked out of the hotel when the alleged assault took place. Okay, so he checked out of the hotel post-haste. But that's only because he was in a hurry to meet up with his daughter. There were witnesses who could attest to his whereabouts. Solid alibis. Um-hum.
Now his defense has changed: Any sex he had with the maid was consensual.
Why am I not buying into any of this?
The hotel keys, you know, those annoying computerized plastic cards, may hold the real answer...
"Police have said the maid knocked on Strauss-Kahn’s door and called out, used her master keycard to open the door, and left her work cart in the doorway, a typical safety practice in hotels. According to the police account, Strauss-Kahn emerged naked, tried to attack the maid, and then shut the hotel door when she tried to escape. The Times explains how the key card evidence may play out: “If the defense for Mr. Strauss-Kahn maintains that the encounter was consensual, its version will have to accommodate the unambiguous computer record of her leaving the door propped open," the story says. "It will also have to explain how and when she decided that sex with Mr. Strauss-Kahn was a better use of her time than changing the linens.”
IMF Chief May Claim Any Sex Was Consensual; Hotel Key Card Records Are Likely Evidence - News - ABA Journal
For anyone not in the know, DSK (the common nickname for Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a French Socialist Party leader and freshly-resigned head of the International Monetary Fund), is accused of having sexually assaulted an African maid in his elegant suite at the Times Square Sofitel, while he was in NYC to visit his daughter. The details are laid out here: http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/nationworld/report/052211_dsk_maid/details-emerge-alleged-assault-by-dsk/
DSK was yanked out of his first-class seat on an Air France flight from JFK to Paris, right before it left the gate, within hours of the incident. He spent a few days in a solitary cell on Riker's Island before he was finally let out on bail. Not exactly the digs he's used to.
Anyway, initially, DSK's lawyers claimed he was innocent because he had already checked out of the hotel when the alleged assault took place. Okay, so he checked out of the hotel post-haste. But that's only because he was in a hurry to meet up with his daughter. There were witnesses who could attest to his whereabouts. Solid alibis. Um-hum.
Now his defense has changed: Any sex he had with the maid was consensual.
Why am I not buying into any of this?
The hotel keys, you know, those annoying computerized plastic cards, may hold the real answer...
"Police have said the maid knocked on Strauss-Kahn’s door and called out, used her master keycard to open the door, and left her work cart in the doorway, a typical safety practice in hotels. According to the police account, Strauss-Kahn emerged naked, tried to attack the maid, and then shut the hotel door when she tried to escape. The Times explains how the key card evidence may play out: “If the defense for Mr. Strauss-Kahn maintains that the encounter was consensual, its version will have to accommodate the unambiguous computer record of her leaving the door propped open," the story says. "It will also have to explain how and when she decided that sex with Mr. Strauss-Kahn was a better use of her time than changing the linens.”
IMF Chief May Claim Any Sex Was Consensual; Hotel Key Card Records Are Likely Evidence - News - ABA Journal
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Back in the Saddle Again - Almost
Can't believe it's the end of May already, and I'm not feeling too motivated. But hey, can you blame me?
I've been doing a lot of reading, and not really enjoying much of what I've read. Nonsensical plot points, unsympathetic protagonists who make me think, "So what?" and dumb dialogue-- All makes me nervous about Client Relations as I continue revisions. Paul Simon's new song, "Rewrite," from his latest album, is beginning to feel like my theme song: "I say, help me help me help me help me, Thank you!..."
HuffPo Divorce is rife, actually it's totally inundated, with Arnold and Maria posts. How much, seriously, is there to say? Rich movie star/former politician sleeps with maid, has illegitimate child living under the same roof as his family. Alienated wife has hired an LA lawyer 15 years out of law school, working at her dad's firm. Okay? Done. Move on.
The DSK scandal is far more sordid, but since he's not a movie star or a former body-building champ (just a super-powerful financial French guy), he draws less press. Except on CNBC and Bloomberg's of course. But since the market's down, no one's paying much attention.
Charlie Sheen's fifteen minutes (okay, four days) have come and gone. Can't say I miss him.
It hasn't been an awe-inspiring year so far. Which is why I need to immerse myself in writing again. Because sometimes (like, now) fiction is better than reality.
I've been doing a lot of reading, and not really enjoying much of what I've read. Nonsensical plot points, unsympathetic protagonists who make me think, "So what?" and dumb dialogue-- All makes me nervous about Client Relations as I continue revisions. Paul Simon's new song, "Rewrite," from his latest album, is beginning to feel like my theme song: "I say, help me help me help me help me, Thank you!..."
HuffPo Divorce is rife, actually it's totally inundated, with Arnold and Maria posts. How much, seriously, is there to say? Rich movie star/former politician sleeps with maid, has illegitimate child living under the same roof as his family. Alienated wife has hired an LA lawyer 15 years out of law school, working at her dad's firm. Okay? Done. Move on.
The DSK scandal is far more sordid, but since he's not a movie star or a former body-building champ (just a super-powerful financial French guy), he draws less press. Except on CNBC and Bloomberg's of course. But since the market's down, no one's paying much attention.
Charlie Sheen's fifteen minutes (okay, four days) have come and gone. Can't say I miss him.
It hasn't been an awe-inspiring year so far. Which is why I need to immerse myself in writing again. Because sometimes (like, now) fiction is better than reality.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
THIS Person is a Judge?
Most people don't expect to stand in front of someone in black robes, frowning at them from behind a high dias, issuing orders and judgments that will affect them for the rest of their lives. No, that's for criminals, they think, and criminals usually get what's coming to them. Normal people don't have judges intruding into their lives, pontificating on every move they've made in recent (and even in not-so-recent memory), determining whether to reward, punish or restrict them in the future. Right?
Okay, so you suspect I'm about to talk about divorces and custody wars, where judges become an integral part of a "normal person's" life for a few months, or a few years, and their decisions can wreck havoc on a family for decades.
But what I really want to talk about it...who the hell are these people? The judges who are making these life-changing decisions?
Lawyers get accused all the time of being "in bed" with judges - We are the largest contributors to their election campaigns, which we often run. We appear in front of the same judges over and over, year after year, so we don't want to offend them in one case and have them take it out on us in another. We generally run in the same social circles, or at least the same professional ones. Does any intelligent lawyer want to offend a judge given these circumstances? Of course not.
But that doesn't mean we have to like or even respect all of them. There are those judges - far too few - who were really solid lawyers before they "ascended" to the bench. Smart, intellectually nimble, savvy to the ways of the world, and, most of all, ready, willing and able to do justice- which is what judges are supposed to do, using the law to accomplish that goal. These judges actually wanted to become judges to facilitate justice, and they never, ever grow tired of it. They love the law, they don't burn out.
What about the rest of them? Well, in New York, as in many of other states, our State and local judges are elected. Most voters don't have the slightest clue of who the judicial candidates are come Election Day, other than their party affiliation, when they pull the lever.
Does being a female Democrat translate to being a liberal feminist judge? How about a black Republican male - conservative, law-and-order kind of guy? Nope. All that party affiliation usually means is that was the party where that particular judicial candidate had an opening - a friend willing to push for him/her, favors were owed, there was no one else willing to run on that ticket...You get the idea. Judges appointed by governors and other elected officials? Pretty much the same thing.
If we're lucky, the judge turns out to be intelligent, fair and open-minded. After that, we're looking at the many degrees of indifference, stupidity, dogmatism and rigidity that separate fair to mediocre to downright atrocious judges, not necessariy by bright lines, either.
And so we're stuck swallowing our bile as we call that collection of judicial disgraces "Your Honor." We hope they don't destroy our clients' lives too much, because most people lack the stomach or the money to endure an appeal of a horrific judicial decision. And we hope they will someday be on the receiving end of decisions as atrocious as the ones they're doling out, or be kicked off the bench for some crime or act of egregious misconduct before the next election cycle rolls around.
Okay, so you suspect I'm about to talk about divorces and custody wars, where judges become an integral part of a "normal person's" life for a few months, or a few years, and their decisions can wreck havoc on a family for decades.
But what I really want to talk about it...who the hell are these people? The judges who are making these life-changing decisions?
Lawyers get accused all the time of being "in bed" with judges - We are the largest contributors to their election campaigns, which we often run. We appear in front of the same judges over and over, year after year, so we don't want to offend them in one case and have them take it out on us in another. We generally run in the same social circles, or at least the same professional ones. Does any intelligent lawyer want to offend a judge given these circumstances? Of course not.
But that doesn't mean we have to like or even respect all of them. There are those judges - far too few - who were really solid lawyers before they "ascended" to the bench. Smart, intellectually nimble, savvy to the ways of the world, and, most of all, ready, willing and able to do justice- which is what judges are supposed to do, using the law to accomplish that goal. These judges actually wanted to become judges to facilitate justice, and they never, ever grow tired of it. They love the law, they don't burn out.
What about the rest of them? Well, in New York, as in many of other states, our State and local judges are elected. Most voters don't have the slightest clue of who the judicial candidates are come Election Day, other than their party affiliation, when they pull the lever.
Does being a female Democrat translate to being a liberal feminist judge? How about a black Republican male - conservative, law-and-order kind of guy? Nope. All that party affiliation usually means is that was the party where that particular judicial candidate had an opening - a friend willing to push for him/her, favors were owed, there was no one else willing to run on that ticket...You get the idea. Judges appointed by governors and other elected officials? Pretty much the same thing.
If we're lucky, the judge turns out to be intelligent, fair and open-minded. After that, we're looking at the many degrees of indifference, stupidity, dogmatism and rigidity that separate fair to mediocre to downright atrocious judges, not necessariy by bright lines, either.
And so we're stuck swallowing our bile as we call that collection of judicial disgraces "Your Honor." We hope they don't destroy our clients' lives too much, because most people lack the stomach or the money to endure an appeal of a horrific judicial decision. And we hope they will someday be on the receiving end of decisions as atrocious as the ones they're doling out, or be kicked off the bench for some crime or act of egregious misconduct before the next election cycle rolls around.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
CNBC's "Divorce Wars" is a Bomb
I've learned to expect more from CNBC than the incessantly sensationalist reporting and insipid banalities that are the norm for most broadcast media. After all, CNBC is the main broadcast source of information for business and financial leaders, with its second-by-second stock quotes and up-to-the-minute breaking business news updates.
So I eagerly tuned in to CNBC's Special Report, "Divorce Wars," on Tuesday night. The program had been widely advertised: "CNBC goes inside the confidential world of multi-million dollar divorce revealing the secrets of winning and losing on a battlefield of emotional pain and financial gain." A former AAML national president, Gerry Nissenbaum, and unbiquitous publicity hound Raoul Felder, along with two divorcee bottom-feeders who've been hawking their wares on the Internet (a "divorce insurance" broker, and a "divorce funding" broker who takes a percentage of the recovery -- how unethical is that?!!), were slated to enlighten viewers with their perspectives.
Having handled a fair number of high-asset divorces and pre-nups myself, I'm still not crazy enough to think I've got a monopoly on knowledge or insight on representing the super-rich. And I figured, even if I didn't learn anything really new or fresh from the show, at least Gerry (a first-class Boston lawyer) would share an interesting tidbit of information and Raoul would be, well, Raoul.
Wrong. Gerry didn't have much of a chance to say anything except comment on the case of a bitter, unpleasant woman whose settlement agreement he was able to bust open on fraud grounds. Raoul was more subdued than usual, and the two get-rich-off-other-people's-misery non-professionals came across as sleazy as I expected.
Then there were the wronged clients. Gerry's client, the kind of sour, angry person no one in their right mind wants to deal with unless they have the patience of Job (like Gerry). The whiny CEO who didn't heed anyone's advice to get a pre-nup and was later shocked -shocked! - when his bride not only divorced him, but now has a substantial book value that rivals the Forbes' 500. Then there was the - oh my God can you believe it? - fabricated case of child pornography planted into an unsuspecting husband's computer while he was off on a business trip, that took a team of experts, 81 trial days, and millions of dollars to disprove.
Of course, I can't omit to mention the reporter for this special program. (Each time she intoned the word, "MILL-yon," I wanted to throw something at the TV.) Her claim that no one in the world of high-end divorces of business leaders wants to talk about their experience, and how secretive that world is, is belied by the headlines. The Perelman divorce. The Mark Hurd fiasco. The "Dodger" divorce of the McCourts. Yeah, right. Need I continue?
I swear, CNBC fell mighty short on this one.
So I eagerly tuned in to CNBC's Special Report, "Divorce Wars," on Tuesday night. The program had been widely advertised: "CNBC goes inside the confidential world of multi-million dollar divorce revealing the secrets of winning and losing on a battlefield of emotional pain and financial gain." A former AAML national president, Gerry Nissenbaum, and unbiquitous publicity hound Raoul Felder, along with two divorcee bottom-feeders who've been hawking their wares on the Internet (a "divorce insurance" broker, and a "divorce funding" broker who takes a percentage of the recovery -- how unethical is that?!!), were slated to enlighten viewers with their perspectives.
Having handled a fair number of high-asset divorces and pre-nups myself, I'm still not crazy enough to think I've got a monopoly on knowledge or insight on representing the super-rich. And I figured, even if I didn't learn anything really new or fresh from the show, at least Gerry (a first-class Boston lawyer) would share an interesting tidbit of information and Raoul would be, well, Raoul.
Wrong. Gerry didn't have much of a chance to say anything except comment on the case of a bitter, unpleasant woman whose settlement agreement he was able to bust open on fraud grounds. Raoul was more subdued than usual, and the two get-rich-off-other-people's-misery non-professionals came across as sleazy as I expected.
Then there were the wronged clients. Gerry's client, the kind of sour, angry person no one in their right mind wants to deal with unless they have the patience of Job (like Gerry). The whiny CEO who didn't heed anyone's advice to get a pre-nup and was later shocked -shocked! - when his bride not only divorced him, but now has a substantial book value that rivals the Forbes' 500. Then there was the - oh my God can you believe it? - fabricated case of child pornography planted into an unsuspecting husband's computer while he was off on a business trip, that took a team of experts, 81 trial days, and millions of dollars to disprove.
Of course, I can't omit to mention the reporter for this special program. (Each time she intoned the word, "MILL-yon," I wanted to throw something at the TV.) Her claim that no one in the world of high-end divorces of business leaders wants to talk about their experience, and how secretive that world is, is belied by the headlines. The Perelman divorce. The Mark Hurd fiasco. The "Dodger" divorce of the McCourts. Yeah, right. Need I continue?
I swear, CNBC fell mighty short on this one.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Horny and Self-Righteous Lawyers
Another great attorney-client relations story that just happened in Iowa: An Iowa attorney turned himself into the local police on charges of assume to commit sexual abuse. After his client was sentenced to probation for driving under the influence, he served her four cocktails while they met in his office. I wonder if he serves booze to all his DUI clients, or whether he reserves it for special female clients.
Anyway, he must mix a hell of a drink, because the four drinks he served her made her so woozy that she can't recall everything that happened to her afterward,but she can remember sitting on his lap on the couch in his office at some later point, and a surveillance tape at her apartment shows her getting out of his car.
And, as is so often the fate of overly self-righteous law enforcement officials (think Elliot Spitzer), a Nevada prosecutor managed to get himself arrested for buying crack from a street dealer. This guy is a chief deputy DA who's been buying crack for his own recreational use for months from "Joe" the Dealer. Meanwhile, he counts among the people he's prosecuted the likes of Paris Hilton and Bruno Mars, and he had just been put on a Federal drug task force. Looks like his career's going to be headed in a different direction now. Maybe he'll get his own talk show, or land a spot as a commentator on Fox News.
http://www.amestrib.com/articles/2011/03/20/ames_tribune/news/doc4d858e0ec58a7286477838.txt http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/alcohol_allegedly_served_by_dui_lawyer_in_client_meeting_at_his_office/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email
http://www.lvrj.com/news/clark-county-prosecutor-arrested-on-drug-charges-118337184.html http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/deputy_da_who_prosecuted_paris_hilton_drug_case_is_arrested_on_crack_cocaine
Anyway, he must mix a hell of a drink, because the four drinks he served her made her so woozy that she can't recall everything that happened to her afterward,but she can remember sitting on his lap on the couch in his office at some later point, and a surveillance tape at her apartment shows her getting out of his car.
And, as is so often the fate of overly self-righteous law enforcement officials (think Elliot Spitzer), a Nevada prosecutor managed to get himself arrested for buying crack from a street dealer. This guy is a chief deputy DA who's been buying crack for his own recreational use for months from "Joe" the Dealer. Meanwhile, he counts among the people he's prosecuted the likes of Paris Hilton and Bruno Mars, and he had just been put on a Federal drug task force. Looks like his career's going to be headed in a different direction now. Maybe he'll get his own talk show, or land a spot as a commentator on Fox News.
http://www.amestrib.com/articles/2011/03/20/ames_tribune/news/doc4d858e0ec58a7286477838.txt http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/alcohol_allegedly_served_by_dui_lawyer_in_client_meeting_at_his_office/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email
http://www.lvrj.com/news/clark-county-prosecutor-arrested-on-drug-charges-118337184.html http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/deputy_da_who_prosecuted_paris_hilton_drug_case_is_arrested_on_crack_cocaine
Monday, March 7, 2011
The "Legal Expert"
A lawyer posts a well-written blog article about a certain celeb's impending custody battle, and discusses potential winning strategies and the judge's possible thought-processes. The blogger calls himself an "authoritative voice" and "legal expert." Okay, fine.
Just out of curiousity, since I've never heard of the guy, I do a little digging. I go to Lawyers.com. Then to Google. Then to the links to his other blog posts. Then to LinkedIn. Then to the websites of the firm, actually firms, that his name is linked to. I'm turning up vague stuff, mostly his own bios, about his actual credentials, nothing I can confirm from an independent source. What the...? So finally, I go to the New York Office of Court Administration.
Who is this "legal expert," this "authoritative voice," pontificating on custody law?
Well, I can't confirm he actually got the Fulbright he says he got, but okay, I'll assume he did. Very impressive. And it appears on OCA that the guy went to the Ivy League law school he says he went to. But his stint at DOJ? Less than one year's duration, before he even started law school, according to his LinkedIn bio. His extensive contributions to well-known media? Mostly blog posts, from what I can tell. As for the four unexplained years between law school and NYS bar admission? Well, maybe he was a judicial clerk (most lawyers brag big-time about that, and he says nothing, so who knows) or did something non-law-related? Travel?
But this is where I get angry: The guy's experience as a lawyer that makes him an "authoritative voice" and a "legal expert?"? Ummm....admitted for all of FIVE years in NY. He's worked with at least two different firms - already - in corporate law.
In my book, this baby lawyer who bloats his creds shouldn't be posing as a legal expert in anything, let alone matrimonial law. Pay some dues, mister, before you pass yourself off to the unsuspecting public as one of the big boys.
Just out of curiousity, since I've never heard of the guy, I do a little digging. I go to Lawyers.com. Then to Google. Then to the links to his other blog posts. Then to LinkedIn. Then to the websites of the firm, actually firms, that his name is linked to. I'm turning up vague stuff, mostly his own bios, about his actual credentials, nothing I can confirm from an independent source. What the...? So finally, I go to the New York Office of Court Administration.
Who is this "legal expert," this "authoritative voice," pontificating on custody law?
Well, I can't confirm he actually got the Fulbright he says he got, but okay, I'll assume he did. Very impressive. And it appears on OCA that the guy went to the Ivy League law school he says he went to. But his stint at DOJ? Less than one year's duration, before he even started law school, according to his LinkedIn bio. His extensive contributions to well-known media? Mostly blog posts, from what I can tell. As for the four unexplained years between law school and NYS bar admission? Well, maybe he was a judicial clerk (most lawyers brag big-time about that, and he says nothing, so who knows) or did something non-law-related? Travel?
But this is where I get angry: The guy's experience as a lawyer that makes him an "authoritative voice" and a "legal expert?"? Ummm....admitted for all of FIVE years in NY. He's worked with at least two different firms - already - in corporate law.
In my book, this baby lawyer who bloats his creds shouldn't be posing as a legal expert in anything, let alone matrimonial law. Pay some dues, mister, before you pass yourself off to the unsuspecting public as one of the big boys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)