- Quickdraw McLaw
- 41 Comments
- 217 Views
We have noticed an increase in comments about divorce, so we thought we would dedicate a post to the topic. What opinions and recommendations do you have on the topic? Are you seeing more after the pandemic? Does it ever make sense to divorce? Is it the dumbest thing you can do? Any other words of wisdom?
The dumbest thing a male attorney can do is to say to his wife, "I can handle our divorce. I am a great attorney, better than anyone you could hire. Do not worry about getting your own attorney. It will just cost you money which could remain in your pocket." Read the Herb Waldman divorce case. Amazingly, male attorneys keep making the same mistake.
I am a male attorney. I made my ex an offer at the time we first decided to split up. I told her to take the offer to an attorney of her choosing to look it over. She did. She hired that attorney in order to get a better deal than what I offered her.
Two years of unnecessary litigation, $80,000 in unnecessary attorneys' fees, and $50,000 of other unnecessary expenses later, she got a deal that was about 40% of what I'd originally offered (and less visitation time).
10:58, the reason why 10:51 is saying its a bad idea is because it is very easy if you do that to find yourself in serious trouble with the bar. People have been suspended over issues that arise from this.
A divorce is emotionally painful, life-disrupting, and expensive. The pain, disruption, and expense are even greater if there are children involved. About the only thing worse is staying in a bad marriage with no hope of improvement.
I was married 10 years, couple of kids, thought I was happy and things were good. She wanted a divorce, so we did. It hurt, it was painful, and took a while to get through. It'll get better though, it always does.
And holy shit things are so much better on the other side. 100% recommended.
You get one life, don't spent it in a shitty relationship or with a partner who doesn't want or respect you.
The real lesson for attorneys is take your time, pay off your debt, don't make rash life choices, and have an extending "courting" period. Move in together for an extended period and have lots of honest conversations of goals in life. Make sure you are happy.
Getting married is a terrible idea. Don't do it.
There are some really good comments here on these issues of marriage/relationships/divorces.
And while we are on the topic, we have like 10 new Family Court judges(including Butler, Rocheleau, Mastin, Almase, Bailey, Pickard,Throne, Perry, Mercer, and Charter.
Interestingly, all 10 are female. Add to that two new appointments made over the last year or two(Forsberg and Gibson) and we have a dozen fairly new judges in that court.
How are these new judges doing?
Butler seems ok, but I'd probably perempt her if it was a high conflict case with lots of moving parts. I'm not sure she has the family court experience for a complex case.
Mastin is as mean as she was on the TPO bench. She lacks the temperament for family court.
Bailey is good. Reasonable and she has a good temperament.
Throne is hit or miss. I did not support her election and she's proven my suspicions right. She acts like a tyrant on the bench. If she's in your favor, it's great. If she's not, give up now.
Perry is very well prepared, but she's such an odd person. I worry how she'll be in a high conflict case. She makes very strange rulings sometimes.
Mercer has been a bright spot. She's prepared, humble, polite, and keeps control of the courtroom. I like her.
Forsberg is a nightmare. Topic of today was divorce. If you are getting a divorce and your case is in front of her, pay the $450 or start praying. She is unpredictable, gets overly emotional, and screams when she can't control the courtroom. She seems to have no concern about ruining people's lives because she has a grudge against the attorney. I suppose if your lawyer was friends with her you'd be okay.
Gibson was awful and got banished to abuse and neglect cases.
12:32–don't agree with all of your conclusions, but your discussion is a real good focus on some of the issues that are important as to judicial performance.
As for Butler, agree she may not have a lot of Family Court experience prior to the bench, but she is super-smart, very well-prepared a real hard worker, so she will make the adjustments in a relatively short-amount of time, IMO.
Mastin is also quite bright and hard-working, but admittedly may be somewhat lacking in sound bed-side manner at times, to put it mildly. But she is far from a tyrant, so in my view you over-stated things a bit. But if her temperament is truly to the degree you suggest, if I had been assigned to TPO cases for several years that certainly would have made me jaded as well as short-tempered at times.
Throne is no-nonsense and once she decides which direction she is going, don't expect her to be re-directed by too many last minute additional arguments. But she's got the smarts and experience to become a real good one.
Agree Perry is well-prepared and believe she will be decent. She may seem a bit eccentric to some, but I don't find her to be a truly odd person. But no doubt she marches to her own drummer.
Agree that Baily and Mercer seen fine so far.
As for Forsberg, she does not seem popular on this blog, but I have not really heard practitioners complaining about her temperament(except on this blog). She may have such issue. It's just that I only hear it on this blog.
FYI Mary Perry once said to me, "You seem so bright, how could you possibly be a Democrat?"
Dawn Throne has a chip on her shoulder and is consumed with hubris. I avoid her at all costs.
2:43, but I'm also a life-long democrat and I often ask myself that exact same question over the last year or so.
District Court Blue Jeans Check in Procedures need improvement. How about instead of wasting 30 minutes “checking-in” and repeated “who’s next,” “anyone else present,” “your name again,” “your bar number,” “what case”, etc., etc., and everyone talking over each other, we try: 1) Court starts calling the calendar promptly at the stated time; 2) Court: “appearances please”; 3) Appearances by Plaintiff’s counsel, followed by defendant’s counsel as they appear on the caption; 4) Court: “Everyone is present and we will proceed” or “Everyone is not present and we will trail the matter”; 5) Court: “Counsel please proceed,” or some other appropriate statement; 6) Counsel: Argument; and 7) Repeat with regard to trailed matters.
P.S. To the attorneys if you don't have your technology dialed in, get it dialed in now! For gosh sakes its been a year.
And maybe, just maybe, a reminder for people to mute their microphones and kill their video feed while they wait. Please.
Don't worry about getting your technology "dialed in" – we are weeks away from going back to normal. Sisolak is lifting the mask mandate on June 1 and we are back at 100% capacity. After that, I am going to every hearing live from now on, and taking every depo in person. Period. If someone doesn't like it, effective June 1, they will face a Motion to Compel. Enough of this lazy half-assed lawyering and COVID fear porn. This is not a remote profession, unless you are an ID FBU.
To 12:35 – 95% of court hearings can be effectively, and more efficiently handled by technology. 95% of depositions can be effectively and more efficiently handled by technology. I suspect you will have very mixed success with you motions to compel. Now get the hell off my lawn.
These video hearings, based on these comments, are a double-edged sword.
The video hearings appear preferable to live hearings in that the attorney does not need to travel down to court and in some cases wait an hour or two(or more!) for the their case to be called, which too often happens–but more so in the departments of less effective judges with poor calendar control.
But the down side are all of the audio/video tech. glitches discussed by these excellent comments offered by other posters–tech. problems which can be compounded by court personnel and judges who don't yet have a real grip on effective trouble-shooting.
All of which makes me wonder if Reno(and some other jurisdictions) have it right all along–wherein, generally speaking, trial and evidentiary proceedings of course merit actual court proceedings, and perhaps emergency OST matters as well, but most standard motions are decided on the paperwork.
I used to take a dim view of this approach until I was actually involved with a couple matters up there as co-counsel. They were not matters where there was really some direct, single-individual client who really needed the "show" or the cathartic release of watching an attorney vociferously argue the matter in court.
Thus it became a significant relief, and made representation a lot less difficult, as there were many motions, and most of them were an evidentiary nature, and were fully briefed by both sides, so there really wasn't a need for the expense and trouble of a bunch of court appearances to argue them.
So, I soon saw the great wisdom of such an approach and changed my mind about it. But I do have one big qualifier: if it is a case where there is just the one party on each side(that being an individual and not some business entity), like a Family Court case, and emotions are really high and the like, it can be a great benefit for such people to see their attorney really fighting for them.
In such cases,like a Family Court case, a client will judge you more by that 10 minutes you argue at a hearing, and put far more value in that, than they will value dozens of grueling hours you may have spent at the office on case preparation, briefing, drafting, etc.
11:38, when comments are made in this blog about these Family Court judges, there are invariably comments about Judge Forsberg being intemperate, etc.
Problem is I can't tell whether it is the same person offering all such comments, or whether multiple attorneys on this blog are experiencing challenges with that judge's judicial demeanor.
I've commented about her in the past and I'm not leaving every comment about her. Anecdotally, she's had some issues on the bench. I know an attorney who had a case against her when she was practicing. She's ruthless towards that attorney on several cases since she got appointed.
12:44–Okay,if you say you are not the one who posts all the Anti-Forsberg comments, and that others also post such comments, I assume you are a person of honor and I take your word on it.
But if you don't post ALL the anti-Forsberg comments, could you in fact be posting MOST of them? For example, are you 12:32, wherein the second to last paragraph pretty well eviscerates Forsberg?
And I'm not defending her by the way–just trying to determine if multiple people have this assessment of her, or instead whether most of the negative remarks about her on this blog are from the same poster.
Also, if you do happen to be 12:32 I would greatly appreciate some clarification on the Gibson matter. If he was truly so awful and of such ill-temper that he was removed from standard divorce and custody cases, why on earth would they think a great solution would be to put him on abuse and neglect cases? It would seem to be a quite combustiable combination to put a(supposedly) awful and screaming judge into that type of highly sensitive area.
And, BTW, he seems to generally be well-received by a few attorneys I have spoken to, but I must disclose I have not been before him so I cannot offer my own assessment.
Not me but an attorney I know sat in Gibson's courtroom and listened to him berate one attorney after another during motion practice. When he wasn't yelling at the attorneys, he was yelling at the litigants. Sometimes it's needed in family court, but it needs to be applied judiciously. Gibson has been compared to a past judge who chose not to run in the last election.
Here is my recommendation: divorce is not nearly as hard on the spouses as on the kids. However a vicious marriage is also not nearly as hard on the spouses as on the kids. Don't be vicious. Take the $80,000 that you would spend on your divorce. Take the $80,000 that you will probably have to finance for your ex-spouse pursuant to Sargent and put it all into an account for your kids' college. You can buy a new TV. You can buy a new house. Stop buying Jennifer Abrams a new house. Divorces are like bar fights; no one comes out of it looking prettier.
This issue is that the attorney spouse knows his/her rights while the non-attorney spouse may not know that the 401(k) is community property. The non-attorney spouse may also be unaware that with a 25 year marriage, in which the attorney spouse was the primary breadwinner, the non-attorney spouse is entitled to substantial alimony. The non-attorney spouse needs a lawyer to at least look over the final decree, the list of assets, etc. There also needs to be a clause in the decree and/or property settlement agreement which states that any undisclosed property is held by the parties a tenants in common (that is what the law says any way) and both parties warrant that they have made a full disclosure of their separate assets and the assets of the community.
Historically, male attorneys have seen fit to screw over their wives. I could provide a long list.
I am 1:12 and agree with you. The answer seems to be stop being nasty to the father/mother of your children. Make a reasonable offer. Each of the spouses then seeks counsel for purposes of reviewing the fairness of terms. Seek counsel who help you make peace.
Long after the Williams v. Waldman case, I know of at least two male attorneys who failed to list their law practices as community property assets in their Decrees of Divorce and who awarded 100% of the practice to themselves. In fact, it was the primary asset of the parties. s
I mark myself married, miserable, and grateful for not being single and childless.
wow, being miserable is better than that?
I mark myself single, childless, and therefore grateful. Now that I've been vaccinated, my questions are, "What stripper will I make out with tonight?" and "Where shall I go this weekend for fun?"
Ugh, what an empty life. Go do what you must, but remember that He commands: “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
@5:51 — 5:41 Here. I hate to break it to you, pal, but there is no God. We are merely vehicles to propagate the DNA molecule, as is all life. And that DNA molecule is a clever one, it is! It has figured out how to ensure its survival to the extent it has fabricated vehicles capable of understanding, and even changing, itself. Why, these vehicles it has fabricated may even get it off the planet someday. But that's all you and I are: vehicles to ensure the propagation of a molecule, the true "god" of this planet. And if you need some more convincing, watch the following video, and ask yourself if, in a universe this big, there really is a god: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rENyyRwxpHo
The best attorneys either have a couple divorces under their belts, never marry, or are blessed to be part of a community that values and supports traditional male-female sex roles.
I am married and it makes me sad what this profession puts my spouse and kids through. They deserve a lot better. There are days I lay down to go to sleep and can only think of all the ways I am falling short as a lawyer, spouse and parent.
"Are blessed to be part of a community that values and supports traditional male-female sex roles." That sounds a lot like barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen… going to have to disagree with you my friend. My wife works, my wife likes to work, my wife doesn't defer to me, she'll bury her foot in my ass if I deserve it. And I'm better off for it. But I appreciate the judgment that is integral to that community, caused my wife to leave the church and once again, I'm better off for it.
@4:16 pm sounds like you can't name a single female attorney who is married, has a spouse that works, and has kids. That's shameful.
I am a member of the community the commenter using the name Ben Nadig references. I don't know for sure whether Ben really made that comment, but I will assume the best and that someone else is using his name online without his knowledge.
I get that not everyone agrees with the way my community functions (or how they perceive we function). Heck, there are things in my community that I wish I could change. That said, this community, my people, my tribe, has been nothing but a blessing in my life and in my family's life. There is a whole village of people helping to raise my kids and instill values about selflessness, concern for others, etc.
Maybe my community isn't for you. That's ok. I can say that in Las Vegas, so many people live without the benefit of any community. Just go find a community and join, whether that is religious, civic or a bowling league. Belong to something. Be there for your community.
One of the smartest and hardest working appellate attorneys I know is married, a couple kids, and her spouse works a pseudo-demanding job as well. I don't look forward to the day she's opposing counsel.
I have to issue a mea culpa. The church is actually a wonderful community and many of my friends are in said tribe and I apologize to all my friends who I may have offended. I should not disparage all. My issue is with the judgmental, sexist folk who want to send gender relations back to 1950. As a dude with two daughters, I’m not down for that.
There is no sexist judges or attorneys in Nevada. No way. That never happens. And females never discriminate against other female attorneys either. What a fucking joke this legal community is. I am glad that there is karma and an afterlife for you assholes.
6:48,
As a male member of that particular tribe, let me say this: screw "traditional male-female sex roles." You don't need them to have a village. "Traditional" is also anything but, seeing as throughout history, both members of the marriage worked their ever-loving asses off side by side. You think a farmer's wife ever, throughout history, sat inside and baked cookies? Guessing you don't know any farmers. Ranchers' wives are out there helping brand and birth calves. I know, I've seen them do it. Got pioneer ancestors? I do. Both male and female busted their asses. You think the wimmin' folk stayed at home sewing while the big mighty men folk did the work? Maybe your pansy ass ancestors did, but mine didn't. There was work to be done, and not enough hands to do it.
Don't confuse dumbass male-female ideas conceived in dumbassery with doctrine.
9:47 AM,
6:48 here. I'm not really sure why you're addressing your comment to me. I said nothing about any particular concept of gender roles or gender roles at all.
Ben Nadig upset me a few days ago when, after I highly complimented him(based on what I have heard about him) as an attorney and as a person, I commenced to offer a few respectful counterpoints to some of the positions he offered.
But he responded by telling me to f**k off and eat dick.
Surprising reaction, and even more so as he posts his actual name, and someone stated on the blog that he has judicial aspirations(not certain he does, but someone stated it, and that he ran last cycle).
However, in his defense, his comment at 4:45 is being intentionally misconstrued by some folks, so that they can justify being morally offended.
He was commenting on a certain repressive, sexist attitude that does exist, but in no way did he indicate that any one religion is dominated by such folks.
But looks like folks wish to misunderstand what he said so they can claim he said that most LDS people are repressive or sexist. I don't think it was necessary for him to issue the mea culpa at 8:01, as I think people knew damn well that his 4:45 comment was appropriate when he took to task 4:16 as 4:16 seemed to be extolling a certain traditional view of marriages that represses and subjugates woman.
So, I for one, despite being somewhat put off by his colorful(in fact, crude) remarks of the other day, think he hit it out of the park on this one. He makes it abundantly clear, at 8:01, that he greatly respects such church and its members. He is merely criticizing an antiquated sexist, repressive view that is, unfortunately, still held by certain people regardless of what religious affiliation they belong to. Yes, had he phrased it somewhat more adroitly he could have avoided the appearance that he might be focusing his remarks specifically on LDS church. But it is clear he didn't mean it that way
So, leave him alone. If you want to take him to task on something, advise him not to tell people to "eat dick" merely because they provide a respectful counterpoint to a position he offers.
But his comment at 4:45 needed to be made(although, again, the phraseology could have been a bit less awkward). 4:16's Neanderthal remark could not go unchecked.