The bane of our existence.

I spoke with a young woman today who had an interesting, though not terribly uncommon tale to tell.

She is 26 years old.  Her parents divorced when she was six.  Her mother received primary custody of her.  Her mother's favorite sport around the house was to bash dad: what a scum he was, what a deadbeat he was, what a horrible human being he was.  To say that dad had no value in mom's house would grossly overstate the situation.  You get the picture.

One day, it sounded like about seven years after the divorce, out of desperate need to retain some  boy's attention, this young woman accused her father of a heinous act.  Her accusation was private, to the departing beau.  He, then, told his parents who told the young woman's mom who called the police.

Months later, tens of thousands of dollars on defense counsel later, district attorney investigations and polygraphs later, the charges were dismissed. 

According to the police, the young woman made it up.  And why not?  It's not as if dad had value, anyway. This once little girl had learned that lesson well.

Though exonerated, the father langished.  He let his business go.  It was heading in the ditch anyway since it was a rather public operation and the public wanted nothing to do with him in light of the once pending accusations.  He fell into despair and depression.  He lost his house, his cars.  He nearly lost his mind.

He saw nothing of his daughter.

Years passed.  He worked at recovering.  He started a new business, flegling at first, but used it as his vehicle to re-engage with his life.  He threw himself into the business and it prospered.  Still he remained haunted by the absence of his child who had turned his world upside down.

Years passed and the young woman grew.  She graduated from high school.  She left her mother's home.  She attended and graduated college.  She got her first real job.  She  moved into her first real apartment.  She bought her own car.  She even became invested in her spirituality on her own terms.

And, as the years passed, as her spirituality deepened, she began to mature.  As she moved farther from her mother's world, she began to construct her own.

And she eventually came to realize just how she had wronged a man she once lovingly called Daddy.

So, after a painful series of starts and stops, she called him.

He took her call.

They met.  They cried.

Now, not terribly long after their grand reunion, they dine about once a week.  Usually Daddy buys.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Oh, the things we do to each other in families.

Practicing Desperation Law

Last night I wrote about the attorneys who practice family law as though it was were a tenet of faith.  Tonight I write about the attorneys who could care less.

On the opposite end of the spectrum from the zealot who imposes her convictions on you lies the "I just don't give a damn attorney."  They have more important things to do, like anything else that comes through the door.

By and large, family law is considered a peculiar specialty, as if those who practice it exclusively have an affliction.  As I wrote last night, who would sign on for this misery?  So family law cases are considered a blight, though perhaps a necessary evil for the general practitioner who handles anything that comes through the door.  They handle personal injury, bankruptcy, criminal law, commercial litigation and, yes, somewhere in there, family law.  I contend that they practice "Desperation Law." They seem to state, "I just want a retainer.  Any retainer."

Family law has its own rhythm, its own groove, certainly its own body of law, and its own bar (for those few of us who practice it exclusively).  Whether we practice in the same frame of mind or approach the subject from quite different perspectives, the exclusively family law lawyer generally knows the other exclusively family law lawyer.  We usually know each others strengths, weaknesses, quirks and pecadillos.  We speak the same language.  We understand the issues without a learning curve.

For those indecisive or disinterested souls who do anything for a buck, they are forever cast on the howling winds of rapid and irreconcilable change.  One morning they are representing a criminal defendant, wrapped up in the Fourth Amendment.  The next morning, they are knee deep in a contractual clause about non-competing burger stands, and the next morning they attempt to be immersed in a bitter custody dispute.  Jack of all trades, master of none.

I know this scenario all too well.  At one time I practiced this scenario.  And family law drove me nuts.  But I learned, it drove me nuts because I wasn't just practicing family law.  I'd attend a criminal calendar call as disinterested as I could be.  I was engaged in the sport, but the passion was non-existent.  I'd attend a commercial litigation calendar call and everyone there still seemed asleep and wishing they were on the golf course.  Not a happy crew.  Then I'd attend a family law calendar call and everyone was animated, involved, deep in discussion, negotiation, maybe resolution.  All of it meaningful.  All of it vitally real.

Eventually I determined that I should only practice family law.  I won't call it a calling, hence I would run afoul of the malady I cited last night.  No, it was my passion, my skill and my drive that directed me.  That, and family law attorneys are in court most often, second only to prosecutors.  My attorneys and I are often in Court three to five times a week.  A personal injury attorney is lucky to see the inside of a courtroom three times a year.  As I've said often, I live in the Courtroom.

So family law is home.  This is where I thrive.  This is where I can do the most good. 

I don't practice desperation law.  I won't handle anything that comes through my door, except family law.  So if you have a criminal case, you can call me because I know some great criminal lawyers to refer you to.  But if you have a family law case, call me or anyone who practices exclusively in family law.  Our passion and our practice shows.

Michael Manely

Is it a calling?

I have an unusual job.  I help people get divorced.  I work in family crisis day in and day out.  I am buried, nay smothered in daily drama.

Why would anyone sign on for this misery?

Some in my profession appear to posit that their's is a calling, that they are led to this line of work in the same way that preachers are.  And like preachers, they claim passion and deeply held, fervent beliefs.  They hold convictions and operate from dogma about how things must be.  Their client's lives become testaments to the attorney's convictions.  And the family drama plays out in moralistic terms, good versus evil and righteousness must prevail.  There is the victor and there must be the vanquished.

I definitely like what I do.  I don't want to do anything else, work wise.  I'm drawn to the Courtroom, not because it is my life's mission but because I'm good at it.  And I'm good at it because I like a good, serious legal contest.  I'm good at it because I care to be.  And I like what I do because I find meaning in helping real people obtain real solutions for real problems.  What's not to like about that? Family law fits me. 

I would hope that everyone should be able to make a living, doing what they enjoy.  It makes life richer.

But I don't hold dogmatic positions.  I don't pass judgment.  I don't exact my principles on my client's lives.  I do bring all my talents to bear on their issues.  I make solutions.

I'm not a preacher. I'm not a saint.  I'm not a voluteer.  I'm a mercenary.  I am well paid to be successful for my clients.  I am paid to advocate for their interests and paid to tell them the truth. 

So if you want someone to be a bishop over your life, to tilt at the windmills of their own past in your present, I'm not for you.  If you want to fix a problem, come see me.

So, is family law my calling?  No.  It's my business.

Just drifting through.

We do not finish all the cases we start.  Sometimes the firm and the client parts company.  Sometimes our strategies no longer appeal to the client.  Sometimes the client cannot follow the firm's advice.  Sometimes the client has other issues.

I once represented a client with attachment issues.  He didn't care much who he was sleeping with.  He was not loyal or connected to any particular woman.  He thought his kids ought to live with him but he gave them no good reason to and wasn't particularly concerned if they didn't, and they didn't.

I learned that those attachment issues extended to every other facet of his life, including his ability to follow through on our advice when the going got rough.  When the going got rough, he just got going.

Good bye.  He wasn't that invested in the first place.

He was kind of the accidental tourist of the divorce world.  He spent the next several months bouncing from pillar to post and, without rudder, without plan, without cohesive strategy that he could stay committed to, I understand that he got battered something awful.  Opposing Counsel was pretty good to begin with.  This now former client made Opposing Counsel's job that much easier.

As best I could tell, he wound up disappearing.  He paid his child support somewhat timely, but he wandered off to the far corners of the world, kicking up the dust in some other lonesome hovel. 

Sometimes I remember him, like now.  I think of him blowing from place to place, unattached like a dust mite. 

I'm really rooted to place.  I haven't moved more than 12 miles from the place I grew up.  So I really can't fathom having no attachments, no strings, no ties that bind the heart.  That is my antithesis.

Sometimes we don't finish the cases we started.  Far more often than not, we do.  Course corrections, when necessary, can be a good thing. 

But to say farewell to a client who can't commit, who can't follow through, whose shiftlessness rules his life, to this day remains unsettling. 

Michael Manely

I Don't Get It.

Last week we had the hearing to end all hearings.

Actually I'm being a bit melodramatic.  It was a big hearing, potentially laying either party to waste.  My opposing counsel hails from the highest paid family law firm in all Metropolitan Atlanta.

The hearing was a long time coming.  There were many discussions about the case, the issues, and potentially how to settle it.  Time after time I came back to the same recommendation on how to settle the case, if they wanted to settle the case.

But the opposing party, through his counsel, stonewalled.  They did everything they could to put off the hearing, even at the last moment as the Court called the case.  All along they offered nothing but platitudes, empty air containing nothing.  Not one dollar, not one farthing, not one half penny was placed on the barrel head to put the issue to bed.

And my recommendation was quite modest.  It was the most likely outcome to bridge the matter to a longer term solution.  It took care of temporary issues and began to create a foundation from which the parties could work.

Still, no tangible offer ever came.

So, we had our hearing.  And the opposing counsel pulled a 12th hour surprise expert accountant to support the opposing counsel's theory of the case.  Of course the expert agreed with me that his analysis had to be flawed to get to opposing counsel's results and that the opposing party really didn't produce anything that the expert could use to verify the opposing party's contentions.

And in the end, the Judge ruled almost exactly like my recommendation expressed so long ago and oft repeated.  The modest, logical proposal is how she decided, with a little gravy thrown on for my client.

And now, in the circles that the couple used to run, comes the report that the opposing party is claiming victory.  Victory for having his extremely dirty laundry exposed to the Court?  Victory for paying thousands of dollars to an expert for nothing?  Victory for paying thousands more to an opposing counsel when the funds could have much better been used for the parties, not their lawyers?  Victory when the opposing party offered $0.00 and I proposed less than what the Judge now requires?

I don't get it.

I like trial better than the next guy, perhaps better than most lawyers, so I had a really good time impeaching the expert and this ridiculous opposing party, but I've still got to say it was a colossal waste of time and money, given that the other side could have done what I suggested in the first place.

"I told you so," just doesn't make me feel any better.

I just don't get it.

Divorced with Benefits

In the long list of the myriad of methods in which people bond into family, a particularly interesting one is where the couple is no longer married yet continues to couple.

The joke about sleeping with your ex being like eating leftovers you rejected the first time notwithstanding, some couples do genuinely find it more difficult to break the bond of sex than of marriage and remain in an intimate relationship for years after divorce. 

Some couples enjoy the release from the obligations of marriage and the new found casualness of being divorced with benefits.  One former client's ex husband called it "coming over for coffee." 

I'm not a psychologist so I'll not delve into the extensive why issues, but all the judges I know have been around the block more than a few times and very little surprises them.  To learn that a couple remained intimate for years after a divorce and only recently have had a falling out resuling in that Contempt the ex-wife had been meaning to file for some time now, would not elicit expressions of shock, dismay, disgust or dismissal from a judge.

Nor does it make a whole lot of difference to a couple's legal status. 

Back when Georgia acknowledged Common Law marriages, I represented a woman who wanted a divorce from her Common Law husband.  The parties agreed they had gotten a divorce from their legal marriage some years before.  The husband denied that he had ever resumed a relationship with his ex that rose to the level of Common Law marriage.  Of course, if he hadn't listed her as wife on all of his insurance, real estate, loan and banking forms, hadn't told the whole world that his ex was again his wife and hadn't posed for umpteen pictures with the re-established family as he brandished the brand new, diamond encrusted wedding ring, he might have had a point.

But you get my point.  If you have to work that hard to change your legal relationship, you can probably do a lot and preserve your divorced status.  And Georgia doesn't even acknowledge any newly created Common Law marriages anymore.

Another situation arises when the couple resumes quasi habitation so that the child, who post divorce has a primary custodian and a secondary custodian, is somewhat living with both parents again.  Months if not years pass before the camel's back again becomes so burdened that some inevitable straw renders it asunder when the primary custodian suddenly recalls the vast amounts of child support which have gone unpaid.  Are there any writings which express that the primary custodian accepted the secondary custodian's financial assistance as satisfaction of the child support obligation?  Of course not.  These people were wooing each other, not writing contracts.

So we're off to the races with a large purse in play.  And some potential for legal injustice to ensue.

And that gives new meaning to Divorced with Benefits.

Michael Manely

Running for Judge.

Tonight I had the opportunity to participate in the perennial, time honored tradition of being part of the host committee for one of our local Judge's re-election campaigns.  It was a very well attended affair by the usual who's who of the local bar.  The Judge was in rare form, meeting and greeting as the occasion requires, quite a different persona from the one assumed on the bench as he metes out justice to the hopeful litigants.

I'm afraid I've been a bit out of the formal political loop recently, what with the practice providing much needed assistance to many parties desperate for access to justice, so I was surprised to hear that the Judge had  competition in this election.

This competitor is well known to the bar, as well.  She is a perennial runner, almost as certain to run as an election is to be held.  I suspect she has long since given up hope of winning, or at least I hope she has.  Rather, she constantly runs because it is the most inexpensive method of marketing that she has ever discovered. 

To some potential clients, she hopes to many, running for Judge gives them the imprimatur of success, of authority, of position.  Actually, running for Judge means you could scrape a few dollars together to get your name on the ballot and a few dollars more to print up signs.  But compared to the cost of bill boards, election signs are a steal, and you aren't tarnished with the impression of chasing ambulances.

I've met many a client who thought, at first, that this candidate had credentials and clout just because of her judicial attempts.  Through personal contact, not with the candidate, but as the practitioner, they were soon disabused of their notions.

The problem is not so much that the sitting, qualified, decent judges have to defend their seat.  Campaigning is a stressor for them that they would certainly rather not endure but it is a part of their political reality and I would sorely disapprove of a system that didn't require a judge to be accountable to the electorate.  Rather, it is the terrifying notion of what would happen if this candidate won.  Without purpose, without plan, without competence, without scruples, the bench in that post would first become a laughing stock followed quickly by a disaster of jurisprudence not seen since a Fulton County courtroom got a similar dose back in the 90's and the Judicial Qualifications Commission had to intervene to save the public.

But there is little way to warn the public, who sees this candidate's name time after time, running against whomever, whenever.  The public doesn't know the dangers that lurk in this candidate's election.  The public doesn't know the loss that would be suffered by this particular Judge's defeat. 

Judge's are central to keeping the peace in our communities.  Judges provide a valve to the steam of anger and resentment that is borne from perceived injustice.  A good judge won't make all people happy.  Never.  But a good judge will leave a litigant feeling heard and knowing that they had their day in court.  A judge is a perfect leveler.  Get a good judge, get a fair result.  Get a bad judge and there can be no peace, only another layer of suffering.

So what if the candidate wins?  The judicial system will suffer, sure enough.  But the public will suffer so much more. 

The moral to this story is that, come election time, investigate your judges.  Find out what the bar has to say about the judge.  See what the community says through the press and through the internet, though every judge has at least a couple of never happy litigants to defile them.  Investigate the opposition.  If the judge's campaign is doing its job, there should be some negative information about the opposition.  Look into it.  Determine as best you can whether it is valid.

Think about your values and priorities.  Every so often the business community will get outraged at a judge enforcing the law that winds up resulting in a fair verdict for an injured party.  The business community finds someone of reasonable stature to run against the offending judge.  But those issues are usually laid bare in the political pieces put out by each campaign.  How do you feel about businesses trying to gain an advantage by putting their own judge in office?

The issues that motivates the candidates present themselves, if you look for them. 

Our judges impact our lives in significant enough ways that it merits us to know as much about them as we can, so that our judgments about them are as sound as we want their judgments about us to be.

Michael Manely