Where have I been?

It has been almost two weeks since I last visited these pages, now often a part of my nighttime ritual.  You may well ask, where have you been?

I have been doing that rarest of rare things in family law, a jury trial.  Our trial was conducted In Fulton County Superior Court (http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/Fulton-County-Judges.asp) over three days: Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday last week.  The jury came back with its verdict at 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday night. 

It was a divorce case.  Twenty-six year marriage.  Three grown kids.  My client is a medical doctor.  Very nice guy.  The opposing party is an attorney.  She hasn't practiced since the second year of their marriage.  The significant issue was alimony.

Opposing Counsel wanted to play it up for the jury.  His case was full of drama complete with heroes and villains (my client was cast as the villain).  Opposing Counsel's problem is that he had no facts to back up his theme.  And his client, as I told the jury is a very nice lady, didn't have the best of stories nor the best of presentation.  So, Opposing Counsel had no facts and his client had no presentation.

The Opposing side wanted the jury to award them 3.2 million.  The jury awarded them less than one-sixth of that.  We were prepared to offer them more than what the jury eventually awarded had Opposing Counsel's demand not been so extreme.

What is the moral to the story?  If Opposing Counsel had ever taken the task of settlement seriously rather than be consumed by slaying the dragons of his imagination, he could have helped his client far more.  Opposing Counsel wanted so desperately to play the hero.  At the end of our tale, that was not the role he wound up playing.

Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/PracticeAreas/Divorce.asp

Familiarity has a value.

Tonight is a post authored by our own, Jeremy Abernathy.



Recently, I made the trek northwest to Cherokee County Superior Court.  Our firm had several cases on the Court’s calendar.  At 9:17 a.m., the Judge called the uncontested cases first.  Uncontested cases involve parties that have entered into an agreement on all issues.  Typically, these matters are short and sweet- but not in Cherokee County!

My client and I sat on the wooden pews in the Courtroom, and witnessed the uncontested case immediately preceding our case.  The lawyer firmly, but respectfully walked to the lectern, and his client gingerly and nervously approached the witness stand, seemingly dressed in his finest suit.  After being given the nod from the Judge to begin, the lawyer swore his client in and began asking him very short leading questions while simultaneously presenting evidence for the Judge.

Out of nowhere, the Judge interrupted and exclaimed to the client, “Would you appreciate being shifted back and forth between two households as often as you are asking your child to do so in this settlement agreement?”  The courtroom silenced.

In fact, the only thing you could hear was my client’s sheepish and nervous rhetorical question, “ Hopefully, the Judge won’t ask us all of that, will he?”

The lawyer and his client were frozen by the Judge’s barrage of questions.  They emotions seemed to go from amazement, to disgruntled, to desperate.  In fact, the client’s wife, who appeared for the uncontested divorce hearing was sworn in as a witness!  (This rarely occurs at an uncontested divorce hearing because only one (1) party, or in some case, neither party (like in Paulding County), is required to appear!)

Despite the wife’s testimony, client’s testimony and lawyer’s argument regarding the appropriateness of the custody arrangement, Judge asserted, “I refuse to approve of this agreement without expert testimony regarding how this arrangement provides stability for this child”  A disappointed client, opposing party and lawyer left the Cherokee County courtroom dismayed and utterly bewildered.

Perhaps if the lawyer on that case was familiar  with Cherokee County uncontested cases, he would have known that they can become quite eventful.   He would have known how to steer clear of that pitfall.

Our law firm, The Manely Firm P.C., provides the value of familiarity.  We handle only family law cases all around metro-Atlanta.  Our familiarity and specialized knowledge is the product of our commitment and focus to only family law cases.

Oh, by the way, the uncontested case that we had on the calendar that morning was done in 7 minutes.

Like I said, familiarity has a value.

Jeremy Abernathy
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/Bio/JeremyAbernathy.asp

It's a math question.

There are many family law issues that involve soul searching, asking tough moral and ethical questions striving to find the right answer.

This is not one of them.

I will often consult with someone who has a money question.  Much of family law is a money question.  Quite often the subject is child support modification.  Regardless of which parent is asking me, the analysis is the same: how much money do you stand to gain (either through an increase in child support you receive or decrease in the child support you pay)?  You want to be as realistic as possible in your assessment because you want the math to be correct.

If the amount in controversy is less than, equal to or only somewhat greater than the attorney fees involved, for God's sakes don't do it.  Don't spend good money after bad.  Don't roll the dice on a slightly favorable verdict.

Modification only makes sense when you are necessarily going to make or save some significant money after the process if done.  And if an attorney tells you that the attorney fees don't matter because you'll get them awarded by the court, ask them if they will give you a contract that provides that they will only get paid by the other side.  See if that attorney will take the risk.  If he or she won't, then what does that tell you?

Let me give you an example.  Suppose a fellow wants to reduce his child support.  He's making a little less money now so we feel comfortable that his child support would be approximately $100 less per month.  This means that over the course of a year he will save $1,200.00.  This means that over the course of two years he will save $2,400.00.  I use a two year figure because parties can seek to re-adjust their child support after two years. 

Now you need to factor in the attorney fees.  Suppose the attorney fees are slightly greater than the two year savings.  It makes no sense to spend that money to save less money.  Again, it is possible that the judge could award you attorney fees, if you are the prevailing party, but you won't know until the money is spent and you've played your hand.  That is a risk which better be worth taking.  For example, if you were going to save $5,000.00 over two years you have more motivation to spend $2,500.00.  Now we enter the realm of "what is it worth to you."  Everyone has a different threshold here.  Some folks feel that the probability of saving $5,000.00 makes is worthwhile to spend $2,500.00 with a hope of recovering even that.  Some folks hold out for far more savings before they make that kind of investment.

Of course, no one expects you to know off the top of your head what child support would probably look like under a new scenario, that's why God gave us family law lawyers.  So you should call one for a free consultation to find out the facts, gain knowledge.

After all, knowledge is power.  And it's never a bad idea to have a little more power now and then.

Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/PracticeAreas/Modification.asp

"On Behalf Of"

One of the last things I do at night before I turn in, is sit before my laptop and compose the post I want to write, what I would like for you to read.  It is my message to the readers, followers, potential clients, existing clients, and old friends who just want to see what I'm thinking these days. 

I hope my writing is fairly readable. I hope it is somewhat entertaining. I hope it is sufficiently informative.  One thing I know, however, is that my writing is deeply personal.  I write what I am thinking, what I am feeling, what I see happening in the world of family law.  I write about the reality of a family law practice, the real world experience of real world people fully engaged in their personal family law stories.

In a family law practice the different firms are certainly distinct from one another.  Each firm has its own personality, its own approach.  Each firm sets its own tone.  Our firm web site is built around illustrating our uniqueness.  My blog is intended to convey that, as well.

That's why I write my blog, or the other attorneys at my firm sometimes write on my blog.  It is always personal; it is always from us, it is always the real world stories that comprise our practice.

For that reason, I am not surprised by the recent increase in family law blogs.  There is probably no better way, short of a one on one interview, to convey who we are and what makes us tick.  But that's why I am suprised by the recent surge in family law blogs that are not written by anyone associated with the firm.  You can instantly recognize them.  The are written "on behalf of " the firm.  They are incredibly sterile, even antiseptic.  The topics cover celebrity divorces or fairly acrane or distant issues like, "what's New Jersey doing in divorce today?"   Today they might be concerned about some NBA star's custody battle.  Tomorrow they might address how many women in Los Angeles are seeking prenuptial agreements. 

But how does that impact you?  And what does that tell you about the firm?  What does that tell you about how the firm will help you?

You might say that "on behalf of" doesn't tell you anything about the firm, that this anonymous ghost writer gives you no sense of the attorneys who handle that firm's family law matters on a daily basis.  But unfortunately, I think it does.  I think it speaks volumes.

So, I'll keep writing my blog, expressing myself, hopefully giving you a very good picture of who I am and how I go about this practice.  And the other guys who keep their thoughts to themselves yet want to represent people at their most intimate and vulnerable moments?  I guess they'll just stay anonymous, as they prefer.

As for me?  I think it is better that you know quite well who I am.  I think you deserve that.

Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/Attorneys.asp

The Isle of Anguilla

There is a little island out in the Caribbean called Anguilla.  It lies just north of Saint Martin.  It's about 16 miles long and a little over three miles wide at its widest point.  Its total population is a little over 13,000. Its main industry is tourism followed closely by corporations which set up there to avoid taxes in their home countries. The natives speak predominantly English since the Island once belonged to Great Britain.

It was also home to a father who was divorced from a mother several years ago.  Since the divorce he has wanted to take his daughter back to his homeland to visit his relatives.  The mother is quite nervous about that.

When the parties divorced, they agreed that the father would not take the daughter to the Island until the Island adopted and implemented the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of Child Abduction.  (In International Family Law we just call it the Hague Convention.)  The Hague Convention is a treaty between many nations about how its wrong to abduct children to another country and how the parent from the child's home state can go about getting the children back. 

Readers here know we do an awful lot of International Family Law, Hague Convention work.  We're quite good at it.
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/PracticeAreas/International-Family-Law.asp

In addition to adopting the Hague Convention, before the father could return to the Island with his daughter, Anguilla was also supposed to enact legislation that would require extradition of a parent who violates the Hague Convention.

With something just over 13,000 people, the father, by report, is a bit of a muckity-muck in Anguilla so, after the divorce, he set about getting that country to adopt the Hague Convention.  Story has it, they did.  The problem is that Anguilla doesn't seem to want to broadly publish this contention.  Though the father argues that Anguilla adopted the Hague Convention in 2007, that adoption has yet to turn up on any international list of adopted and approved countries.

Further, the Hague Convention is fairly specific about the mechanism to carry out the country's obligations.  It requires the creation of something called a Central Authority which administers all of the Hague requirements.  Further, this operation is supposed to be swift.  No procrastinating here.

But Anguilla hasn't done anything to implement the Hague.  They don't have a Central Authority.  Its as though they've created a store front with no insides.  It is all window dressing.

And then there is the capper.  Anguilla has done nothing to enact legislation to ensure extradition of a parent who violates the Hague Convention.  So, we have a treaty in name only with no enforcement mechanism and no law guarranteeing extradition.  No child, no perpetrator, all shell game.

Back during the divorce, the father was often quick to say he would steal the child away to Anguilla, never to be heard from again.  On an Island of 13,000 I find that a little hard to believe.  But short of landing Marines or some equivalent, there is no way to rescue this little girl from that Island, except for the guarrantees required by the Court in the parties' divorce and provided by the Hague Convention.

Now the father has asked the Court to find that Anguilla has adopted and enacted the Hague Convention.  He's pretending the extradition part of the Order isn't there.  Father hopes to be off across the sea in short order.

Mother?  She's still quite nervous.  And little girl?  Since the divorce in 2005, Father has yet to spend more than three consecutive days with little girl without returning her to Mother.  Little girl is not so keen on the idea of a Caribbean vacation either.

But frankly, if Anguilla is good with the Hague Convention and gets this extradition problem fixed, we all should be good with the proposal.  Time marches on. Little girls grow up.  Sometimes countries do too.

But also frankly, if Anguilla, or this father, is playing an elaborate shell game to spirit this child away to a country that will not return her, it will be a cold day in hell before she steps on that plane.

Michael Manely

If it's the last thing you do...

I was recently speaking with a psychologist.  In my line of work, I do that often.  He and I were debating othe merits of divorce.

He was adamantly opposed to divorce.  "Divorce should be the last option," he told me.

After more discussion/debate, he admitted that he, himself, was divorced and remarried.  "I got it right the second time," he said.  But he didn't take his divorce lightly.  He worked through everything he could think of before he fiinally threw in the towel.  "I wanted to tell my little girl I had tried everything."

He had tried everything?  But he was divorced?  If he had tried everything surely he would have tried suffering for the rest of his existence. 

Saying that divorce should be the last option is very much like finding something in the last place you looked.  Of course it's the last place you looked.  Why would you go on looking elsewhere once you found it?  And of course, divorce is the last option since it's the last option you choose.  It was the last option the psychologist chose.  You don't tend to choose other options to work out your marriage after your divorce. 

But the point is, everyone has their own strategy for looking for things.  And everyone has their own internal, perhaps undiscovered list of options to try before they choose divorce.  For the psychologist to argue that divorce is bad, that it shouldn't happen and that he only divorced as his "last option," is only sanctimonious "holier than thou".  Only the fellow who suffers for the rest of his existence can make this proclamation with righteousness.  Everyone else needs to eat some humble pie and stop the hypocrisy.

Some folks leave at the first sign of trouble.  Maybe they aren't that committed or maybe they aren't that into suffering.  Some folks stick it out a while longer.  Maybe they have more faith, maybe they have more hope or maybe they have more tolerance.  Some folks hang in there even longer.  Maybe they never say die or maybe they have a streak of martyrdom.  Maybe they are a little into masochism, too.  But everyone chooses their own level of endurance.  It must be so.

And marriage involves a fair degree of endurance.  The test, it seems to me is, is the harmony better than the hassle?  If it is, you make that music together.  If it isn't, it's time to sing solo for awhile, maybe even start another duet.  (Some folks are really out there and get a whole chorus going.)

And my personal experience is that the awareness that you can make daily choices makes your daily choice to remain committed that much more fresh and new or renewed.  And if that isn't your choice, perhaps it's time to try to "get it right the second time," just like the psychologist.  Or the third.  Or the fourth...

The point is, you don't quit.  You don't lay down and die.  You live, fully, another day.

May you live fully each day.  May your music be beautiful.

Michael Manely

What we don't do well.

A client who is quite familiar with these ever growing pages recently expressed her sense of the accuracy of my posts and generally complimented the firm.  She said, "you understand what I'm going through better than anyone else I talked to.  You understand this area of law inside and out and, as I've seen, you can litigate anybody into the ground.  Is there anything you don't do well?"

"I'm sure there must be," I told her.  Though I couldn't think of anything at the time.

But her question stayed with me.  Is there anything we don't do well?  I finally came up with an answer.

We don't lie well.  We don't make stuff up.  Frankly, we don't do balderdash well at all.

If you've read my posts for any length of time you're aware that there are two types of family law attorneys.  Short of saying the good guys and the not so good guys, I'll recast it this way: the majority of us are honest and straightforward.  We look for common ground to achieve a fair settlement.  Most of us practice in this same vein.

Some, however, feel that an honest, straightforward, affirmative practice is not what lawyering is all about.  They argue that lawyers are not doing their job unless they are zealous advocates.  (The Bar regulations actually use that term, zealous advocates.)  But these folks mean something very specific by their interpretation of the Bar's rules.  They mean that you win at all costs, including integrity, honesty, ethics, decency and morality.  In short, to win, you make stuff up. 

We have several cases moving forward right now where I can see a fair, just and equitable settlement.  But the other side is represented by "winner take all" attorneys, doing the bidding of an unscrupulous spouse.  In each case, they have no case, no facts, no law.  So they conjure the facts and they bastardize the law in the hope of creating a case in which they will eventually vanquish us.

And we don't do that well. 

I love my profession.  I think it a noble business.  I value the law too much to cheapen it by falsifying documents, purchasing witnesses and torturing time honored legal positions.  I value my clients too much to allow them to perjure themselves or posit a position which is outside the bounds of decency. 

I always say, "It is what it is."  I don't make the facts.  History has cemented the facts.  Those are the facts we work with.  Reality dictates the just result.  A result not based upon reality is, by definition, unjust.  And unjust results yield a destruction of the legal process, undermining the dignity of law and a whole host of unexpected and unwanted consequences.

Karma anyone?

So we don't lie, cheat or steal well.  And we never will.

You want somebody to make up stuff?  Check out those other guys.  You want honesty and integrity in your family law case so that you can look your children in the face, or better still, look yourself in the face in the morning and hold your head up high always?  Give us a call.

Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/Firm-Overview.asp