Book Of Genesis: Ethical Issue?

When Genesis represents her former roommate in a divorce case, against the man who secretly preyed on her twenty years earlier, is there a conflict of interest? Should she disclose the predation to her client, something she's hidden from everyone in her life, and that she's struggled to forget herself, as so many survivors of sexual abuse have tried?

As an ethical matter, I would disclose any past involvement with an opposing spouse to a potential client, no matter how long ago it happened. Here's an excellent blog post I found, when researching the duty of a lawyer to disclose an affair with opposing counsel or the opposing spouse:

http://www.lawpeopleblog.com/2012/04/practical-practice-tips-lawyers-lusting-after-clients-and-their-spouses/

Because child sex abuse is so fraught with an even wider net of complications, I believe that where an attorney survivor of sexual abuse by the opposing spouse wants to bury her past by not disclosing what happened, she should simply decline the representation.

Pontificating about ethics, when you're not the one in the trenches, is so easy.

Research Versus Writing

When I used to play a lot of music, late night hours were always my favorite. A couple of decades later, I haven't changed. The only difference is, I've swapped one kind of keyboard for another.

I'm working on Genesis, like I last posted back in September. I've written the first ten chapters, workshopping it online, and hoping to move quicker so I have a full working draft finished by next summer - wow, that would be nice.

I get sidetracked by research, of course. I've been called a 'voracious researcher,' a 'relentless researcher,' a 'tireless researcher.' I don't know if those are actually compliments, or insults, to be honest. I admit, I research every teeny tiny detail to death.

Some people tell writers not to research before they write; to get their ideas down on paper, and fact-check everything later. Because research is so distracting, it detracts from the creative process.

They may well be correct, but hell, I'm a lawyer. Trained to research first and foremost, before describing a single fact or event.

So I'm ignoring that advice. Which may explain why, after four months, I'm just starting to write chapter eleven!

Divorce Warrior: Post-Apocalypse Survival Tips

(This article also appears on Huffington Post.)

You’ve made it through to the other side. Both you and your spouse signed the settlement agreement – it’s got those fancy notary stamps, and every page of every copy was properly initialed. The judge signed the final order or judgment, and the county clerk stamped it. Everything’s official.

That darn agreement took months, maybe years to negotiate and finalize. The court papers? They followed what feels like a lifetime of anguish. Yet, after all that, you’re not completely sure you know what you need to do next. The agreement is longer than The Bible, and full of legal gibberish. The court papers have the same problem.

You think of asking your lawyer to distill everything to its comprehensible essence, except you don’t want to prolong that relationship or add to the already ridiculously high legal fees, right?

I can’t say I blame you.

But after enduring and surviving the nightmare (see my recent blog post, Divorce Warrior Survival Tips, also published on HuffPo), you do not want to run the risk of violating what cost so much money, so much heartache, and so much energy to finalize. Your head might reeling, but it’s still on your neck. So let’s keep it there, okay?

Here are ways to sort through the mess, before you heave those nasty papers into your bottom drawer:

Parenting Time

Enter the days and times in your computer/phone calendar as far out as you can.

If you’re not a techie, buy a five-year planner and manually enter the dates.

The dates should include all ‘notify by’ dates.

Try color-coding your time versus your spouse’s/partner’s.

Include important school and camp dates as soon as they’re available (e.g., teacher conferences, plays, due dates for forms, parent events, etc.).

Forms

List every form that still needs to be exchanged, now or in the future.

Those could include medical information forms, educational and camp forms, passports, changes of address, insurance, and estate documents.

Notification Information

List all necessary addresses, telephone numbers and email contacts.

Those may include third parties like doctors, therapists, court officials, accountants, real estate brokers, and financial institutions.

Asset Transfers

Use your calendar to enter when and what remains to be done.

This could include dividing your bank accounts, notifying the human resources department about your pension and insurance information, advising account representatives to change the name on your accounts, working with your real estate broker to list your home, moving your personal property to the agreed-upon location, signing tax returns and tax refund checks, placing orders to exercise stock options, and paying or receiving funds.

Support

Calendar/list the amount of spousal support to be paid, specifying the starting and ending dates.

Same for child support.

Same for tuition, extra-curriculars and camp.

Note the percentages to be paid or received for medical, dental and professional fees.

*You may be unhappy with the award or agreement – in fact, it could infuriate you -- but until it’s changed by court order or agreement, it is binding.

The above is by no means comprehensive, but I hope it provides useful ideas for regaining control over your life.

Your agreement or decree is complicated -- I confess that most of mine have been guilty of both complexity and length. Lawyers on both sides of your case probably insisted on language, or litigated issues, that may still seem ridiculous to you; indeed, they may have been, although only those in the trenches of your case can opine on that.

But you’re done now. Really, you are. Don’t go back if you can help it. Your sanity -- what’s left of it -- depends on it, along with your remaining miniscule funds, and the two or three people who are still speaking to you. If your ex forces your case back to the lawyers and the courts, at least you’ll have a better handle on the results of Round One…

If all this is too overwhelming, you may well need to hold your nose and yank out your checkbook (again), to ask your lawyer or other professional for help in organizing the life ahead of you.

And then? Breathe, and live.

Divorce Warrior Survival Tips

Punishing court orders pelt you until you can hardly see straight. The motions keep coming; you're in court all the time. Child Protective Services is pounding down your door and your in-laws are pressing charges. You're broke; you're incarcerated; you're terrified.

Sound like a nightmare? For many, it’s reality.

It isn't limited to gender, race, age, or economic status. And when it hits your home, and your family, you must have inner fortitude, and external resources, to stay on your feet. Without both, chances are you'll be putty, or worse, by the time it's over.

I’m addressing YOU. Yes, YOU. The one who hasn’t stolen or concealed any assets. The one who’s never threatened or abused anyone. (Cases of violence and abuse fall outside the scope of this article.) You might have had an affair or two -- no, not in front of your kids, not like that excuses infidelity. You might not make as much money as you should, but you haven’t deliberately suppressed your income or tried to fail at life. You’ve bellyached about the bills, but you’ve paid them, although they may have been a day or two late while your paycheck cleared. You always made the kids available to the other parent who never made any time for them, until it became pointless to try anymore. In short, you’re not entirely blameless for the relationship’s demise. No one ever is.

Even so, although you might not love your spouse or partner anymore, you don’t hate his/her guts. If you had your way, the old Soviet concept of peaceful coexistence might be your creed.

But you don’t have that option.

Because your husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend or ex hates your guts, down to the very fiber of his/her being.

There’s a remote chance of disarmament that could avoid mutual assured destruction. (Interesting how old-school international relations jargon is so applicable here.) Make the effort at rapprochement, even if s/he appears unwilling. Try to recognize what pushes buttons, including yours, and avert avoidable problems. If relatively civil discourse is still possible, talk to him/her -- without lots of extra bodies around to muck it up, because that’s exactly what will happen if you don’t grab the opportunity. In fact, don’t ever shut down the communications pipeline, or at least the possibility of it, no matter how implausible it may seem at any given moment.

Okay, fast forward to tomorrow. You tried your best to keep the peace, and it didn’t work. Marriage counseling proved hopeless or counter-productive. Home has become a combat zone, where you’re ducking grenades lobbed at you from every corner. Then it gets worse. Your spouse/partner/ex calls in heavy artillery: The cops, CPS, in-laws…

Trust your eyes and ears; trust your gut. Recognize what’s happening. And then brace yourself, for heaven’s sake. Prepare before the proverbial fan spatters your space with unspeakable slime from the court system. Remember what I said at the outset: Inner fortitude, external resources?

Let’s start with external resources. This isn’t the time to be a martyr or pretend you’re self-sufficient. Delusions are a luxury you can’t afford -- you need all the help you can get. You’ve got to locate and accept that help, in the face of the impending onslaught. And no, no, of course drugs and alcohol don’t count.

There have been plenty of discussions about therapists. I’ve seen rotten ones who stir the pot, and decent ones who really do help people cope. Either way, mental health professionals aren’t the only resource. Many in crisis search for guidance from clergy, too -- even non-believers. And sometimes the best, or only, available shoulders are those of friends and family (but those communications aren’t privileged, so your well-intentioned BFF or your favorite cousin could tell your ex everything without legal repercussions). In any event, a solid emotional support system is imperative.

Along with legal support. With your personal DEFCON level moving from yellow to red, i.e., increasing in intensity, you have no choice but to consult a matrimonial lawyer. What is said during the consult will be a privileged communication (even if you don’t hire that particular lawyer). You must tell the lawyer all the facts. Leave nothing out; assume nothing.

Sure, matrimonial lawyers have seen it all, but that doesn’t mean we can sense what’s going on in your case. The Think Method in ‘The Music Man’ was a total scam. Experienced practitioners may suspect how nasty your case could get, based on the identity and reputation of opposing counsel. But if there’s no lawyer on the other side yet, or opposing counsel is either unknown or schizoid (I’m not being overly facetious here), there’s no way for your lawyer to predict very much -- especially when you don’t disclose everything you know.

What if you don’t tell the truth about the facts in your case, like what caused your spouse’s/partner’s/ex’s anger to fester and boil, because you're afraid the lawyer won't take your case? And what if you don’t disclose the name of the other lawyer, for the same reason?

Not a smart move.

When your lawyer finds out afterward that you’ve been concealing vital underlying facts, chances are that s/he will dump out of the representation. You’ll be lawyerless again. Try finding a new lawyer, when the old one explains to potential counsel that you, the client, were ‘fired’ for lying. Or when potential counsel reviews the court order that granted leave for your old lawyer to withdraw from the case due to the ‘irretrievable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.’ Any fool can figure out what that really means.

Assuming your lawyer has stayed on the case despite your non-disclosures, you’ll face this equally nightmarish scenario: Mounting, astronomical bills that you can’t afford and could never pay, unless you win the lottery. Wars are expensive – just look at our national debt after near-simultaneous triple engagements in the Middle East. So you’ll add suffocating debt to your personal misery, and your lawyer will not want another uncollectable receivable. Then, as the barrage nears thermonuclear proportions and you can’t pay your legal fees, guess who’s looking at a motion to withdraw? That’s right. You again.

Honesty will dramatically improve the odds of hiring a lawyer you can afford, and who will stick by you as your case spirals.

What if you didn’t expect a war? Look into your heart. Look at the relationship between you and your spouse/partner/ex. Really, was war so unexpected? If you’d confided in your therapist, priest, rabbi, sibling -- or lawyer -- sooner, you might have gotten a reality check and a head’s up. And you might not have gotten in over your head.

But that was then and this is now. You sincerely believe you gave your lawyer all the information, and that you provided ample warning that yours was the case from hell. Alternatively, you never thought your spouse/partner/ex would take the dispute so far. Regardless, you’re in a hot zone, right here, right now. And you’re screwed, because you are where this article put you in its opening paragraph: Broke, in jail, and scared witless.

Which means you need money. (Yes, I’m still talking about external resources.) Money solves all three problems: It pays the bills, it bails you out, and it buys some peace of mind.

I can’t speak to the other professionals, but regarding your lawyer, you need to find some source of funding. Depending on your case, the money might come from court-ordered funds of your spouse/partner/ex; it might come from a financial institution in the form of a loan; it might come in the form of periodic payments from a third party or from you. You might qualify for legal assistance or even pro bono representation in your jurisdiction. Note, however, that the law flatly prohibits contingency fee-based divorces.

If no money is forthcoming for legal fees, a court may direct your lawyer to stay on your case anyway. Or you may be forced to hire a cheaper one, or proceed without counsel altogether (pro se is the legal term for going it alone). Divorce insurance, union-covered divorce lawyers -- those might be options for some people. But for you, the unlucky soul who doesn’t qualify for any financial assistance, because you make too much and too little? All I know is, there’s no escaping the reality that lawyers need to be paid, like roofers and plumbers and vets. Although we didn’t hook you up with your spouse or partner in the first place, you can call us a necessary evil. Or unnecessary, if you prefer.

With or without counsel, you still need another person in your corner. That emotional support system I referred to earlier is vital when your case is banging a stake through your heart. Without friends, family, a therapist, clergyperson, and/or a lawyer, you will have a near-impossible cliff to scale.

You absolutely, positively cannot be alone.

This brings me to the heart of this article: Most of all, you need you. Without the will to survive, you’ll fall off the precipice. Tighten your resolve because the time has come -- the time is now -- to call on every internal resource you have. The war won’t have any winners, but it will have survivors. You must be among them.

Many believe that inner fortitude comes from religious faith. Others believe it comes from personal qualities, either innate or developed over time. Some say it derives from love of family, of self, of life…Perhaps it’s simply a combination of obstinacy, anger, and instinct, after you’ve been repeatedly mauled.

I don’t care where it comes from; I only care that it exists. And that YOU have it. So that you can truly tell yourself, No, I won’t give up; I will get through this. No matter how terrible things get, you must have complete conviction that the war will end someday -- hopefully sooner rather than later, and that your life will be happy again.

It will, too.

 

I’m not a motivational speaker; I’m no coach. I’m just a lawyer and a writer. Nonetheless, I firmly believe in the power of self, and the drive to endure in the face of almost insurmountable odds. ‘No’ is not a viable option, not for any human being who is facing one of the worst crises in his/her life.

Maybe you didn’t need a matrimonial lawyer to tell you all this. On the other hand, maybe you didn’t realize that we get it. Sometimes, you find compassion in unexpected places. And if you don’t, well, take a deep breath, hold your head higher, and wait for morning.



This article also appears on Huffington Post and Divorce Saloon

Making It Stink Less For The Kids

I've been reading a bunch of blog posts about how screwed up kids get (i) when their parents are divorcing or divorced (e.g., kids feel pressured to take sides); or (ii) when their parents are - well, just a mess. 
http://afamilysheartbreak.com/  
http://www.divorcesaloon.com/2010/09/20/octomom-nadya-suleman-broke-welfare-next-will-she-lose-custody-of-her-kids/).

So I'm thinking, okay, everything thinks divorce lawyers make it worse, by pushing people into being even more polarized. They only care about the money and don't care how screwed up the kids get. Right?  

Wrong. 

The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (I'm admittedly biased since I'm a Fellow) has a some terrific cheap publications, and even a couple of free links on their web site which are amazing, all of which are instructive, informative, and designed to reduce friction and tension.  I've shared the links on a few blogs, and thought it only right to post them on my own: http://www.aaml.org/go/library/publications/

With all that collective knowledge (from the top 1600 divorce lawyers in the US) of exactly how rotten life can be for the kids who are in the midst of family upheaval, the AAML was able to create a Children's Bill of Rights.

Yes, it's that good.  Please judge for yourself.

http://www.aaml.org/sites/default/files/childrens%20bill%20of%20rights.pdf

When I Say I'm A Divorce Lawyer

Gloves off.

These are the reactions I get when I tell people I'm a divorce lawyer:

1. Shudders and disdain: Usually that's the response from my corporate brethren and sistern, you know, the tax lawyers, commercial litigators, mergers & acquisitions specialists, intellectual property gurus -- virtually all lawyers except personal injury and criminal lawyers. Because their rep (that of the PI and criminal bar) is as bad as ours, maybe worse. They get down and dirty, too, just like we do: Sex, drugs, violence...  : )

2. Pity: Usually from the corporate crew. Because they assume divorce lawyers are too stupid to go into the more high-falutin' areas of the law. Revealing I'm a Georgetown Law alum, and a former Morgan, Lewis & Bockius lawyer, usually shuts that one down fairly quickly. Along with asking the M&A lawyer if s/he knows what a QDRO is. See, most other specialities don't realize that matrimonial law requires a breadth of knowledge. In order to be any good at it, we need to know a lot about contracts, tax, real property, pensions, and estate law. As well as how to get down and dirty, of course. ; )

3. Requests for advice: Because everybody has either had a divorce, or post-divorce issues, or their brother or sister or cousin or best friend is in a pickle. And I'm, like, do I really want to give free advice on a case I know absolutely nothing about, second-guessing the lawyers in the trenches? On the other hand, can I stop myself from butting in and pontificating? Sigh.

4. TMI: That's short for 'too much information.'  A whoosh of disclosures about the person's personal life comes flying at me. It's as if I were sitting next to a stranger on a plane who has to unload on somebody and that somebody is lucky me. It usually takes me a good fifteen minutes to extricate myself. I don't want to be rude, ya know? And the thing is, the person is usually not a stranger. So repeat encounters and additional disclosures are likely. I learned a long time ago: It comes with the territory.

5. Hostility: Okay, I saved this for last because it crosses age, gender, religion, race, occupation and socio-economics. And how can I respond when I'm barraged with what creeps divorce lawyers are?How we should be ejected from the planet, or banished to the swamps of Borneo without mosquito nets? I AGREE. Because if it weren't for the damn dabblers out there - the lawyers who toss 'divorce' on their list of practice areas (along with traffic tickets, wills, worker's comp, accidents, house closings, bankruptcy and criminal defense) on their website or on those paper placements in the local diner - the world would be a better place. My internist shouldn't attempt brain surgery. Not that divorce lawyers are the equivalent of neurosurgeons, but you get my drift. Dabblers make me soooo mad. Grrrr.

Being a divorce lawyer was my choice. No one forced me into it, and honestly? It has had more than its fair share of stressors and hassles.

But it has also been intensely gratifying. Like helping someone move on with his/her life to a far more positive place; getting kids to live with the parent who is providing them with a stable, safe home and learning, years later, that the kids are now successful and happy adults; unraveling the mess in someone's life efficiently and with a minimum of anger; cleaning up a post-divorce disaster so there's no room for future uncertainty; closing a deal that provides financial security and logical parenting arrangements in a nice, tight  agreement...

Granted, the good moments occur less frequently than the grueling ones, but when they do? Ain't nothin' like it.

Razzle Dazzle- Top Fictional Lawyers

Ahh, my endless and, I hope, soon-to-be-ended, revisions to my novel, Client Relations, have made me examine my protagonist's stakes once again. And her "character arc." How she starts off as in the story, how she changes. I confess, I'm still mired in a quagmire, trying to define her.

So, after another all-nighter (no, they didn't end in college or law school), I stumbled on this fun article in the ABA Journal about the top 25 fictional lawyers of all time (excluding the awesomely righteous Atticus Finch).

I agree with 15 of them (asterisked)....

The ABA's choices are, in this order:

*1. Frank Galvin, "The Verdict"
*2. Paul Biegler, "Anatomy of a Murder"
3. Perry Mason
*4. Professor Kingsfield, "The Paper Chase"
*5. Henry Drummond, "Inherit the Wind"
6. Lawrence Preston, "The Defenders"
7. Jack McCoy, "Law and Order"
8. Rumpole, "Rumpole of the Bailey"
*9. Judge Haywood, "Judgment at Nuremberg"
*10. Sir Wilfred, "Witness for the Prosecution"
11. Alan Shore, "Boston Legal"
*12. Vinny Gambini, "My Cousin Vinny"
13. Lt. Kaffee, "A Few Good Men"
*14. Arnie Becker, "LA Law"
*15. Arthur Kirkland, "And Justice For All"
*16. Hans Rolfe, "Judgment at Nuremberg"
17. Mitchell Stephens, "The Sweet Hereafter"
18. Ally McBeal
*19. Sandy Stern, "Presumed Innocent"
*20. Patty Hewes, "Damages" - YAY,a woman!
*21. Michael Clayton
*22. Jake Brigance, "A Time To Kill"
*23. Rusty Sabich, "Presumed Innocent"
24. Forest Bedford, "I'll Fly Away"
25. Jonathan Wilk, "Compulsion"

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/the_25_greatest_fictional_lawyers

My changes?

Delete ten of the ABA picks: Perry Mason (too cardboard-y); Lawrence Preston (who?); Jack McCoy (too annoying); Rumpole (too bleah); Alan Shore (ridiculous); Lt. Kaffee (too wide-eyed); Mitchell Stephens, Forest Bedford and Jonathan Wilk (never heard of them); and Ally McBeal (OMG, seriously?)

I'd add ten other lawyers instead:
Tom Hagen,"The Godfather"(Robert Duvall's character)
Karen Crowder, "Michael Clayton"(Tilda Swinton's character)
Ellen Parsons, "Damages"(Rose Byrne's character
Gene Hackman as Jedediah Ward in "Class Action" and Avery Tolar in "The Firm"
Joe Miller,"Philadelphia" (Denzel Washington's character)
Reggie Love, "The Client"(Susan Sarandon's character)
Benjamin Stone, "Law and Order"(Michael Moriarty's character)
Alicia Florick,"The Good Wife" (Juliana Margulies' character)
Billy Flynn,"Chicago"

Time for more women lawyers...

Shaming the Divorce Bar in New Mexico- and Everywhere

The Huff Po often swipes the news from other media - usually with an uber-compelling, National Enquirer-type headline.

So when I saw a headline in Huff Po Divorce about a rogue lawyer caught on tape breaking and entering the home of his client's estranged husband, I figured it was the usual sensationalist, anti-lawyer nonsense. You know, where the questionable misdeeds of one crazy-bad guy are supposed to portray the theoretical reality of the rest of us members of the matrimonial bar. And because I've posted an occasional blog on Huff Po Divorce, and attracted the ire of lawyer-hating Internet surfers - I know from personal experience just how nasty lawyer-bashing can get on Huff Po Divorce.

But this time? OMG, the "target" lawyer managed to shame not only himself but the entire legal profession.

Despicable Lawyer Raymond Van Amam not only broke into and entered his client's estranged husband's home in a violent fashion, destroying and absconding with the personal property inside - INCLUDING the husband's personal legal papers!!- but embraced his female client in an uncomfortably intimate fashion for at least twenty seconds, after he insisted, "I want a hug, I need some relaxation!"

It made my skin crawl when I heard him murmur, "Shh shh shh shh shh, oh yeahhh, put it behind you, shh shh shh shh shh oh yeahhhhh." The client didn't seem to realize that his moves were absolutely improper.

Just wrong. I sincerely hope the New Mexico Bar does NOT allow Mr. Van Amam, who used to be president of the local bar association, to put any part of his disgusting conduct behind him. He was suspended from practice once before, for cocaine. For crying out loud, get rid of this man's law license!!

The Huff Po's story generated only six comments: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/divorce-lawyer-break-in_n_1345334.html?ref=divorce

Versus the hundreds of comments generated in response to posts about Newt's infidelities and Susan Sarandon's divorce.

This is my comment (only the seventh comment in response to the story):

This is amazing - this story generated only SIX comments????

As a member of the matrimonial bar, I find the misconduct of Mr. Van Amam an absolute disgrace. I can't fathom his being permitted to continue to practice law after such egregious behavior, captured on videotape for heaven's sake.

Breaking and entering, destroying and absconding with personal property -- and to top it off, asking his female client for "relaxation" and tightly embracing. (His sarcastic comments to the estranged husband are despicable too...)

Appalling misconduct. I shudder to think of the damage this guy could cause to tarnish our reputation even more - that is, if the world of Internet surfers cared about something other than the latest celebrity train wreck.

I guess I should be relieved no one's paying attention to this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/divorce-lawyer-break-in_n_1345334.html?ref=divorce


All I can say to this is.. unbelievable.

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2534896.shtml?cat=519

The Realm of Civil Discourse

Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, calling anyone, let alone a student with the temerity to testify in Congress, a "slut" and a "prostitute" for no reason whatsoever - other than your personal disagreement with the subject of the tesimony - goes beyond any semblance of public discourse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the … _blog.html

I went to Georgetown Law, as well as to Georgetown for my undergraduate degree. We were always excited by politics on The Hill, a short trip downtown. A lot of students interned there - Republicans as well as Democrats.

Georgetown is a Jesuit institution.  Jebbie priests are all over the campus (not so much at the law school) and many of the theology and philosophy required courses are taught by them - or were, back when I was there.  While Jesuits are committed to excellence in education, as a Catholic institution, Georgetown has certain policies that are annoying or objectionable to many students, and lead to lively discourse among the students and professors.

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh verbally assaulted Sandra Fluke, who is a third-year Georgetown Law student (she's in her final year, and is going to be looking for a job upon graduation thus spring unless she already landed one - Georgetown Law students are luckier than many) as a "slut"  and a "prostitute" merely for testifying on the Hill, before a House Democratic committee (the Republican House committee said her request to testify had come in too late to allow her to testify about Georgetown's restrictive contraception insurance policies). (I wonder what he would have called her if she were a male student... )

I just called the alumnae office at the law school.  They were extremely appreciative of my call, and said they are ensuring that this law student feels safe and supported. And they're protecting her from being bombarded with blasts from the outside as best they can. 

They have assured me in the strongest possible terms - and this is consistent with my experience with Georgetown- that they, as an institution, are proud of all Georgetown students, professors and alums who engage in any form of public service.

Ms. Fluke is being trained to be an advocate. As she proceeds with her law career, there will undoubtedly be times when invectives will fly because of a position she's taken. Lord knows I heard enough of it as a matrimonial lawyer... In a sense, I suppose this is good training for what she may face in the future, in the courtroom or at the negotiating table. Because nobody, at least in my experience, ever attacked me at that level, in such insulting terms, even in the matrimonial field. So if she can handle Rush Limbaugh's garbage, she can handle anything.

But that really begs the question: why should she, or anyone else, have to handle this offensive verbal barrage at all?

I feel better having taken SOME action - a simple phone call, leaving my contact info - to express my support for this student.

But my outrage remains, and it seems the law school is equally outraged at the sexist verbal abuse that's been hurled at one of their students.

As should we all, regardless of our political leanings.

The Lawyer vs. The Writer

I've been a total bum, dissing my own blog to work on my novel - feverishly, I might add...

I expected my last revisions to Client Relations to be done by now. But no-oh-oh!! I'm on a tear.

Anyway, considering how distracted I've been (really, since November, when my latest big push began), I thought I'd re-post one of my earliest posts. It's very apropos for me right now...

*******
The Lawyer vs. The Writer

Lawyer: The parties executed a separation agreement on June 25, 2009, approximately two years from the commencement of the action for divorce.

Writer: Paul grasped his pen as if it were a bayonet. Across the conference table, Elaine leaned her chin on her hand and suppressed a yawn at the sight of her husband's consternation. What's the big deal, she wondered? After two years, just write your goddamn initials underneath mine. Every page, just like the lawyers had instructed. She heaved a theatrical sigh as he finally scribbled his name under hers on the last page. Finally. All the lawyers had to do was not smear the ink from their notary stamps all over the page. And fill in the date: June 25, 2009. The hemorrhaging was about to end.

Setting Husbands Up For Supervised Visitation

There are a lot of angry dads in America who have lost temporary or permanent custody of their kids, and claim it was a setup. That the chips were stacked against them. Their voices are sometimes so loud, it sounds like "What, me paranoid? Is that what everyone's saying about me?"

But a recent scam in California was revealed in the LA Times, and then in the ABA Journal, that shows some of the dads may be right. At least, in Modesto, California.

Several bottom-feeder divorce lawyers, who represented divorcing wives, apparently hired a very shady private detective to set up their clients' husbands to make it harder for the husbands to win custody. The shady detective hired sexy, Vegas-y type women to date the husbands (the husband in the photo I saw was a plumpy dumpy guy), go out for drinks, and - bam!- the husbands would get arrested for drunk driving immediately after leaving the bar or restaurant, courtesy of the detective's contacts with the local police.

In the Plumpy Dumpy case, Mrs. Plumpy Dumpy was able to use the drunk driving incident to get an order restricting her husband to supervised visitation.

Now, it's not clear to me whether Mr. Plumpy Dumpy actually was driving drunk. He was certainly thinking with the wrong body part when he pursued the gorgeous blonde, whom he mistook for having a genuine interest in him. He actually believed her when "she told him he had large, strong hands" and "described his kisses as 'yummy.'" Sorry, but that sounds like hooker-speak to me.

It's also not clear if the divorce lawyers, or just their over-eager paralegal staff, made these dastardly (what a great adjective) arrangements. And I don't know if they will be hauled in front of their local grievance committee.

But that begs the question: did Mr. Plumpy-Dumpy deserve to lose unsupervised access to his kids for this? It was a set-up, for crying out loud. Depressed, lonely middle-aged plumy-dumpy goes for young brassy blonde with hot turn-on words. Duh. Plumpy-Dumpy was an easy mark.

Maybe we should flip the question around: Did the kids deserve to lose access to one of their parents because their parent was lured to a bar by a woman who had been paid by their mom's lawyers (via the detective's bank), and picked up by cops who had been tipped off by their mom's lawyers?

Mrs. Plumpy Dumpy claims she didn't want her husband to get arrested. Her lawyers profess ignorance about the entire matter.

So now, I wonder, who showed the worst judgment of all in this whole sordid mess?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dui-setup-20111017,0,7922829.story?page=1
ttp://www.abajournal.com/news/article/private_detective_accused_of_setting_up_divorcing_men_for_duis_with_help_of


Scams like this are yet another arrow in the quiver of lawyer haters.

The Voice of Sweet Reason

Many clients don't want to hear it. They want to be completely unreasonable, and they want their lawyers to agree with their unreasonable demands and expectations.

Recently, I had a consult who insisted that because her spouse had fooled around, and hadn't earned as much money as she had (maybe 25% less), he should forego his entire interest in the marital home, her much larger pension, and their joint bank accounts, leaving him with about 15% of the marital estate. She wanted me to agree that she could settle her case under these (ridiculous) terms. In fact, she insisted that I agree her proposal was appropriate. And when I didn't agree, she grew extremely angry with me.

Opposing counsel with uncontrollable clients making similar, or even more lopsided demands, are even worse. Because they can't be knocked out of your life with a simple, "Sorry, I'm sure you can find another lawyer who has another opinion, best of luck." No, the unreasonable PIA opposing lawyer and his/her unreasonable PIA client, with punishment as their primary goal, is going to engage in a war of attrition for months, maybe even years. And they don't care that they're wasting gargantuan amounts of money, energy, time, and public resources, even when they know -- at least an experienced (albeit sometimes utterly inept) adversary knows -- damn well what the bottom-line settlement or litigated result will look like.

That's why there's nothing more wonderful than a reasonable person on the other side, who can control the unreasonable demands of his/her client and cut to the chase.

Right now Republican politics is just like the unreasonable client who craves a lunatic lawyer who will accede to his/her preposterous positions and not yield to anything or anyone resembling sanity. A smart, highly articulate, credentialed and reasonable candidate doesn't stand a hope in hell of impressing the foam-at-the-mouth extremists who seem to be running that party from the outer banks of fringe conservatism. Hence Jon Huntsman's low low low poll numbers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jon-huntsman-the-reasonable-republican/2011/10/18/gIQAFAWTvL_story.html


Told ya I was a political junkie.

But this just goes to prove my point that politics is, indeed, a macro picture of interpersonal relationships, and that divorce lawyers and politicians have a LOT in common....

Women Must Sacrifice Career for Family? Really?

I'm so sick of the assumption that women - women attorneys in particular - can't hack working full-time and having a family. That women - the masters of multi-tasking - require reduced hours and telecommuting in order to raise their kids while holding down a job.

Oh really?

Guess that means that successful women who work their butts off full-time are, ipso facto, utterly incapable of having equally rewarding personal lives. Or that working women are destined to be either professional slugs or crappy wives and moms.

Pul-eeze.

And what role, pray tell, are men supposed to play in this absurd scenario? I guess, circa 1955, they're the real professionals, the bread-winners without shared family responsibilities. The ones who bring home the bacon to the "little woman" changing diapers while she's wearing her apron, cooking dinner for the family before going back to her part-time telecommuting job.

Here's the link to an ABA Journal article I just read with total disgust, that perpetuates this kind of ridiculous, last-millenium mindset.
At 50 Best Law Firms for Women, Policies Allowing Reduced Hours and Telecommuting Are the Norm - News - ABA Journal

Girl Lawyer and Fathers' Rights Advocate

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.

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.

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

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.

The Client From Hell

Of course I mean Charlie Sheen, Mr. Tiger's Blood, the Adonis-DNA guy who has evolved way beyond any of us mere mortals...

Who the hell would want to represent this guy? His publicist had the smarts to walk away - far far away. But he still has legal representation. You can always count on somebody willing to be treated like a servant, let the client call the shots, all for the sake of getting a higher profile and some decent legal fees.

I'll leave the corporate guy alone, since he's dealing with fancy things like CBS contracts, and focus on the hapless divorce lawyer: A Class of 1982 Florida law school grad (not an Academy Fellow, what a surprise). Does this lawyer honestly expect to get Charlie in and out of divorce court without getting fired, grievanced, sued, or blasted in the press? Does he expect not to get shafted on his fees? He's either completely spineless, or completely desperate. Or he's willing to tase his client.

In any event, it's a lose-lose for the lawyer. For everybody. Not "win-ningggg," sorry, Charlie.

Charlie just plain doesn't SHUT UP. He's ubiquitous, too. Never mind the content or the style of his presentation. Unless you want to think about how a court will respond to his benevolent public statements about the mother of his two young children. Stuff like,"She's a traitor," "She's banished," and "She's going to live under a bridge somewhere."

Great. How to show you're willing to foment a healthy relationship between the kids (poor things, doomed to be forever screwed up, I fear) and what you hope will be the noncustodial parent. (Not like she's any great shakes, but, geez, Charlie, SHUT UP if you want to WIN.) No one cares that you're being "grandiose," at least no one who's going to be deciding your matrimonial case.

Whew. If Charlie were as "evolved" as he thinks he is, he'd know to sit back and let his drug-addict wife lose the case all by her lonesome. It could be done. Sure, he'd have to show what a good guy he is, by not having a porn star and a weed model taking care of his kids while they're busy taking turns servicing him. Just for starters. And---

Cripes, I could go on and on about what he should do, what he shouldn't do, to position himself in his divorce and custody case but why bother? He's not reading this, he could give a damn anyway, since he's above it all.

And the lunatic lawyer representing him? For God's sake, if you can't/won't shut the guy down, and control his conduct, well, brace yourself for the consequences. All of them. It won't be a pretty sight.

It's so frustrating, watching this case get lost so badly, by an uncontrollable client and a lawyer who can't/won't stem the bloodshed for whatever reason. On the other hand, what a relief I don't have to deal with this crap. What nitwit would, anyway?

Why Bother Being Politically Correct?

Is anyone really pc? I don't know anyone who doesn't let something truly off-color slip every once in awhile, including me.

But I have to say, when it comes to custody battles, I could truly care less which gender the prevailing parent is, as long as the kids have ended up in a good place (as best anyone can see from the facts, of course).

And this is coming from a person who went to all all-girls' school, where feminism was instilled in me as deeply as my love for classic rock and soul music. But the kind of feminism that teaches women to achieve their full potential, and not search for excuses to underperform because of their gender. To feel good about themselves, and comfortable in their own skin, and never accept anything less than equal treatment. To seek fairness for themselves, and for others. To strive for the truth, and not fool themselves with bland, meaningless euphemisms that accomplish nothing.

Not a bad way to live. Takes a lot of energy and will-power, though, which I often lack. Yet another reason to be glad someone invented chocolate, the supreme comforter of the hopelessly inadequate...

A Family Lawyer Dies In A SWAT Gun Battle

A respected family lawyer in Virginia snapped under pressure. He holded up in his house and pointlessly battled a SWAT team for a few hours. His wife (who is also his law partner) has got to be reeling still from these events.

What happened to Mr. Ferris that would have made him act like a desperado? No one really knows. They found some beer and meds in his house, so maybe he was depressed. They found a picture of a sniper there, too, and - bizarre twist, given his legal practice area -he was also a licensed gun dealer. So maybe he was just a troubled guy, although local residents described him otherwise, and be was apparently very involved in his community.

Very tragic, seeing anyone throw away their life. At least he didn't kill his wife and kids...

I first read about this in the ABA Journal:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/highly_regarded_va._lawyer_killed_in_police_standoff

I couldn't find out much more, even after reading this:
UPDATE: Cause of death released for Ferris in Chesterfield shoot - WTOC, Savannah, Georgia, news, weather and sports |