The Dodger Divorce case grinds on

News in the McCourt divorce case:

The new owners of the Los Angeles Dodgers must make public a single document that reveals their financial arrangement with previous owner Frank McCourt, under a ruling made on Wednesday by a judge in Los Angeles.

The judge rejected Guggenheim Baseball Management’s motion to seal the document, part of a divorce proceeding between McCourt and his ex-wife Jamie McCourt. In 2011, Jamie McCourt agreed to give up claims that she owned half of the baseball team in exchange for $131 million. During a Chapter 11 reorganization, Frank McCourt later sold the Dodgers for $2.15 billion to a consortium led by Chicago’s Guggenheim Partners and former Los Angeles Lakers star Magic Johnson.

The sale prompted Jamie McCourt to move to set aside the settlement, claiming fraud.

She sought a document summarizing Guggenheim Partners’ financial arrangement with her ex-husband. Guggenheim, which had agreed to turn over the document, filed a motion to seal on May 13, claiming “confidential business information.”

In his ruling from the bench, Los Angeles County, Calif., Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon ordered that the document be made public.

Kelli Sager, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine in Los Angeles, had opposed the motion to seal on behalf of the Los Angeles Times. In an emailed statement to The National Law Journal, she wrote: “We are pleased with the court’s ruling; it’s unfortunate that GBM [Guggenheim Baseball Management] sought to keep this document secret, but we are gratified that the judge recognized the important public interests involved.”

Gordon gave Guggenheim 10 days to seek a stay of his order. James Bates, a spokesman at Sitrick & Co., in an emailed statement on Guggenheim’s behalf, wrote: “We respect the court’s opinion, are not going to seek to appeal and will be cooperating accordingly.”

In April, Gordon held evidentiary hearings in the divorce case. In preparation for those hearings, Jamie McCourt had sought depositions of her ex-husband’s financial advisers, including Peter Cohen, senior managing director of Blackstone Advisory Partners. In an interview with Forbes, Cohen acknowledged that the $2.15 billion price “was not more than [he] anticipated on day one when [he] started on this.” On March 27, New York Supreme Court Judge Jeffrey Oing ordered Cohen to answer questions by Jamie McCourt’s lawyers.

On April 15, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross, who oversaw the Dodgers’ bankruptcy, ruled that Jamie McCourt could not obtain documents that were part of confidential negotiations between Major League Baseball and Frank McCourt.

In its sealing motion, Guggenheim attorney David Enzminger, a partner at Winston & Strawn in Los Angeles, wrote that the firm had agreed to provide a summary of Frank McCourt’s financial benefits to Jamie McCourt if she would drop subpoenas of the team’s new owners and her request to depose Stan Kasten, the president of the Dodgers. Under that arrangement, however, the financial summary, which includes the Dodger sale price and a joint venture between Guggenheim and Frank McCourt to develop land, including the parking lot around Dodger Stadium, would be provided only under seal.

“The financial summary contains highly sensitive information related to ongoing business ventures between Guggenheim and Mr. McCourt,” Enzminger wrote. “This information is private and Guggenheim has an interest in maintaining it as such.”

In her filing for the Los Angeles Times, Sager wrote that the terms of the purchase are of “substantial public interest because they concern a major real estate transaction involving the ownership and control of Dodger Stadium, an iconic Southern California landmark with rich public involvement and a lurid history of real estate development.”

In response, Enzminger said in court papers that the confidentiality of Guggenheim’s business dealings overrode the public’s interest in “a popular American sport.”

Jamie McCourt’s attorney, Bertram Fields, a partner at Los Angeles-based Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger, said the agreement extended to Frank McCourt’s attorneys at Sullivan & Cromwell. One of those attorneys, Robert Sacks, a partner in the Los Angeles office, did not return a call for comment.

Fields said the document was important to Jamie McCourt’s argument that her ex-husband undervalued his team assets when negotiating the divorce settlement. “In other words, it showed that it was much more than the $2.15 billion that was announced in the papers because the papers hadn’t seen the whole deal,” Fields said.

It was unclear when the document would be made public. Just before Gordon’s ruling, Guggenheim filed a redacted version as a proposed alternative to unsealing the entire document. The redacted version states that Guggenheim agreed to purchase the land surrounding Dodger Stadium for $150 million as part of the joint venture with McCourt. The joint venture receives $14 million per year for use of that land, most of which is a parking lot.

Frank McCourt also received a free suite at Dodger Stadium that seats at least 20 people.

PA Judge Denies Divorce to Same Sex Couple

In an interesting case out of Berks County, The Legal Intelligencer reports that Berks County Court of Common Pleas Judge Scott Lash has ruled that he cannot grant a divorce to a same sex couple who married last year in Massachusetts. Massachusetts recognizes same sex marriages, but Pennsylvania does not. In his ruling, Lash reasoned that he would not recognize the couple’s marriage under Pennsylvania law because homosexual marriage does not, in the Judge’s view, meet the definition of a “fundamental right” as enunciated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The couple could not seek a divorce in Massachuestts because that state’s law requires that parties filing for divorce live in the state for a year before filing. I would fully expect that this case will be appealed, but a reversal would seem unlikely. As our society becomes increasingly more mobile, however, it is inevitable that judge’s in states not recognizing same sex marriage will increasingly be called upon to consider the whole range of associated legal issues.

Texas Court Rules Gay Couple Can Divorce

A surprise court ruling from last week has heated up the gay-marriage debate in the state of Texas. A Dallas judge has permitted a gay couple, who had married in another state, to get a divorce even though Texas has banned gay marriage.

Judge Tena Callahan of the Family District Court ruled in favor of the divorce on October 1, reasoning that the ban violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the right to equal protection. While gay-rights advocates have applauded the decision, opponents are disparaging the ruling.The two men, known in the media only as J.B. and H.B., married in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 2006 and moved to Dallas after one spouse’s company transferred him there in 2007. They decided to divorce last January, but found they could only do so in Texas, since Massachusetts only grants divorces to couples living in the state.

“It’s not fair to make them uproot their lives, move back to another state, wait a year, and then file for divorce,” the couple’s divorce lawyer, Peter A. Schulte, told the New York Times after the ruling.J.B., meanwhile, viewed the decision less in terms of its legal and social ramifications than in a personal way. “Some have called for this to be a day of victory or a cause for celebration. It is actually a day of great personal sadness, as a chapter to my life ends,” he said in a press statement by way of his divorce attorney. “This is the common ground on which I stand with any person who has faced the end of their marriage.”

But Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott plans to appeal Callahan’s decision. Abbott was successful in blocking a civil dissolution of a gay union in 2003.

And the state’s governor, Rick Perry, supports Abbott’s position. “Texas voters and lawmakers have repeatedly affirmed the view that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman,” Governor Perry said in a statement. “I believe the ruling is flawed and should be appealed… Traditional marriage will be upheld in our state.”

Jon Nelson, a gay-rights spokesperson in Fort Worth, told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, “It’s a breath of fresh air that some jurist had enough courage to see discrimination for what it is.”

Currently, the only U.S. states that recognize gay marriage are Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. New Hampshire will follow suit and legalize gay marriage in January.

Source: DivorceMag.com

Does Divorce Make Women Look Older?

Divorce is one of several factors now found to add years to a woman’s face.

Lots of things make us old. Previous research has shown smoking causes premature aging in men and women, literally etching the aging in their faces. Other research has found that poor skin tone can add a decade to a woman’s perceived age.

In the new work, researchers photographed the faces of 186 pairs of identical twins, mostly women, and asked them each a series of questions about their life habits and medical backgrounds. Four other people then reviewed all the photos and guessed the ages of each person.

Women who were divorced were judged to look nearly two years older than their siblings who were married, single or widowed, according to an article at the The Los Angeles Times web site. The research was led by Bahman Guyuron, chairman of the department of plastic surgery at University Hospitals Case Medical Center, part of Case Western Reserve University. It was reported in the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

Only the results for women were released. Other factors that made one twin look older than a sibling:

• Sun exposure
• Smoking and alcohol use
• Antidepressant use

Antidepressants may cause facial sagging, Guyuron speculated.

Interestingly, being heavier made those under age 40 look older, but it made those over 40 look younger, Guyuron and colleagues report. Previous research has suggested that a little weight – particularly in the cheeks – looks good on people as they age. Predictably for a plastic surgeon, Guyuron said his findings support “fillers” used in plastic surgery.

For those who prefer to keep the looks they’re given, perhaps some comfort can be found in the old adage “you’re only as old as you feel.” A study in December found that older people tend to feel about 13 years younger than their chronological age.

Read more in LiveScience.com

Source: California Divorce and Family Law Blog

Work On Your Credit Score Before Divorce

On a couple’s wedding day, divorce is the furthest thing from their minds. At such a wonderful, joyous time in one’s life, it is difficult to consider the possibility that the relationship will end. However it does occur on occasion. Many people get married every day and over half the population has been divorced. In the beginning the bad credit of your partner can be overlooked, but not for long. Sometimes, the stress of dealing with financial issues can ruin the relationship before the couple takes their first steps down the aisle. Still others may become vengeful, wanting to place their ex deep in debt.

When you get married, you are only responsible for debt you incurred as a couple. Keep in mind that, as a couple, one person’s bad credit rating will affect the both of you when trying to get a loan or a line of credit. Don’t be surprised when these joint applications are turned down. It is essential that you both discuss your finances before you walk down the aisle. Many marriages break up because of financial difficulties. Many couples avoid discussing financial arrangements in hopes that the subject will not rear its ugly head. Unfortunately, that usually indicates that it will.

Keeping on top of a situation has never had a negative effect on any relationship, and open communication will only make the relationship stronger. You should each obtain a copy of your credit report, then sit and have an open conversation about finances. After speaking openly, enlist the aid of a professional and consolidate all your debt. You can alleviate any future problems if you consult with an expert who will be completely honest with you. If you and your spouse can’t come to an agreement regarding an issue, you should have your debt manager’s contact information close at hand to avoid an argument. Of course, this won’t work for divorcing couples. If by chance your divorce is amicable, get ready to hate each other at least some of the time and to disagree often. Truthfully speaking, if you really did get along so well, you probably wouldn’t be divorcing.

After a divorce, you must protect yourself. You should alert the credit reporting agencies when you separate or divorce. All the important information will then be recorded for each of you separately and the agencies will help you make individual transactions. You should make sure that anyone you still owe money to has your updated contact information. Even though it may seem childish, divorced people have a habit of tossing away their former spouse’s mail. Following a divorce, close all joint accounts and pay all balances if possible. If there was a substantial amount of debt acquired during your marriage, you should consult with your attorney about including a plan to resolve the situation during your divorce proceedings. As far as divorce is concerned, get everything in writing or it won’t hold water.

Although your marriage may not be forever, credit problems can be. Regardless of how much love you feel for your spouse, you need to protect your own interests. It sound awfully formal, but in the long run you will be thankful you did.

Source for post: Charles Sellestor

Crash Causes Settlement Changes

When John and his wife divorced, they agreed to sell their home. But every time they come close, his ex stalls “because she wants to buy it.” With the real estate market in a tailspin and the nation in a recession, “She feels prices will go down further,” which would enable her to buy it from him at a cheaper price.

To complicate matters, John, not his real name, recently lost his job in the financial industry. With the house issue looming, he’s already asked the court in his state to award him attorney’s fees since his wife filed for divorce. In addition, he’s considering a change to his property settlement: he may return to court to ask his ex for alimony, something he never would have done before the layoff.
According to legal experts from around the country, John’s tale isn’t unusual. The recession that’s affected every other aspect of America is now affecting family court as well. Clients are returning to court as a way to deal with financial hardships that are affecting their property settlement agreements.

“It’s happening because retirement accounts have dwindled to nothing for some people and a decree that gives you half of what was a robust account now gives you half of not much,” said retired attorney Brette Sember, author of a number of how-to books, including “The Divorce Organizer.”

Los Angeles, Calif., family law attorney Kelly Chang Rickert said her clients want to modify their judgments because their financial circumstances have changed dramatically. “Due to the economy and loss of jobs, I am seeing a lot more modifications to child support – reductions for the payor if they’re laid off and an increase for the recipient if they’re laid off…”

Another big recession issue: “Alimony needs to be increased for folks who have lost jobs,” Sember said. In some cases, according to Chang Rickert, she’s even seeing changes in child custody arrangements because “parents who have been laid off have more time to spend with children.”

A new mom herself, Chang Rickert has noticed “nannies and housekeepers are getting laid off because parents who have no jobs have more time” to spend at home.

California family law attorney David Pisarra said he’s seen so many clients dealing with this issue that he’s rolled out a new payment program – charging only a flat fee – “to address this new need”Sember said.

John’s not the only one in a quandary over the inability to sell his marital home. Many property settlements state that the divorcing couple will sell their home, but “Many people can’t sell and need to know what to do if they can’t,”said Pisarra .

Source for post: Divorce360.com

Madonna and Ritchie May Pursue Collaborative Divorce

Interesting article in the London Times online edition edition today, reproduced in full below, regarding the Madonna – Guy Ritchie split up. As I have said before, I usually try to avoind writing about celebrity stories here. But this story I think warrants mention. It had looked like Madonna’s divorce was headed toward being the same sort of donnybrook that Paul McCartney had become embroiled in with Heather Mills. The gloves were off, the snarky comments to the media from “friends” and “confidantes” had started. But it looks like Madonna and Guy have stepped back from the abyss, and intend to pursue a process that is more civil, and will allow them a better chance of moving forward, with their children as a family. I’d like to think that the story would garner great press coverage and be a boon for collaborative practice – of which I am a HUGE advocate. But friendly and civil doesn’t make headlines, and that’s too bad. In any event, here’s the story:

Madonna and Guy Ritchie could be the first high-profile couple to divorce collaborative-style.

The new, fast-track and non-confrontational way of reaching arrangements over money and children on divorce has just won senior judicial backing – in the week that the couple’s split became public knowledge.

Collaborative law does not sound buzzy. But it is the in-method of reaching divorce agreements, with the benefits of speed, huge cost savings and, above all, minimum acrimony.

Last week a couple of hundred lawyers gathered to celebrate the fifth year since American-style collaborative law was introduced in the UK. In 2003, four London lawyers were among a handful who had qualified in the new method; now there are more than 1,250 and more than 300 in London. This year has also seen the appointment of London’s first “collaborative” silk: Tim Amos, QC.

What is it? It aims to help couples reach agreement out of court, avoiding the risk of the public mud-slinging and battles epitomised in the split between Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills.

Settlements are reached in four-way, face-to-face talks between the parties and their lawyers. There is an incentive to agree: if the talks fail, then new lawyers have to be instructed for court proceedings – at extra cost.

The couple draws up a consent order which is then agreed by the court. This process used to take three to four months. But last week , Mr Justice Coleridge, a senior family judge, announced a fast-track procedure whereby such orders could now be approved within a couple of days.

He said that If every aspect of the case had been agreed, and the hearing before a judge for approving the order would not take longer than ten minutes, all that was needed was a day’s notice to the court and a chance for the judge to read the papers overnight.

The fast-track initiative, which has the backing of Sir Mark Potter, president of the Family Division, comes about after an un-named couple had asked for urgent approval of their settlement because one was about to move to the United States with the children.

At first, Mr Justice Coleridge said that he thought the application rather cheeky. But he added: “However, I am, as is well-known, a pussycat, and agreed to hear the application for approval as the first in the list on the following day.”

The key benefits of the new “good divorce” method are that it is non-adversarial; solutions can be tailormade and flexible; clients have control of the pace; experts (accountants, financial advisers, therapists or counsellors) can be brought in and work with the couples; and privacy is preserved.

He did sound one note of caution, however. Lawyers needed to be “acutely sensitive” to the process failing so that “costs are not run up first by one process and then, after the trial has hit the buffers, by the old-fashioned scheme”.

Isobel Robson, partner and head of family at Andrew Jackson, the Yorkshire law firm, said there was a big take-up in the new method.

“I believe that collaborative law is the most exciting development in family law in my 24 years of practice. Clients love it; they regard the process as direct, clear and amicable whilst avoiding the expenses and latent aggression of the court process.”

Cost savings were considerable too, she said. “I have dealt with collaborative cases with assets in the millions and costs of under £10,000 – perhaps only 10 per cent or less of the costs for contest cases with the same assets.”

The take-up among lawyers is still patchy, however, with some hugely successful pockets in the regions where lawyers have embraced the new method, but a slower take-up in other areas, including London.

“The clients embrace the concept that the whole focus of their case is on settling – rather than fighting,” she said.

Suzanne Kingston, head of family at Dawsons LLP, said that for Madonna and Guy Ritchie, the privacy would be a big incentive. The settlement could be reached “in one of the offices of the solicitors rather than in court”.

So it’s down to Fiona Shackleton (for Madonna) and (Lady) Helen Ward, for Ritchie. The couple are said to want a deal by Christmas. Using this route, they could well do it.

Strahan Wins Appeal

Former New York Giants defensive end Michael Strahan on Tuesday won his appeal from an $18,000-a-month child support obligation imposed in his 2006 divorce, which a New Jersey appellate court found both exorbitant and unfairly apportioned against him.

The court, in Strahan v. Strahan, A-3747-06, said that the trial judge failed to make the specific findings of fact necessary to sustain his decision to add $200,000 a year to the $35,984 annual award that the couple’s twins girls are due under statutory guidelines.

While acknowledging there are unique problems with determining the reasonable needs of children of high-earning families, the court said trial judges should nevertheless avoid overindulgence — citing the doctrine of In re Patterson, 920 P.2d 450 (Kan. App. 1996), that “no child, no matter how wealthy the parents, needs to be provided [with] more than three ponies.”

The court also found error in the trial judge’s saddling of Strahan with 91 percent of the child support obligation, especially since the judge did not impute any income to Strahan’s former wife, Jean, even though she is college-educated and capable of working but has voluntarily chosen not to do so.

When the couple began dating in 1994, Michael Strahan was in his second season with the Giants and Jean Strahan was a model and manager for a cosmetics company, earning about $70,000 a year. In 1995, they moved in together and she quit her job. They married July 18, 1999, after signing a prenuptial agreement. Their twin girls were born on Oct. 28, 2004.

Divorce proceedings began in early 2005 and a judgment of divorce was entered on July 20, 2006. The couple agreed on joint custody of the girls, with Jean having primary residential custody. An amended judgment, entered in early 2007, ordered equitable distribution and child support. Strahan’s motion for reconsideration was turned down. The parties reached an out-of-court settlement on equitable distribution but not on support, which was left for the appeal.

The New Jersey appeals court agreed with Strahan that Essex County Superior Court Judge James Convery erred in setting the supplemental child support amount and in ordering him to pay 91 percent of it.

Although the parties’ experts agreed the Strahans’ marital standard of living was approximately $1 million a year, Convery found the “reasonable current standard of living” of Jean Strahan and the two children was $630,000 a year, or $52,500 per month. He imputed no income to her except $28,470 per month in net investment income, leaving her with a monthly $24,030 shortfall. He decided on a yearly support award of $235,984 and charged 91 percent of it to Strahan, who in 2006 earned about $5.87 million.

But the appeals court said Convery failed to make a detailed examination of Jean Strahan’s child support request and instead merely accepted her recitation of the children’s needs. Those “needs,” wrote Appellate Division Judge Lorraine Parker, included the children giving their nanny a 10-day vacation in Jamaica; diamond jewelry for their grandmother; $30,000 yearly for landscaping expenses; $36,000 a year for “equipment and furnishings”; and $3,000 yearly for audio visual equipment. Jean set their clothing needs at $27,000 a year, since the children needed new outfits every time they saw their father and one of them demanded a new purse every time she left the house.

“[T]he court made no distinction between what needs were reasonable, given the age of the children, and what simply amounted to a ‘fourth pony,'” wrote Parker, who was joined by Judges Rudy Coleman and Thomas Lyons.

Parker said it appeared that Jean Strahan was actually the beneficiary of some of the child support payments. While a custodial parent may reap some “incidental benefits” of a wealthy noncustodial parent’s child support payments the custodial parent cannot become the primary beneficiary, especially when there is no alimony.

The panel also agreed that income should be imputed to Jean Strahan, who decided not to work even though she held two college degrees, a previous career and “employment opportunities [that] were, in all likelihood, enhanced by her celebrity marriage.”

“There is no question that as a healthy, educated, forty-one year-old, defendant is capable of earning her own income,” added Parker, directing that on remand, the trial court should consider all possible sources of Jean Strahan’s income — earned and unearned — as well as her assets in determining her share of support.

The judges also reversed the trial court’s order that Michael Strahan take out a $7.5 million disability insurance policy as security for child support, premised on the possibility that injury or sickness could leave him unable to play football. They found the situation no different than that of any other injured or ill divorced parent who is thus left with reduced income, entitling him to seek a modification of child support.

They further found the rationale for the insurance moot since Strahan gave up football in June to become a commentator. “Plaintiff’s retirement further illustrates the unreasonable requirement of the disability policy,” Parker said.

Finally, the judges reversed a $13,777 fee award for Jean Strahan’s lawyers in connection with Michael Strahan’s post-judgment motion for reconsideration, calling it an abuse of discretion. The parties, in their prenuptial agreement, had assumed responsibility for their own counsel fees and Strahan’s motion was not made in bad faith, Parker said.

The panel rejected Strahan’s request that on remand, the case be assigned to another judge, finding a bias against Strahan could not be inferred from Convery’s rulings against him.

Michael Strahan’s lawyer, Angelo Genova, of Livingston, N.J.’s Angelo, Burns & Vernoia: “Mr. Strahan is gratified by the result and feels his legal position has been vindicated. He hopes the matter can be resolved amicably, going forward in the interests of the children.”

Jean Strahan’s lawyer is likewise optimistic. “This is a period at the end of a long sentence,” says Ellen Marshall, of Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis in Roseland, N.J. “We’re glad Judge Convery is remaining with these issues, and we’re confident we can resolve of the remaining issues amicably.”

Source: New Jersey Law Journal

9 Questions To Ask The Divorce Lawyer (Before You Write The Check)

Selecting the lawyer that will represent you is one of the most important decisions that you will make in your divorce case. You should try to find a lawyer who is skilled, competent, and who regularly handles family law and divorce cases. Seek someone who is responsive and willing to communicate with you throughout the divorce process. Ask for recommendations from your friends and family members, but in the end, trust your own judgment.

Schedule a consultation appointment with the lawyer. This will give you an opportunity to evaluate how you are treated by the staff and will give you some time to interact with and interview the lawyer. After spending thirty minutes to one hour with the lawyer, you should have a good feel for whether he or she is the right lawyer for you. One factor that is often overlooked is whether a lawyer’s personality compliments yours. You divorce lawyer is someone with whom you will be sharing many intimate details of your life as well confidential financial information. He or she must be someone with whom you are comfortable and whom you trust.

During the initial consultation with the potential lawyer, you may consider asking him the following 9 questions:

1. Do you specialize in family law? If you needed back surgery, would you go to a general practitioner? Of course not. Likewise, there are many lawyers who are general practitioners that will handle a divorce case. In addition, they take business matters, bankruptcies, criminal cases, etc. That is not the type of lawyer you want handling your divorce case. Ask them what percentage of their practice is divorce and family law matters. If it is not at least 50%-75% (I’d prefer 90-100% if it were my case) of their practice, go elsewhere.

2. What would be the fee arrangement for you to handle my divorce case? Divorce lawyers normally set fees in one of two ways: they either charge a fixed fee for the entire case, or they charge a retainer against which they bill an hourly fee. Make sure you completely understand how you will be billed. A good lawyer will want to make sure that you completely understand and are comfortable with the fee arrangement. If you have any questions, ask.

3. What other costs can I expect? In addition to lawyer’s fees, there are other costs that are typically associated with your divorce case such as court costs, subpoenas, and sometimes such things as private investigator fees, depositions, etc. Ask the lawyer what types of costs are likely to be involved in your case and how much you can expect to pay for them.

4. Will you send me monthly itemized bills showing the time that you spent on my case and the expenses incurred? If you are being charged by the hour, the lawyer should systematically keep you updated with regard to your trust account balance. If you ever have a question about a charge on your bill, talk to the lawyer about it. Address it sooner rather than later. If you are being charged a fixed fee, this is obviously not an issue. You will know up fron what the entire fee is. The only statements you should expect to receive is for costs that have incurred on your case (such as for subpoena fees, filing fees, etc.)

5. Do you have any resources that you can make available to me to help me reduce the pain and expense of divorce? Obviously, going through a divorce can be a very traumatic experience. A lawyer that is willing to educate you about the process and the law affecting your case will help remove some of the concerns that you may have.

6. Who else will be working on my case? Other lawyers, paralegals, and/or staff members will often perform work on your case. You want to be sure that the others work on your case are also competent and experienced. Also, find out at what hourly rate you will be charged for their working on your case, if at all. The hourly rate for less experienced attorneys and/or paralegals should be lower than that of the primary attorney on the case.

7. What efforts will you make to try to settle my case? The majority of divorce cases settle. Some are settled before they ever get to the lawyer (that is to say that the parties have already reached an agreement and the divorce lawyer is only needed to draft the paperwork). Others settle on the day of the trial, in a room outside the courtroom, and still others settle at any stage in between. You want a lawyer who is willing to communicate with your spouse and/or your spouse’s lawyer (if he or she has one), to try to settle the case. Many lawyers will not make a deliberate effort to settle your case, but rather will prepare the matter for trial and only settle it if the other side takes the initiative or if it happens to settle on the day of court. This type of lawyer can cost you thousands of dollars in unnecessary legal fees. Additionally, you should ask what the lawyer thinks about mediation. Mediation is becoming more prevalent in divorce cases [Editor’s Note: It is required in most Georgia courts before a trial, or, in some cases, even before a temporary hearing]. If you think that it may be helpful in your case, you should ask the lawyer to explain the costs and benefits associated with mediation.

8. What I can do to keep my costs down? By taking an active roll in your case, there are certain fact gathering steps that will reduce your legal fees. If a lawyer is charging you by the hour, you may be better off gathering many of the financial documents and other information rather than relying on the lawyer’s office to do it.

9. Do you survey your clients to measure their satisfaction? You should not let a negative answer to this question preclude your allowing the lawyer to represent you. Because so few lawyers actually do survey their clients, there are many very good competent lawyers who don’t do this. However, all other factors being equal, a lawyer that surveys his clients to determine their satisfaction, is likely to render better service to his clients as he is more attuned to their feedback.

As you ask the above questions and make a decision about hiring a lawyer, keep in mind that you have a right to expect your lawyer to do the following:

Once you have found a good lawyer, remember that he works for you. Do not be intimidated by him. Do not hand over control of your case without question. The lawyer should be willing to explain the decisions that need to be made during the process of your divorce as well as his recommendations. However, in the end, you are the one who makes the decisions. Ultimately, if you are not satisfied with the lawyer, remember that you have the absolute right to terminate your relationship with him at any time, for any reason. Be careful in doing so, however, if you have a Court date looming. This can cause unnecessary delays or, worse, result in you having to proceed without proper representation.

Source for post: Georgia Family Law Blog

McGreevey Train Wreck Ends

The train wreck divorce trial of former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey and his wife, Diana Matos McGreevey, has ended, with the ex-governor largely prevailing. The court ruled that McGreevey would not be required to pay alimony to his ex. McGreevey has been ordered to pay child support in an amount considerably less than his former wife requested. These two folks are poster children for what to try and avoid in a divorce proceeding. The New York Times has the story on the conclusion to this cringeworthy affair:

A judge ruled on Friday that former Gov. James E. McGreevey of New Jersey, who resigned from office after admitting that he had an affair with a male aide, will not have to pay alimony to his former wife.

The ruling by State Superior Court Judge Karen Cassidy granting Mr. McGreevey and his wife, Dina Matos, a divorce ended a frayed eight-year marriage that came apart when the governor stunned the state by announcing on national television that he was “a gay American.”

“No alimony – that’s what I’m talking about,” Mr. McGreevey’s lawer, Stephen Haller, said moments after the decision was read in court, the Star-Ledger of Newark reported on its Web site.

In addition to ruling out the payment of $2,500-a-month in alimony for four months that Ms. Matos was seeking, Judge Cassidy ordered Mr. McGreevey to pay $1,075 a month in child support for their daughter rather than the $1,750 she wanted.

In the stunning decision, which came in the aftermath of a bitter and very public court battle, Ms. Matos was told that she would receive none of the proceeds from Mr. McGreevey’s book, “The Confession,” which described his version of events that led to his resignation in August 2004.

Not long after Mr. McGreevey’s book was published, Ms. Matos came out with her own book about the mariage entitled “Silent Partner.”

The couple will share share custody of their daughter, 6.

Mr. McGreevey, who is a seminary student in New York, maintained that he will only earn $48,000 this year and that he was too poor to pay alimony. He now lives with his partner, a wealthy Australian businessman, in a 19-room house in Plainfield, N.J., with gardens designed by Frederick Law Olmsted.

Even before the ruling was issued, Ms. Matos, who lives in Springfield, issued a statement to The Associated Press. “Although the victimization continues, I am stronger for the experience,” she said.

Mr. McGreevey and Ms. Matos were married in 2000, and he was elected governor the next year. He has another daughter from a previous marriage, which also ended in divorce.

Source: The New York Times