Practicing Law Among Old Friends

A group of matrimonial attorneys found themselves in the courtroom recently discussing the longevity of their time in the trenches and relaying tales of experiences with attorneys not quite so familiar with the world of matrimonial law. One attorney said , that she remembered when I was a newbie. That I informed her much to her chagrin was 23 years ago. We talked of the difficulty of settling cases with those entering our world who are merely dabblers and were ill equipped to settle a case much less try it.

The dabblers are dragging these cases out to make money they aren't earning said one lawyer. It is really disgusting how these attorneys take cases from us and then blow them up. They will usually charge a lower retainer to begin the case but due to their inexperience they will cause a case to linger far beyond where it should. The economy was blamed for these attorneys entering our world. Everyone thinks they can practice matrimonial law, until they get a case. The over abundance of practicing attorneys also is a danger to the trusting consumer.

Sadly we must all be wary of the variables in our world and handle them accordingly. Caveat emptor has never been more important than it is in these economic times.

Practicing Law Among Old Friends

A group of matrimonial attorneys found themselves in the courtroom recently discussing the longevity of their time in the trenches and relaying tales of experiences with attorneys not quite so familiar with the world of matrimonial law. One attorney said , that she remembered when I was a newbie. That I informed her much to her chagrin was 23 years ago. We talked of the difficulty of settling cases with those entering our world who are merely dabblers and were ill equipped to settle a case much less try it.

The dabblers are dragging these cases out to make money they aren't earning said one lawyer. It is really disgusting how these attorneys take cases from us and then blow them up. They will usually charge a lower retainer to begin the case but due to their inexperience they will cause a case to linger far beyond where it should. The economy was blamed for these attorneys entering our world. Everyone thinks they can practice matrimonial law, until they get a case. The over abundance of practicing attorneys also is a danger to the trusting consumer.

Sadly we must all be wary of the variables in our world and handle them accordingly. Caveat emptor has never been more important than it is in these economic times.

WINNERS AND LOSERS

One of the pleasing touches I’ve invariably found in hotels in the Swiss and Austrian Alps is a newsletter on the breakfast table with a quote for the day. It is in such circumstances that I recently came across this offering by Denis Waitley, the American writer and motivational speaker. I believe it’s an entirely appropriate quote for a blog that seeks to delve into the complications of human relationships, though I make no comment on the accuracy or otherwise of the sentiments expressed:

Losers make promises they often break. Winners make commitments they always keep.

Marital Longevity and the Quest to be Happy

I just realized that both of my grandmothers were born on the 22nd day of the month. October was my paternal grandmother while July was the birth month of my maternal grandmother. The other significant co-incidence is that both sets of grandparents had been married over 50 years, as coincidentally were my parents.

Doing what I do it seems almost inconceivable that I have been surrounded by marriages of such longevity. I myself cannot be put into a category with these extraordinary people in that I am on my second marriage and the 50 year mark would put me into well passed my own life expectancy.

It would be a young child's fantasy to believe that each of these marriages were perfect in every way. I witnessed as a young child certain instances which would mar my vision of a perfect marriage. None of the instances I witnessed however,or even some of the stories I heard could ever touch the real life stories I have been privy to in my matrimonial practice.

Is longevity something that is passe' in modern marriage? I ask myself that question frequently. I don't believe that modern families are any more dysfunctional than they were 50 years ago. I do believe however, that modern families are less tolerant than generations before us and feel that they deserve to be happy. Are we in fact a more narcissistic society if we choose to live our lives happy as opposed to suffering within a loveless marriage? I think it has more to do with societal acceptance of divorce as opposed to our own selfish quest for happiness. We are not judged the way our grandparents would have been if they divorced. More and more couples divorce and it is less of an issue even in polite society.

As their granddaughter I would never presume to judge the marital relationship of any of my grandparents. They as well as my parents set for me a loving caring cocoon that to this day I can still retreat to whenever I need to experience the love that they showered upon me. Their examples represent the gold standard for me in terms of marriage. As I remember my grandma on this day of her birth I advise you all of the gift she gave me of her strength. A brave 19 year old girl who left her family and her home to follow her husband to a new world called America. Not knowing a sole or the language, she managed to raise 3 children and taught herself English without the help of bilingual signs or English as a second language course. On this day I honor strength of character and the quest for happiness be it within the marriage relationship or outside. Happy Birthday Grandma.

Marital Longevity and the Quest to be Happy

I just realized that both of my grandmothers were born on the 22nd day of the month. October was my paternal grandmother while July was the birth month of my maternal grandmother. The other significant co-incidence is that both sets of grandparents had been married over 50 years, as coincidentally were my parents.

Doing what I do it seems almost inconceivable that I have been surrounded by marriages of such longevity. I myself cannot be put into a category with these extraordinary people in that I am on my second marriage and the 50 year mark would put me into well passed my own life expectancy.

It would be a young child's fantasy to believe that each of these marriages were perfect in every way. I witnessed as a young child certain instances which would mar my vision of a perfect marriage. None of the instances I witnessed however,or even some of the stories I heard could ever touch the real life stories I have been privy to in my matrimonial practice.

Is longevity something that is passe' in modern marriage? I ask myself that question frequently. I don't believe that modern families are any more dysfunctional than they were 50 years ago. I do believe however, that modern families are less tolerant than generations before us and feel that they deserve to be happy. Are we in fact a more narcissistic society if we choose to live our lives happy as opposed to suffering within a loveless marriage? I think it has more to do with societal acceptance of divorce as opposed to our own selfish quest for happiness. We are not judged the way our grandparents would have been if they divorced. More and more couples divorce and it is less of an issue even in polite society.

As their granddaughter I would never presume to judge the marital relationship of any of my grandparents. They as well as my parents set for me a loving caring cocoon that to this day I can still retreat to whenever I need to experience the love that they showered upon me. Their examples represent the gold standard for me in terms of marriage. As I remember my grandma on this day of her birth I advise you all of the gift she gave me of her strength. A brave 19 year old girl who left her family and her home to follow her husband to a new world called America. Not knowing a sole or the language, she managed to raise 3 children and taught herself English without the help of bilingual signs or English as a second language course. On this day I honor strength of character and the quest for happiness be it within the marriage relationship or outside. Happy Birthday Grandma.

DEATH KNELL FOR FAMILY LEGAL AID

Latimer Hinks withdrew from legal aid work in 1998 and numerous other firms across the country have taken the same step. Resolution has warned that new fixed fees for family legal aid work published today by the Ministry of Justice are likely to mean a further exodus of lawyers from family legal aid and so undermine access to justice for ordinary families.

The new fees represent a further cut in legal aid remuneration at a time when family legal aid is already in crisis. The number of family legal aid practices in the country has dramatically dropped, from 4,500 in 2000 to 2,800 in 2006.

“The potential of these new fees to cause substantial and long term damage to the provision of family legal aid for separating families has been grossly underestimated,” said David Emmerson, Chair of Resolution’s Legal Aid Committee, strongly urging the government to reconsider the fees for private law cases before they come into effect in October 2010,

“Some of these fees represent a cut of more than 40 percent to hourly rates that have already remained static for the last ten years. Faced with this uneconomic scenario there is a very real danger that firms will walk away from legal aid work, further undermining access to justice.”

Lawyers estimate that for a very simple child contact case taking around 14 hours a legal aid firm would currently receive £960 on the basis of the hourly rate. The new fixed fee would be just £471 a cut of more than 50 percent.

Similarly a legal aid firm managing a straightforward divorce finance case which goes to full hearing, would be paid £2,106 at present; this will reduce to £1,299 under the new fixed fee regime, a cut of almost 40 percent.

Family Court vs. Supreme Court
Which is the proper venue?

To all of you unfamiliar with the judicial system the question of what forum to bring an action can be quite confusing. While Supreme and Family Court have concurrent (the same) jurisdiction over many matters there are some cases which can only be brought into one or the other.

Supreme Court contrary to its name is the lowest court in the State system. In NY the next highest court is the Appellate Division which hears appeals from the Supreme Court and the the highest Court in the State is the Court of Appeals. Under the state court system lies the county courts consisting of Family Courts and District Courts.

One cannot obtain a divorce in our Family Court system here in NY. A divorce action must be commenced in Supreme Court. From there it could proceed on appeal to the Appellate Division and rarely but not unheard of can go to the Court of Appeals for specific disputes.

Once a case arrives int he Supreme Court system it cannot have any matters heard at the same time in Family Court. Once the Supreme Court matter is resolved however, many of the issues resolved in Supreme Court may be enforced in Family court as well as in Supreme Court.

Family Court which is sometimes referred to as "the people's court" does not require that petitioners be represented by an attorney. In fact none of the courts can require representation by counsel however, the process of the system makes it very difficult for a pro se litigant to represent themselves in any court other than in family court. Most times the issues found in family court revolve around support, and custody disputes between unmarried couples or couples who are no longer married.

While having an attorney represent you in any matter where there are legal issues is always desired, family court is really the only court that lends itself to the assistance of the pro se litigant. Procedures are usually more relaxed in family court and many times cases are not heard by judges but by hearing examiners who possess the same powers of enforcement as a judge with the exception of doling out jail time in the event of a contempt proceeding.

While most attorneys do practice is family court, it is usually their preference to have cases heard in Supreme Court. Procedure and protocol are usually more attorney friendly in the Supreme Court and sometimes it is more expeditious to bring emergency relief in the Supreme Court as opposed to Family Court which usually has a six week wait period from the filing of the petition to the hearing date.

Although it is not mandatory, one unfamiliar with the legal system should be very wary of entering any of the hallowed halls of justice without proper representation. One misstep could cost you thousands in the long run; much more than the price of competent counsel. In certain circumstances failure to have counsel can not only ruin a litigant financially but it can devastate a family and negatively impact parental relationships with children. Think carefully before deciding to go it alone.

Family Court vs. Supreme Court
Which is the proper venue?

To all of you unfamiliar with the judicial system the question of what forum to bring an action can be quite confusing. While Supreme and Family Court have concurrent (the same) jurisdiction over many matters there are some cases which can only be brought into one or the other.

Supreme Court contrary to its name is the lowest court in the State system. In NY the next highest court is the Appellate Division which hears appeals from the Supreme Court and the the highest Court in the State is the Court of Appeals. Under the state court system lies the county courts consisting of Family Courts and District Courts.

One cannot obtain a divorce in our Family Court system here in NY. A divorce action must be commenced in Supreme Court. From there it could proceed on appeal to the Appellate Division and rarely but not unheard of can go to the Court of Appeals for specific disputes.

Once a case arrives int he Supreme Court system it cannot have any matters heard at the same time in Family Court. Once the Supreme Court matter is resolved however, many of the issues resolved in Supreme Court may be enforced in Family court as well as in Supreme Court.

Family Court which is sometimes referred to as "the people's court" does not require that petitioners be represented by an attorney. In fact none of the courts can require representation by counsel however, the process of the system makes it very difficult for a pro se litigant to represent themselves in any court other than in family court. Most times the issues found in family court revolve around support, and custody disputes between unmarried couples or couples who are no longer married.

While having an attorney represent you in any matter where there are legal issues is always desired, family court is really the only court that lends itself to the assistance of the pro se litigant. Procedures are usually more relaxed in family court and many times cases are not heard by judges but by hearing examiners who possess the same powers of enforcement as a judge with the exception of doling out jail time in the event of a contempt proceeding.

While most attorneys do practice is family court, it is usually their preference to have cases heard in Supreme Court. Procedure and protocol are usually more attorney friendly in the Supreme Court and sometimes it is more expeditious to bring emergency relief in the Supreme Court as opposed to Family Court which usually has a six week wait period from the filing of the petition to the hearing date.

Although it is not mandatory, one unfamiliar with the legal system should be very wary of entering any of the hallowed halls of justice without proper representation. One misstep could cost you thousands in the long run; much more than the price of competent counsel. In certain circumstances failure to have counsel can not only ruin a litigant financially but it can devastate a family and negatively impact parental relationships with children. Think carefully before deciding to go it alone.

BLOG ACTION DAY - CLIMATE CHANGE

That the climate is changing there appears to be no doubt. Scientists, however, seem divided as to the causes and also the solutions. As for politicians, without them would green or eco taxes have been invented? There seems to be an emerging policy to say that it’s to save the planet, in anticipation that everyone will pay without protest. I’m surprised they haven’t started to tax divorce, well not overtly anyway, although there is already VAT on the solicitor’s bill. Mind single parent families and relationship breakdowns are like gas guzzlers, only a thousand times worse, the multitude of sins they get blamed for. Come to think of it how long will it be before someone tries to make a connection between the rising number of divorces and global warming? There must be a scientific model somewhere, showing a correlation.

HOW TO STOP HATING YOUR EX

Stop hating your ex must sound like a tall order for many people, but this book by René Ashton seeks to show you how. “I wanted someone to tell me how in the world I was to escape the grips of this ferocious animal wreaking havoc in my life,” she writes; she’s not describing her ex, however, but instead her anger.

René forwarded me a copy of the book in advance of its US publication date last week. I’m sure that it will only be a matter of time before it’s available in the UK too. More like a work-book than a reference source, it’s written in a very down to earth style and pushes the reader onward in a mission of self-healing asking for deliberated responses to questions posed, even providing lined pages for the replies.

“You cannot change your ex. Try as you may. Manipulate as you may. Punish, kick, scream, whatever your tactic, it won’t work”, she reminds us. “The only thing you can change is yourself to make things different.” Through the book, she endeavours to train the reader how to let go and draws on her own experience in illustrating the depths to which the broken hearted and wronged can sink but also how they can move on.

René clearly feels strongly that children should have the right to be co-parented properly. She spares no punches when she identifies those careless or vindictive comments that can cause untold harm and urges the reader to “talk to a professional (not your kids), unload on your friends (not your kids).”

If you feel caught in a trap of negativity or denial as a result of relationship breakdown, it could help but you mustn’t expect any sympathy. “You have the capacity to change,” and that’s what the author wants you to do.

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT

John Cleese kicked off his “How to Finance Your Divorce Tour” in Norway last weekend. He’s reported as telling his audience that he’d fallen on hard times because he had been ordered to pay $20 million to a woman he believed to be “the special love child of Bernie Madoff and Heather Mills.” Ouch! Divorce can have a tendency to bring out the bitter side of people as well as their ingenuity when they look to raise the necessary finances.

It all reminded me of once upon a time when I acted for a client whom I shall kindly describe as totally eccentric.

“You can call me Mr Praline,” he said when we first met, after he’d stepped across my room in three long and exaggerated strides, bowler hat perched precariously on the top of his head. He was a strange client; not easy to take instructions from when every few seconds he’d change the subject and yell out: “And now for something completely different.”

He was very fond of pets, I recall, with a fish called Wanda (or was it Eric?) and a large snake he referred to as Monty.

When settlement terms were ordered by the court, he completely broke down, banging a dead parrot on the desk and claiming to have to go back and live in a cardboard box. However, he paid what was required with borrowed funds, and then decamped to work as a lumberjack to pay for it all!

THE TENANT OF WILDFELL HALL

This novel by Anne Bronte was the token classic in my summer reading list. If there was ever a story that demonstrated the inequalities that used to exist between the sexes this is it. It’s set in the early part of the 19th Century when it definitely wasn’t considered acceptable for a husband to binge-drink and form sexual liaisons with other women, but some did anyway. Whilst divorce is actually mentioned once, it wasn’t really an option and nor was running away easy when your husband controlled all your finances and you’d promised to love, honour and obey him before an all-knowing God.

Even without a divorce though the story has a happy ending, or at least it does for the wife. The husband however dies from his excesses with a conviction that an angelic hereafter is not to be his destiny.

There are times when you realise just how much society has changed in the last 200 years and yet also how little.

Beware of the Mediation Process

Anyone who reads this blog knows I am a big proponent of Mediation, and I have written on the subject many times. The law at present does not require Mediation to be done only by licensed attorneys. Anyone can hang a shingle and declare themselves a mediator. Therapists, social workers, retirees, anyone and everyone who sees this as a potential source of new income is declaring themselves a mediator.

Clients who have entered my office and thought my fee was high for this service, have returned to me with agreements written in appalling condition. These agreements would guarantee the parties a lifetime of family court proceedings to flush out the many ambiguities and missing provisions of these so called agreements.

Such is the arrogance of these mediators to advise these clients that I a licensed attorney who has been practicing matrimonial law for some 23 years doesn't understand the process and is merely attempting to make this more complicated than it should be!!

The process is complicated but in a practice such as mine it is streamlined in such as way as to avoid unnecessary contact with the court after the agreement is executed. My agreements are about 60 pages in length and cover all contingencies. Here is a hint: if your agreement has only about 20 pages in it, you are missing an awful lot! If it has less than 20 pages be prepared to become a staple at the local family courthouse, because unless you and your former spouse are excellent at communication and compromise you will soon find that such intervention will be necessary due to the failings of your cheaply obtained agreement.

Most people do not believe in the phrase that "you get what you pay for." In many instances it is untrue, but when it comes to a dissolution of your marriage and the future of your financial stability, not to mention the welfare of your children,
you should heed the warning.

Would you put your trust into the hands of a particular surgeon because his price was the cheapest or do you want the very best in the field? The same should apply when dealing with all major decisions in your life. Divorce is a major decision. Be informed and chose your avenues wisely. There are bad apples in every field and charlatans eager to bleed you as well. Get referrals from sources you trust, investigate the attorney you use and use someone who has a license on the line. Your future depends on your choices.

Beware of the Mediation Process

Anyone who reads this blog knows I am a big proponent of Mediation, and I have written on the subject many times. The law at present does not require Mediation to be done only by licensed attorneys. Anyone can hang a shingle and declare themselves a mediator. Therapists, social workers, retirees, anyone and everyone who sees this as a potential source of new income is declaring themselves a mediator.

Clients who have entered my office and thought my fee was high for this service, have returned to me with agreements written in appalling condition. These agreements would guarantee the parties a lifetime of family court proceedings to flush out the many ambiguities and missing provisions of these so called agreements.

Such is the arrogance of these mediators to advise these clients that I a licensed attorney who has been practicing matrimonial law for some 23 years doesn't understand the process and is merely attempting to make this more complicated than it should be!!

The process is complicated but in a practice such as mine it is streamlined in such as way as to avoid unnecessary contact with the court after the agreement is executed. My agreements are about 60 pages in length and cover all contingencies. Here is a hint: if your agreement has only about 20 pages in it, you are missing an awful lot! If it has less than 20 pages be prepared to become a staple at the local family courthouse, because unless you and your former spouse are excellent at communication and compromise you will soon find that such intervention will be necessary due to the failings of your cheaply obtained agreement.

Most people do not believe in the phrase that "you get what you pay for." In many instances it is untrue, but when it comes to a dissolution of your marriage and the future of your financial stability, not to mention the welfare of your children,
you should heed the warning.

Would you put your trust into the hands of a particular surgeon because his price was the cheapest or do you want the very best in the field? The same should apply when dealing with all major decisions in your life. Divorce is a major decision. Be informed and chose your avenues wisely. There are bad apples in every field and charlatans eager to bleed you as well. Get referrals from sources you trust, investigate the attorney you use and use someone who has a license on the line. Your future depends on your choices.

Consider This Before You Divorce

I have been doing a lot of divorce coaching lately and I feel compelled to say that I am working with more and more clients who may not actually need to take such drastic action.As I listen to their divorce story, I hear so clearly the one thing missing from their lives - quality communication. As I listen to the hurt, anger and anxiety over the divorce, I hear the undertone of "he just doesn't

A BETTER WAY TO DIVORCE

In September I completed training in collaborative practice. Six solicitors in Tees Valley, along with many others across the North East region and the country nationally, are now offering a new way to divorce. It’s a revolutionary approach which helps reduce the emotional cost on couples and their children when families split. Instead of dealing through solicitors, the new approach, called collaborative law, involves couples working with their solicitors, all together in the same room, to reach agreement without the need for costly and stressful court battles.

In 2007, 128,000 marriages in the United Kingdom ended in divorce. Sadly, family breakdown is a fact of life. Unfortunately, the consequences are often devastating for spouses and their children and can lead to personal trauma and turmoil. Members of Resolution, a 5700-strong group of family lawyers, commit to minimising the financial and emotional pain it causes. We do this by adopting a conciliatory approach which puts the needs of any children involved first. Collaborative law is a natural extension of this idea. By all sitting together, we ensure that couples stay in control of their own futures, instead of leaving decisions to a judge in a courtroom. The focus is on solutions rather than confrontation. Where it has been practised elsewhere in the UK, it has achieved remarkable results. I’m confident that it’s going to do the same in the Tees Valley area too

Both parties and their lawyers pledge to work together to negotiate an agreement without going to court. If an agreement cannot be reached, and court is seen as the only solution, the lawyers involved cannot act for either party in the subsequent court case. This means that everyone involved (including the lawyers!) has an incentive to settle the case.

More details are given on the Resolution website and also on You Tube by Mogers Solicitors and on Richard Sharp’s Blog that has been titled Family Law Collaborative Blog.

Property division case

Here are the results of a recent appellate decision in Illinois about property division in divorce.

In re: the Marriage of Oden , No. 4-08-0687 (4th Dist. Sept. 21, 2009) POPE (Calhoun Co.) Affirmed.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded the husband 52% of bank account which contained proceeds from husband's personal injury settlement. The court said the trial court's review of relevant factors was proper for the court to arrive at "just distribution"; here, 30-year marriage, including 20 years after injury, and settlement was paid jointly to parties 15 years prior to dissolution.

THE MYSTERY OF THE MISSING MILLIONS

The press has been following the tragic divorce tale of Mr and Mrs Young. They separated in 2006 when it’s alleged Mr Young was worth some £400 million. It is reported that sadly he now claims that, and partially as result of the credit crunch, he is £23 million in debt and facing potential bankruptcy. Understandably Mrs Young does not appear to accept that so much money could go missing in such a short time but it seems the time limit set by the court for an explanation expired on 7th September and the case was back in the High Court this week. It was claimed on behalf of Mr Young that he had been unable to comply because he had been admitted to hospital apparently suffering from a mental breakdown. According to the press reports, rather than sending him to prison for contempt, the Judge has given him another 6 weeks to provide full financial details, as well as a medical report on his condition. One assumes this is to enable him to justify the reason for his default in circumstances where there seems to be speculation as to whether or not his illness could be faked as opposed to co-incidentally convenient.

Reading the reports which alluded to rent of £10,000 per month, expensive cars, jewellery, yachts, and maintenance needs of £48,000 per month, one realises that this is clearly a situation far removed from the routine divorce cases being decided up and down the country. The sum which Mr Young has purportedly lost in a period of some 3 years is more than most people spend in a lifetime, whilst a monthly maintenance payment of £48,000 would support many families for at least 2 years.

Ignoring social comment and aside from the spectre of a prison sentence (which incidentally a Judge can impose on anyone who breaches an order of the court), what really interests the press is, of course, whether or not the millions are simply missing, or indeed well and truly lost. It’s a kind of modern divorce detective mystery unfolding across the newsstands. A perpetrator and a motive have been implied, but the evidence is awaited.