Posted on March 10, 2010 by John Steele
For me, there are two things that prevent me from getting jaded, burned out, or whatever seems to happen to most family law attorneys. First, I started my own firm a few years ago. This means I don’t have to take on clients I do not like, or that I think are scum bags. And the associates in my firm know they don’t have to represent scum bags.
While I know other attorneys who believe that “all money is green”, I respectfully submit that getting the “what the hell are you arguing?” look from a judge, or being known as a legal whore in the relatively small community of family lawyers is not for me. I admit I like to take the high road and drill opposing counsels who are argue whatever their client’s want them to say (assuming the check clears of course).
Great example from Dupage recently: I represent a mother who is not receiving any child support from the employed father. Father hires a lawyer, and I knew as soon as I saw the firm he hired that the case was going to be nasty. Why? Because I know that this particular firm and their antics. Here goes:
When a good lawyer represents a non custodial parent who makes a simple salary and gets a W-2 at the end of the year, that attorney simply agrees to the statutory guidelines for temporary support. Easy as pie. This is so the custodial parent can care for the child. If corrections need to be made for a final order that is done later.
Why do we need a hearing on what 20% of someone’s W-2 is? We need a calculator and 15 seconds! In my case, I explained to the young attorney (that I am sure does not have children) that my client has not received a dime from her client for support. She responded that there was no order in place for him to pay support. I said but there is a moral duty for parents to make sure their children eat every day, even on days the parents don’t ‘have’ to feed them.
So after we go into the courtroom, the young attorney asks the judge for a continuance because she isn’t familiar with the case! Think about what occurred. Knowing her client is a deadbeat dad, earns a good salary, and that my client is struggling to pay for the baby, she wants to avoid setting child support for the sole purpose of helping the deadbeat dad go another month with avoiding support.
The sleazy lawyer knows that dragging the case out means more money, while simple agreeing to what everyone knows is appropriate only helps the minor child (since the child doesn’t pay, the sleazy lawyer they don’t count I guess). Takes a special sort of bootlicking new associate to do that. That’s ok, makes the win that much sweeter.
At the end of the day, agreeing to say whatever your client wants in exchange for money is not my style. I think that selling out like that builds up in a person, and makes them bitter and unhappy family lawyers. And, of course, I think its a little bit harder to respect your own kids when you don’t respect other people’s kids.
Recent Comments