# Sometimes we represent the bad one



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

I do take a lot of pleasure when my firm helps a betrayed spouse really crush the life out of their cheating spouse in divorce court. I'm a managing partner these days so I haven't done case work in quite a while but I get pulled in for consultation all the time. I've used affairs to get really favorable divorce settlements for clients who were the betrayed spouse. Once, years ago, I had a male client whose wife was screwing her AP in the car while their 1 year old was present in the car seat. They got busted by police in a park and I used that to get all her parental rights terminated and she's also now a registered sex offender and can only have supervised visitation with the child who would be around 10 by now. A lot of people don't know that having sex in front of a child with an adult that is NOT a biological parent of the child is a sex crime.

Anyway, I was reviewing a case recently where we're representing the wife in a divorce but she was the cheater. I'm not fond of those instances but we'll still do our best for our clients. They're in their 40's, she cheated with a single coworker in his 20's. She got the house, primary custody of the kids, and they split 401K's. Hers had a total value of $11K. His had over $400K in it. She got $200K of his retirement account. He got $5500 from hers. She also moved the new boyfriend into the family home and he now shares the same bed as her hubby used to. He's in a two bedroom apartment. I know because as part of the divorce agreement we (she and us) got to inspect the new digs to make sure they were suitable for the kids when they visit him (two weekends per month, 1 week over the summer).

Cases like this actually make me feel like crap but it would be unethical not to do the best you can for your clients.

The point is life isn't fair and good people get screwed. If you're in any of these situations get the best lawyer you can.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I would also destroy her in the court of public opinion.

I might just move overseas as well.

I just can't see letting a skank make me pay her and support her boy toy while I'm barely getting by.

On the other hand, I might devote my extra time to becoming more successful and causing her every legal problem I could while living well.

Life is a two way street no matter what bumps you hit.

Think outside the box.

Being enslaved to a cheating skank is never a good option.

Good legal representation is a must and I agree with you there.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

VermiciousKnid said:


> Cases like this actually make me feel like crap but it would be unethical not to do the best you can for your clients.


Unethical lol. There is a good reason everyone thinks lawyers are absolute scumbags. Because 99.99999999% of the time you guys are. Then you explain away being a complete scumbag with your ethics and code. Whatever helps you sleep at night buddy.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Getting a background check on the boyfriend would be a must. Would be interesting to see how he likes someone crawling up his ass with a microscope.

Would also be interesting to see how his social/professional network would view a man who cared more about getting his penis wet than the welfare of the children involved.

I would pour molten lead, so to speak, down his throat until the pathetic pos broke and ran.

I'm really not nice though and love to fight so to each their own.


----------



## Graywolf2 (Nov 10, 2013)

VermiciousKnid said:


> Cases like this actually make me feel like crap but it would be unethical not to do the best you can for your clients.
> 
> The point is life isn't fair and good people get screwed. If you're in any of these situations get the best lawyer you can.


He's correct on all the above. Listen to him. I'm not a lawyer but my son is an army JAG. He tells me stories like this all the time and feels the same as the OP. (i.e. sometimes he feels like crap, sometimes he feels sorry for the other side because they have such a bad lawyer)

*"If you're in any of these situations get the best lawyer you can."*


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

Is it moral to take a case that goes against your morals?
Turn the case down. Take a new case. 
Unless it really doesn't go against you morals.
Good lawyers have them.


----------



## Steve1000 (Nov 25, 2013)

VermiciousKnid said:


> Cases like this actually make me feel like crap but it would be unethical not to do the best you can for your clients.


This becomes more complicated because we are applying ethics to a system that places little value on ethical behavior. The main goal of most trial lawyers is simply to win their case, whether through ethical or unethical means. Case in point is the case that you described. You and I suppose your firm's trial lawyers who handled this case likely agree that the results were not fair or just, but that was not the goal in the first place.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

I hate to use this quote because Reese Witherspoon used it in Legally Blonde but it's the truth. Aristotle did say that "law is reason, free from passion." That is true. Too many people, including some of you who responded interject too much passion/emotion into these things. That is not the basis of law. In these cases it is the law that is being administered. A moral/immoral argument is invalid. The only valid arguments are what is legal and what is not. Divorce courts/family courts exist to administer divorce/custody laws and to settle any disputes regarding those laws. My point, again, is always get yourself a good lawyer. 

NEVER agree to mediation. People, usually cheaters, propose mediation when they've been advised by their lawyer that they have a weak case. If someone proposes mediation to you it's because they've been advised that's their best chance at "winning". By default that tells you that your best chance at "winning" is to go to court.

Also, I know it's consensus opinion to expose your cheater to the world. In cases where you want to reconcile I agree. If, however, you've decided that cheating was a deal breaker and you want a divorce, then if the cheaters wish to keep their adultery a secret that is a HUGE bargaining chip. I've seen "upstanding members of the community" who get caught cheating give up their kids in a divorce as long as their betrayed spouse will keep their secret. The goal in divorce is to come out as whole as possible so use anything and everything you can as leverage. Most cheaters would cut off their right arm before having to admit in public court that they are cheaters. That's great leverage. 

As for making OM/OW's life a living hell, as was suggested by one of you, that would get the betrayed spouse slapped with a criminal harassment charge in a New York second. That could be used to take away whatever custody they were able to get in the divorce. You have to be careful about those things. The best advice is to move on, live your life, ghost your cheater, and never look back. I know that's easier said than done.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

Graywolf2 said:


> He's correct on all the above. Listen to him. I'm not a lawyer but my son is an army JAG. He tells me stories like this all the time and feels the same as the OP. (i.e. sometimes he feels like crap, sometimes he feels sorry for the other side because they have such a bad lawyer)
> 
> *"If you're in any of these situations get the best lawyer you can."*


Army JAG, awesome! I was Navy JAG but was stationed at a Marine base my entire time in. Is he making it a career or used it to pay for law school?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Bull ****! 

I never suggested any illegal actions.

The pressure I bring is not subject to prosecution.

If you are aware of the law at all, you know damn well there are a multitude of legal ways to make life suck for someone and there isn't a damn thing that they can do about it legally.

Life isn't a one way street. Just because a slattern can make her ex husband's life hell legally doesn't mean she is untouchable or the stupid moron shacking up with her.

Concerned parties should make sure of OM's background knowing he will be directly involved with the children.

I have applied this type of pressure for years and have found that pathetic scum like OM break and run rather than face any responsibility or endure any scrutiny.

I have personally helped put away some of these guys or strongly encouraged them to leave.

I have been involved with ministry for over twenty years though so I do have a rare view into these ugly circumstances.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

I don't disagree. Many OM/OW won't stick around if the going gets tough but what the WS will do is file charges and they'll be successful in not only getting a PRO against the BS but taking away what custody of the children they might have shared. If someone was screwing with one of our clients we'd crush them and probably put them in jail. I'm talking about the states here, not any other country.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

VermiciousKnid said:


> I don't disagree. Many OM/OW won't stick around if the going gets tough but what the WS will do is file charges and they'll be successful in not only getting a PRO against the BS but taking away what custody of the children they might have shared. If someone was screwing with one of our clients we'd crush them and probably put them in jail. I'm talking about the states here, not any other country.


You would crush a branch of the state for looking in on the welfare of children in a iffy situation?

Most young boyfriends moved into an older woman's home with her children fit into a not attractive profile.

Checking out who your children are being exposed to is not illegal in the states.

Unless the slattern you represented had vast wealth, I don't for a minute believe you would be crushing anyone.

Money does make a difference unfortunately.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

ConanHub said:


> You would crush a branch of the state for looking in on the welfare of children in a iffy situation?
> 
> Most young boyfriends moved into an older woman's home with her children fit into a not attractive profile.
> 
> ...


In the states it doesn't matter what their background is unless they're a registered sex offender. They are not the ones with custody, their parent is. The court is not authorized, in the U.S., to make moral judgments on their choice of boyfriend/girlfriend as long as there is no history of sex crimes. They'll even look the other way on a history of domestic violence and do all the time. Only when it's history of sexual abuse will they possibly step in. Running a background check is one thing, some other things you mentioned could easily be proven to be criminal harassment.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I


VermiciousKnid said:


> In the states it doesn't matter what their background is unless they're a registered sex offender. They are not the ones with custody, their parent is. The court is not authorized, in the U.S., to make moral judgments on their choice of boyfriend/girlfriend as long as there is no history of sex crimes. They'll even look the other way on a history of domestic violence and do all the time. Only when it's history of sexual abuse will they possibly step in. Running a background check is one thing, some other things you mentioned could easily be proven to be criminal harassment.


That depends on circumstances and approach.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

ConanHub said:


> That depends on circumstances and approach.


Of course. Anything even remotely perceived as threatening, however, can get the jilted ex in a lot of trouble. I've seen it so many times. You warn them and warn them to be cool, let it go, move on. Sometimes they don't and that never goes well for them.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Did anyone think to check OM out?


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

So, basically if there is a large income gap between you and your bride/groom,
You'd be an idiot to get married. This is the way I see it.
Because if (high percent chance) you get a divorce, the higher earning spouse is going to get his/her life totally wrecked, and the other spouse just struck gold. 

And there's not much that can be done about it. Truly people should see an attorney before getting married now. A prenup would be wise, it after ten years, they're basically useless as well.....

Marriage is just a legal way to steal now, in lots and lots of cases. In particular, a man that makes good money and his wife is a stay at home mom/--- That's a recipe for disaster when she gets the responsibility of all the kids and has a nice home and still has her beauty.
Doesn't take long before she starts thinking about how nice it would be to be totally set up by her husband's work, and now get a free babysitter half the time, and be free to chase more interesting men than her boring husband that works too much and doesn't appreciate her....

Ugggh. This stuff is awful to read...

We as a society have let the courts become places where "justice" is a foreign term.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

Evinrude58 said:


> So, basically if there is a large income gap between you and your bride/groom,
> You'd be an idiot to get married. This is the way I see it.
> Because if (high percent chance) you get a divorce, the higher earning spouse is going to get his/her life totally wrecked, and the other spouse just struck gold.
> 
> ...


You're speaking a lot of truth here. Stay at home moms are on the rise big time for being cheaters. It's a recipe for cheating. They're starved of adult interaction by being stuck with kids all day and they are free during the day to sneak off and cheat. Since she has no income of her own, she cheats, hubby divorces her, and she cleans up. Keeps the house, kids, he pays the mortgage, alimony, child support and gives her half his 401K. I would advise any man to never enter into a marriage with a woman whose plan it is to be a stay at home mom. He's exposing himself to way too much risk. Whenever a freshly betrayed husband comes into our office and tells us how his wife has been a SAHM for 10 years, been cheating with a SAHD, and he wants to divorce her, we almost always suggest we go mediation instead of court. If it goes to court the poor guy is going to get crushed unless we have something to work with like neglect of the children to facilitate the affair, sex crimes as I described in the OP, history of abuse, history of mental illness, or, and this works more times than not, the whole thing is still a secret and she's a respected member of the community. Church, PTA, etc. and her AP is also married. In those cases we just threaten to subpoena him, which in civil court you can't refuse, and they'll give up anything at that point to keep everything a secret. That's why exposure isn't always good, especially if you're set on divorce. Keeping their adultery a secret can be a HUGE bargaining chip. Sometimes your only one.


I also agree that prenups are a very good idea but very few will even suggest that to their fiance's.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

VermiciousKnid said:


> Of course. Anything even remotely perceived as threatening, however, can get the jilted ex in a lot of trouble. I've seen it so many times. You warn them and warn them to be cool, let it go, move on. Sometimes they don't and that never goes well for them.


I am definitely talking about keeping your cool.

The type of pressure I am referring to is well thought out and with legal representation as well.

Legal representation works both ways. The boyfriend could be in a very precarious situation and the ww certainly is not immune either.

The betrayed isn't the only one having to watch their steps but you seem to imply that is all this situation entails.

My advice also isn't for folks not well versed in conflict and confrontation.

I am very experienced. I have beat the living hell out of a man in front of witnesses and he was carted off.

Knowing how the law works is excellent advice as well as how to maneuver inside legal parameters while engaging in psychological warfare.

The legal system isn't a one way street but most don't want to fight.

Every point you make about the BH can just as easily be applied to OM.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

ConanHub said:


> The betrayed isn't the only one having to watch their steps but you seem to imply that is all this situation entails.


In the U.S., male/female plays a much bigger part in these things than wayward/betrayed. Divorce/family courts almost always lean heavily in the favor of the female. Overwhelmingly. Our bread and butter when we opened our firm was that we had a decent success rate representing husbands. Win a couple of significant cases for men and jilted husbands flocked to our office. We do what we can but if you're representing the husband in a divorce, be he cheater, cheated, or neither, you're already fighting a huge uphill battle. You're going into the fight with one hand tied behind your back. I will say, however, that in probably the last 10-15 years that noticeable strides have been made evening that out a bit. It's still far skewed to favor women, but less skewed than it was 20 years ago.


----------



## GuyInColorado (Dec 26, 2015)

You people are way too quick to judge. How do we know her H wasn't a closet homosexual and cheated on her with other men? How do we know he wasn't abusive? How do we know he didn't check out emotionally and physically? I bet you $100 they were in a 100% sexless marriage the last 5 years. There is a reason he settled and let her have more than her fair share. You honestly don't think it had to do with her having a better attorney? He let her have 50% of the retirement and 70% custody, he didn't want to go to court. Any judge would give a good father 50% custody no matter what if he wanted it.


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

VermiciousKnid said:


> You're speaking a lot of truth here. Stay at home moms are on the rise big time for being cheaters. It's a recipe for cheating. They're starved of adult interaction by being stuck with kids all day and they are free during the day to sneak off and cheat. Since she has no income of her own, she cheats, hubby divorces her, and she cleans up. Keeps the house, kids, he pays the mortgage, alimony, child support and gives her half his 401K. I would advise any man to never enter into a marriage with a woman whose plan it is to be a stay at home mom. He's exposing himself to way too much risk. Whenever a freshly betrayed husband comes into our office and tells us how his wife has been a SAHM for 10 years, been cheating with a SAHD, and he wants to divorce her, we almost always suggest we go mediation instead of court. If it goes to court the poor guy is going to get crushed unless we have something to work with like neglect of the children to facilitate the affair, sex crimes as I described in the OP, history of abuse, history of mental illness, or, and this works more times than not, the whole thing is still a secret and she's a respected member of the community. Church, PTA, etc. and her AP is also married. In those cases we just threaten to subpoena him, which in civil court you can't refuse, and they'll give up anything at that point to keep everything a secret. That's why exposure isn't always good, especially if you're set on divorce. Keeping their adultery a secret can be a HUGE bargaining chip. Sometimes your only one.
> 
> 
> I also agree that prenups are a very good idea but very few will even suggest that to their fiance's.


The numbers say when Men and Women work together they are much more likely to cheat than Stay Home Moms.


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

GuyInColorado said:


> You people are way too quick to judge. How do we know her H wasn't a closet homosexual and cheated on her with other men? How do we know he wasn't abusive? How do we know he didn't check out emotionally and physically? I bet you $100 they were in a 100% sexless marriage the last 5 years. There is a reason he settled and let her have more than her fair share. You honestly don't think it had to do with her having a better attorney? He let her have 50% of the retirement and 70% custody, he didn't want to go to court. Any judge would give a good father 50% custody no matter what if he wanted it.


Guy, you're really projecting....
And wrong about the custody. Some judges don't even believe in joint custody and rarely grant it.
It's all about what judge you get. Judges are a crapshoot.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

StillSearching said:


> The numbers say when Men and Women work together they are much more likely to cheat than Stay Home Moms.


I don't disagree. I was saying that infidelity is on the rise at a much higher rate than other situations among SAH parents. That life it makes it very easy to cheat. In the last 10 years we see more and more of this in our clients. Infidelity itself has become the driving force of probably 90% of our divorce cases now. 20 years ago it was maybe 60%. It's definitely on the rise. I used to notice a large number of K-12 public school teachers committing adultery in the cases we handled. It seems like that trend has faded a bit. I see much more SAHM's now. Maybe teachers stopped cheating with other adults and instead are sleeping with kids now. That also appears to be on the rise but we don't handle cases like that. We're not a criminal law firm.


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

StillSearching said:


> The numbers say when Men and Women work together they are much more likely to cheat than Stay Home Moms.


The point is, when the cheating spouse has a JOB, especially making similar money as the BS, the cheater doesn't win the lottery in a divorce. The stay at home mom with a husband doing well-- they do quite well in a divorce.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

Evinrude58 said:


> Guy, you're really projecting....
> And wrong about the custody. Some judges don't even believe in joint custody and rarely grant it.
> It's all about what judge you get. Judges are a crapshoot.


I can count on one hand how many judges I've come across in 30 years that believe in 50/50 custody. They think it's too disruptive to the kids' lives and they're right, it is. This is where the "reason" part of law has to prevail over passion but it's best for the kids to live in one place 90% of the time regardless of how badly that usually screws over a jilted husband. Do every other weekend and one or two weeks over the summer away. That is what an overwhelming majority of judges decree unless there is already an agreement signed by both parties. Usually there isn't, that's why they're in court.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I agree about divorce laws, I have observed, taken part in, however, legal pressures on scum who break up families to get sex.

If OM was just being seen on the side it would not interest me enough to do more than explain occasionally what my stupid ex did to end our marriage to friends and family.

She moved him into the home with the children. Very damaging psychologically if not legally and I would exhaust all resources to cause, legal, problems for the happy couple.

Cockroaches tend to run when light is shown. I am definitely not talking about harassment. 

I did call one man a second hand homosexual for going after married women because he couldn't seem to get enough rubbing of what another man just had.

He didn't like it but what was he going to do?

I didn't track him down, we were coworkers.

I have helped more than one man get fired for similar issues.

I have found upon observing wife stealing OM that being the OM is almost never their only serious flaw.

I got one guy fired for sexual harassment after he convinced a stupid woman to cheat and leave her husband for him.

I didn't get him for stealing a wife but a pos is a pos. He eventually slipped up and I talked to the right people and he was out after 15 years of employment.

Someone gonna crush me for going after these idiots?

Don't think so. Idiots basically do themselves in. It just takes someone willing to flip the right light switch on at the right time to end them.

I'm pretty committed. I do things like this to people I'm only acquainted with, heaven help anyone stupid enough to try that crap in my garden.


----------



## GuyInColorado (Dec 26, 2015)

The point is, the Husband didn't fight. She wasn't entitled to the house. She wasn't entitled to full custody. He could have took her to court and got 50%.

He gets 1 week in the summer? He's a horrible father for settling for that alone. He probably checked out a long time ago in everyone's lives.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

T


GuyInColorado said:


> The point is, the Husband didn't fight. She wasn't entitled to the house. She wasn't entitled to full custody. He could have took her to court and got 50%.


That's where child welfare comes into play.

He might be able to get 50% after the kids have moved out but until then, the home usually needs to be maintained.

Along those lines, I still wonder about checking out OM.

Never know what might pop up in a check.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

GuyInColorado said:


> The point is, the Husband didn't fight. She wasn't entitled to the house. She wasn't entitled to full custody. He could have took her to court and got 50%.


"Entitled" has little to do with custody cases. What's best for the children is the goal. Family court judges don't think kids moving back and forth from one house to another for half their lives is what's best for them. 50/50 custody is a way harder sell than some people think. Why? Because it's not what's best for the children.


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

I live in a state where you can sue the OM/OW for “Alienation of Affection”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GuyInColorado (Dec 26, 2015)

What's wrong with the father? The judge agreed that he should only see his kids ~32 days out of the year. That isn't normal at all for a father that wants to involved in his children's lives. The guy is a horrible father for accepting this. I'm guessing those 32 days were forced, he probably didn't even want that.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

StillSearching said:


> The numbers say when Men and Women work together they are much more likely to cheat than Stay Home Moms.


If that's the case my lab would be Sodom and Gomorrah . Lots of attractive young things...


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

StillSearching said:


> I live in a state where you can sue the OM/OW for “Alienation of Affection”


That is cool but most states are moving away from that type of law. Many already have and that's the way the wind is blowing. I'm keeping my eye on the lawsuit against Fletcher Cox by the jilted husband. If anyone has a case, he does. We'll see how it plays out. If I was Cox's lawyer, I'd tell him to pay it out and make it go away. He's a multi-millionaire and the jilted husband is only asking for $50K. That amount surprised me. I can't remember if the husband is representing himself or not but most lawyers I know wouldn't bother with that case over $50K. I think it's more of a symbolic thing for the jilted husband. Still, I'm curious as to how it goes for him.


----------



## Steve1000 (Nov 25, 2013)

GuyInColorado said:


> You people are way too quick to judge. How do we know her H wasn't a closet homosexual and cheated on her with other men? How do we know he wasn't abusive? How do we know he didn't check out emotionally and physically? I bet you $100 they were in a 100% sexless marriage the last 5 years. There is a reason he settled and let her have more than her fair share. You honestly don't think it had to do with her having a better attorney? He let her have 50% of the retirement and 70% custody, he didn't want to go to court. Any judge would give a good father 50% custody no matter what if he wanted it.


All of our replies are based on the details provided. If new information is provided that states he was a closet homosexual and cheated on her with other men, I will definitely feel differently about this case. The OP seemed to insinuate that the husband in the story was a decent guy.


----------



## GuyInColorado (Dec 26, 2015)

My math was wrong, it's more like 60 days a year. Still horrible.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

VermiciousKnid said:


> I can count on one hand how many judges I've come across in 30 years that believe in 50/50 custody. They think it's too disruptive to the kids' lives and they're right, it is. This is where the "reason" part of law has to prevail over passion but it's best for the kids to live in one place 90% of the time regardless of how badly that usually screws over a jilted husband. Do every other weekend and one or two weeks over the summer away. That is what an overwhelming majority of judges decree unless there is already an agreement signed by both parties. Usually there isn't, that's why they're in court.


When I found out my girlfriend was pregnant we had broken up,we have since gotten back together.Due to circumstances unconcerned with this thread my first born child inherited a substantial amount of money.We were also having serious problems with her family,especially her mother pushing for abortion. Her mother is also a money grabbing narcissist.I told my gf about the money and she agreed with me that her mother must never have any say in our daughters future.We have a fifty fifty custody agreement drawn up and while I used my own law firm In Boston I also had a NY firm look over it.It is watertight.
Whatever people’s opinions may be on lawyers I would give the same advice you gave in your first post.In ANY legal situation use the best lawyer you can afford.


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

VermiciousKnid said:


> That is cool but most states are moving away from that type of law. Many already have and that's the way the wind is blowing. I'm keeping my eye on the lawsuit against Fletcher Cox by the jilted husband. If anyone has a case, he does. We'll see how it plays out. If I was Cox's lawyer, I'd tell him to pay it out and make it go away. He's a multi-millionaire and the jilted husband is only asking for $50K. That amount surprised me. I can't remember if the husband is representing himself or not but most lawyers I know wouldn't bother with that case over $50K. I think it's more of a symbolic thing for the jilted husband. Still, I'm curious as to how it goes for him.




Fletcher Cox is from my State.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

Anyone saying: "What did @VermiciousKnid do for the husband in that case?" Doesn't understand the law.

It was his job to represent his client, it was the job of the husband's lawyer to represent their own client.


----------



## Windwalker (Mar 19, 2014)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyInColorado View Post

"You people are way too quick to judge. How do we know her H wasn't a closet homosexual and cheated on her with other men? How do we know he wasn't abusive? How do we know he didn't check out emotionally and physically? I bet you $100 they were in a 100% sexless marriage the last 5 years. There is a reason he settled and let her have more than her fair share. You honestly don't think it had to do with her having a better attorney? He let her have 50% of the retirement and 70% custody, he didn't want to go to court. Any judge would give a good father 50% custody no matter what if he wanted it."

Lol
Lol
Lol.

Most courts haven't moved out of the 1800's yet, let alone out of the 1950's. I honestly don't know where the hell you got your ideas about the legal system, but they are so far out of the realm of reality that it's mind boggling.

Most family courts crucify the man in the marriage, right after they draw and quarter him. The ****ing family court system as it stands in the US is one of biggest jokes in the history of existence.

The only recourse for a man is to literally consult every lawyer within 200 miles to make sure they keep their wife from getting a decent lawyer.


----------



## Bonkers (Nov 26, 2017)

GuyInColorado said:


> Any judge would give a good father 50% custody no matter what if he wanted it.


What planet do you live on?

Serious question.


----------



## Bonkers (Nov 26, 2017)

This is an excellent thread started by @VermiciousKnid and I for one appreciate him volunteering his valuable time to this forum. I anticipate the guy will get a lot of backlash for defending a cheater but it's clear he's more than ready for it. 

He makes a lot of excellent points, I agree with virtually every single one of them based on my own experiences and the huge volume of material I've read during and after my divorce. 

This thread should be a "sticky" so it's more visible to other members.


----------



## Graywolf2 (Nov 10, 2013)

VermiciousKnid said:


> Army JAG, awesome! I was Navy JAG but was stationed at a Marine base my entire time in. Is he making it a career or used it to pay for law school?


Both :smile2:


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

VermiciousKnid said:


> they split 401K's. Hers had a total value of $11K. His had over $400K in it. She got $200K of his retirement account. He got $5500 from hers.


My advice to everyone planning on getting married is a prenup which states that retirement accounts are not marital assets. With the exception of SAHM types of situations, or the surgeon married to the teacher, where the incomes are hugely different, there is no reason each person cannot save significantly for their own retirement.

There is no reason the lazy saver (or the prolific spender) should grab the retirement savings of the careful planner who sacrifices to save. My ex got half of my 401k. The death knell to our marriage was her significant financial infidelity. While there were other infidelities and problems along the way, it was deeply enraging to me that she was entitled to half my savings after she had blithely refused any meaningful savings. She is getting a very nice inheritance, which of course I had zero entitlement to in the divorce!

Prenup Prenup Prenup to protect your retirement savings!


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

VermiciousKnid said:


> NEVER agree to mediation. People, usually cheaters, propose mediation when they've been advised by their lawyer that they have a weak case. If someone proposes mediation to you it's because they've been advised that's their best chance at "winning". By default that tells you that your best chance at "winning" is to go to court.


It depends on the situation. My ex wanted the divorce done asap if not sooner. She wanted mediation and not to waste time and money on lawyers arguing. Her haste was to my advantage.

I did consult with an atty in the background without my ex knowing about it. I knew what a court battle would likely result in, and I did a little better via mediation than that.

My advice is to NEVER sign any mediation agreement without first having consulted with a good atty. Attending mediation doesn't require agreeing to terms there.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

*Moderator Warning*

Folks, please keep it civil, or risk further action after this warning.


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

Why should an ex-spouse, stay at home mom type, be less entitled to a % of her former husbands retirement plan than any other investment he made? Whatever caused the demise of the marriage, the money invested is a family asset and she made sacrifices to accumulated the funds. My observation is for every SAHM ditching her husband for a boytoy there are two "self-made" successful men ditching their wives for a new trophy wife, you know, "so they can grow".


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

VermiciousKnid said:


> I do take a lot of pleasure when my firm helps a betrayed spouse really crush the life out of their cheating spouse in divorce court. I'm a managing partner these days so I haven't done case work in quite a while but I get pulled in for consultation all the time. I've used affairs to get really favorable divorce settlements for clients who were the betrayed spouse. Once, years ago, I had a male client whose wife was screwing her AP in the car while their 1 year old was present in the car seat. They got busted by police in a park and I used that to get all her parental rights terminated and she's also now a registered sex offender and can only have supervised visitation with the child who would be around 10 by now. A lot of people don't know that having sex in front of a child with an adult that is NOT a biological parent of the child is a sex crime.
> 
> Anyway, I was reviewing a case recently where we're representing the wife in a divorce but she was the cheater. I'm not fond of those instances but we'll still do our best for our clients. They're in their 40's, she cheated with a single coworker in his 20's. She got the house, primary custody of the kids, and they split 401K's. Hers had a total value of $11K. His had over $400K in it. She got $200K of his retirement account. He got $5500 from hers. She also moved the new boyfriend into the family home and he now shares the same bed as her hubby used to. He's in a two bedroom apartment. I know because as part of the divorce agreement we (she and us) got to inspect the new digs to make sure they were suitable for the kids when they visit him (two weekends per month, 1 week over the summer).
> 
> ...


*And what about those of us who cannot afford the best legal representation that we can or get forced by the presiding judge to go it alone as pro se?

What’s in it for us?

The mantra of most family law firms should preeminently be “with justice for all!”

Unfortunately, the procurement of legal representation has now sadly evolved into, “just how much money did you say you have?”*


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

VladDracul said:


> Why should an ex-spouse, stay at home mom type, be less entitled to a % of her former husbands retirement plan than any other investment he made? Whatever caused the demise of the marriage, the money invested is a family asset and she made sacrifices to accumulated the funds. My observation is for every SAHM ditching her husband for a boytoy there are two "self-made" successful men ditching their wives for a new trophy wife, you know, "so they can grow".


I couldn’t agree more with you.I own a health center and most of my employees are women.Four of them are divorced and in all four cases their husbands cheated.
These women are very fit with great bodies and from what I can gather their husbands traded down in every instance.Two of the divorces happened while I owned the business and I got my own law firm to handle their cases.
You’ve heard of piranha lawyers,my guys are more like velociraptors.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

VladDracul said:


> Why should an ex-spouse, stay at home mom type, be less entitled to a % of her former husbands retirement plan than any other investment he made? Whatever caused the demise of the marriage, the money invested is a family asset and she made sacrifices to accumulated the funds. My observation is for every SAHM ditching her husband for a boytoy there are two "self-made" successful men ditching their wives for a new trophy wife, you know, "so they can grow".


Agreed. When there is an enormous disparity in income then the assets should all be considered joint, including retirement savings. The SAHM or SAHD does not have the ability to save separately for their own retirement.

eta: But I would encourage each have their own named retirement accounts with equal contributions. In case of divorce these accounts would then cancel each other out.


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

I am so glad @VermiciousKnid started this thread. 
His inside insight is very valuable to us that are stillsearching for answers.
I'd like to second the stickie on this thread.


----------



## Rick Blaine (Mar 27, 2017)

StillSearching said:


> Is it moral to take a case that goes against your morals?
> Turn the case down. Take a new case.
> Unless it really doesn't go against you morals.
> Good lawyers have them.


VK, I hope you consider this. There is no real code of ethics that require you to screw over a betrayed spouse. Your firm is probably making a ton of money, but all the money in the world can't soothe a good man's conscience., and you come across as a really good guy.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

My observation is that lawyers see justice differently than the rest of us. Lawyers tend to see the system as justice. That is, when the system works correctly, the process itself is what is justice. When a person has competent legal representation and the process defined in the law is followed, justice has occurred. Whereas the rest of us view justice as being a righteous outcome.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

Rick Blaine said:


> VK, I hope you consider this. There is no real code of ethics that require you to screw over a betrayed spouse. Your firm is probably making a ton of money, but all the money in the world can't soothe a good man's conscience., and you come across as a really good guy.


At the risk of playing devils advocate I think lot of people just don’t get it when it comes to lawyers.
Your lawyer is working for YOU.He or she is under YOUR instructions.In a divorce case he doesn’t know your spouse and has no interest in them other than they are his opponent in this particular case.He goes as hard or as easy as you tell him to.
To say a lawyer shouldn’t take a case in certain circumstances is naive,a lawyer lives and dies by his reputation and in this situation nice guys finish last.
Consider a public defender in let’s say an assault charge.He may know in his heart that his client is guilty but he has to do his best to defend his client or else he risks losing his job and career.
Now we can all be sanctimonious and say let the guilty face their punishment but what happens when it is your son or daughter facing jail,every person I know would do their damnest to keep their kids out of jail.

When I started my own business I had to use a particular type of lawyer,an intellectual property specialist to be exact.Some of my designs were being copied and sold in Europe by an American company.I won the case after spending over two years and ten million dollars on legal fees,the other guys just couldn’t fight on ,they didn’t have the cash.The judge awarded me two hundred grand a week for every week that they had ripped me off.When they asked to settle I completely destroyed them as far as the law would let me,I took their business,cars,property and everyone working for them was laid off.
Did I enjoy doing it? I’ll be honest and say I didn’t give them a second thought,they were stealing ideas that had taken me years to get into development and I would have spent my last dollar to take them down.My own lawyer asked me did I not think I was going to far and my answer to her was I will happily leave them penniless and if she had a problem I will get another lawyer.
This is my point.Your lawyer works for YOU.
As an aside I don’t think I would go so far now,I have mellowed a little.


----------



## Bonkers (Nov 26, 2017)

Thor said:


> Prenup Prenup Prenup to protect your retirement savings!


Pfft. You want to protect yourself financially when you're in a relationship with a person who has significantly less income and assets, you don't marry them. 

PERIOD. 

Prenups are often overturned, and even if they aren't you'll spend a boatload in legal fees defending yourself from the legal action. 

There is no better protection than staying unmarried.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Bonkers said:


> Pfft. You want to protect yourself financially when you're in a relationship with a person who has significantly less income and assets, you don't marry them.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> ...


Staying unmarried is not practical for younger people who want families, aka want kids, and in many cases it becomes common law marriage even without an official marriage certificate.

As to differential incomes, I have no problem with that as long as it is understood from the outset. Even a SAHM situation is fine, and I think in many cases a very good thing for the family and kids. But one has to understand, too, that divorce is a possibility which could lead to life long alimony in such a situation. But as long as it is understood from the beginning, I have no problem with people agreeing to it.

But that is where bad behavior should also be taken into consideration, and where our legal system badly fails. To award division of assets and alimony to a cheater is not justice. But the courts aren't interested in justice.

As to prenups failing, no they don't regularly fail. Just like wills, anything can be challenged. The larger the money involved, the more crazy the legal challenges will be. There are other vehicles such as trusts which can be used to protect assets.


----------



## Bonkers (Nov 26, 2017)

@Thor has several misconceptions about marriage, thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify them.



Thor said:


> Staying unmarried is not practical for younger people who want families


Of course it's practical. Marriage provides no advantage to young couples who want families. In fact many more couples are staying unmarried including those who are considering or in the process of building families.

From here: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/0614/Singles-nation-Why-so-many-Americans-are-unmarried 

_Four in 10 Americans went ever further, telling Pew researchers in 2010 that marriage was becoming obsolete. In 1950, married couples represented 78 percent of households in the United States. In 2011, the US Census Bureau reported, that percentage had dropped to 48 percent. In short, academics say, American society is in the midst of a fundamental social and demographic shift, the “greatest social change of the last 60 years that we haven't already named and identified,”_



Thor said:


> In many cases it becomes common law marriage even without an official marriage certificate.


 @Thor

Only 6 states recognize common law marriages, and each has specific stipulations as to what other factors apply to make it an official common law marriage. The rest only include it as a grandfather clause for established couples that have been living together since the mid 90s. In addition, common law marriages only take effect after some period of time, as much as 7 or even 10 years of cohabitation, during which time the majority of relationships and marriages usually fail anyway so they won't even GET to the point of common law marriage. 



Thor said:


> As to differential incomes, I have no problem with that as long as it is understood from the outset. Even a SAHM situation is fine, and I think in many cases a very good thing for the family and kids. But one has to understand, too, that divorce is a possibility which could lead to life long alimony in such a situation.


 @Thor while it's nice that you have no problem with it if both parties understand that there could be a divorce with lifelong alimony, the problem is that most people don't think they will be one of the over 55% of first time married couples and over 62% of subsequent married couples who will experience divorce, when they exchange vows they are completely ignorant as to exactly what sort of lifelong commitment they are actually making, until of course they're starting a divorce summons in the face.



Thor said:


> But that is where bad behavior should also be taken into consideration, and where our legal system badly fails. To award division of assets and alimony to a cheater is not justice. But the courts aren't interested in justice.


Bad behavior "should" be taken into consideration, but it isn't. Not anymore. It used to be, and in a select few states where fault is considered and can actually be proven it just might be a reality for a betrayed spouse to come out ahead- but for most divorcing people it's not reality, and it's because it's not practical for courts to delve into the issues that caused the demise of the marriage- it's too time consuming and expensive and the court system simply cannot handle the overload it would create. In addition, legal fees for both parties would be even more astronomical than they are now, with no solid chance of "winning" unless you've actually got a video tape of the cheater in bed with their affair partner. 



Thor said:


> As to prenups failing, no they don't regularly fail. Just like wills, anything can be challenged. The larger the money involved, the more crazy the legal challenges will be.


Prenups fail often enough that they cannot be relied on for protection of assets. As you said yourself, the legal costs can be extremely high in the event of a challenge, even if it ultimately fails. In addition there are several other good reasons to avoid a prenup, especially in first marriages. 

More here: 5 Realities About Prenuptial Agreements ? Why Having One May Be a Bad Choice For Your Marriage | IVKDLaw



Thor said:


> There are other vehicles such as trusts which can be used to protect assets.


Simply not true. 

From here: http://info.legalzoom.com/can-irrevocable-trust-protect-assets-divorce-25752.html

_ In the divorce context, whether irrevocable trust property will be subject to division between you and your spouse turns on whether it was established during or before the marriage._


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

Thor said:


> My advice to everyone planning on getting married is a prenup which states that retirement accounts are not marital assets. With the exception of SAHM types of situations, or the surgeon married to the teacher, where the incomes are hugely different, there is no reason each person cannot save significantly for their own retirement.
> 
> There is no reason the lazy saver (or the prolific spender) should grab the retirement savings of the careful planner who sacrifices to save. My ex got half of my 401k. The death knell to our marriage was her significant financial infidelity. While there were other infidelities and problems along the way, it was deeply enraging to me that she was entitled to half my savings after she had blithely refused any meaningful savings. She is getting a very nice inheritance, which of course I had zero entitlement to in the divorce!
> 
> Prenup Prenup Prenup to protect your retirement savings!


Private agreements can't trump state law. If the state where the married couple resides has laws in place governing what are and aren't marital assets, and almost all states do, then that will prevail during a divorce proceeding. Private agreements never trump law.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

VermiciousKnid said:


> Private agreements can't trump state law. If the state where the married couple resides has laws in place governing what are and aren't marital assets, and almost all states do, then that will prevail during a divorce proceeding. Private agreements never trump law.


I am definitely for kicking government out of marriage.


----------



## WonkyNinja (Feb 28, 2013)

VermiciousKnid said:


> I hate to use this quote because Reese Witherspoon used it in Legally Blonde but it's the truth.


I suppose the ideal of both parties considering winning to be an equitable settlement with the minimum of impact on the children would come under another Legally Blonde quote "Dare to dream Ms. Woods" from the same scene? 

I will now head outside proudly wearing these excellent rose colored spectacles. :laugh:


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

VermiciousKnid said:


> Private agreements can't trump state law. If the state where the married couple resides has laws in place governing what are and aren't marital assets, and almost all states do, then that will prevail during a divorce proceeding. Private agreements never trump law.


How many people know this though.They go into a marriage with a prenup that’s not worth the paper it’s printed on but some shyster lawyer had no problem drawing it up.
Like you said get the best lawyer you can afford.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

WonkyNinja said:


> I suppose the ideal of both parties considering winning to be an equitable settlement with the minimum of impact on the children would come under another Legally Blonde quote "Dare to dream Ms. Woods" from the same scene?
> 
> I will now head outside proudly wearing these excellent rose colored spectacles. :laugh:


The best legal one liner has to be “The man who defends himself has a fool for a client”


----------



## Bonkers (Nov 26, 2017)

Andy1001 said:


> How many people know this though.They go into a marriage with a prenup that’s not worth the paper it’s printed on but some shyster lawyer had no problem drawing it up.


Not only crooked attorneys. Could just be the average attorney who doesn't know that the prenup can be effectively challenged. There's lots of incompetance out there, including my first 3 divorce attorneys who either didn't know or didn't care.


----------



## Rick Blaine (Mar 27, 2017)

Andy1001 said:


> At the risk of playing devils advocate I think lot of people just don’t get it when it comes to lawyers.
> Your lawyer is working for YOU.He or she is under YOUR instructions.In a divorce case he doesn’t know your spouse and has no interest in them other than they are his opponent in this particular case.He goes as hard or as easy as you tell him to.
> To say a lawyer shouldn’t take a case in certain circumstances is naive,a lawyer lives and dies by his reputation and in this situation nice guys finish last.
> Consider a public defender in let’s say an assault charge.He may know in his heart that his client is guilty but he has to do his best to defend his client or else he risks losing his job and career.
> ...


This isn't complicated. When a lawyer represents a scoundrel and wins the case that attorney owns the injustice. There is no way around that. They get to enjoy the financial benefits of the win, but they are culpable in terms of the injustice. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## Bonkers (Nov 26, 2017)

Rick Blaine said:


> This isn't complicated. When a lawyer represents a scoundrel and wins the case that attorney owns the injustice. There is no way around that. They get to enjoy the financial benefits of the win, but they are culpable in terms of the injustice. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


What does this even mean?

The attorney "owns the injustice". 

Who gives a damn? The attorney sure doesn't he or she simply wants the fee for services rendered and they're on to the next. They don't look back and there's no such thing as "karma" except in fairy tales.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

Rick Blaine said:


> This isn't complicated. When a lawyer represents a scoundrel and wins the case that attorney owns the injustice. There is no way around that. They get to enjoy the financial benefits of the win, but they are culpable in terms of the injustice. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


If you are talking purely financial benefits then surely you realize that the lawyer gets paid win or lose in most lawsuits and especially in divorce cases.
As to owning the injustice I think you are being naive.Lawyers don’t make law,they try to apply it to the best of their ability for the benefit of their client.
Now I know there are many people here on tam who have been screwed over by smart lawyers working for their spouses and I’m not in any way trying to justify that but this goes back to the op’s first post.
Get the best lawyer you can find,beg borrow or steal but do not go up against a shark with a toothpick,you will get eaten.


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

Andy1001 said:


> The best legal one liner has to be “The man who defends himself has a fool for a client”




And to think my daughter has 1 year left of law school. I hope I’ve left her with good morals to use.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Bonkers said:


> @Thor has several misconceptions about marriage, thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify them.


Your reply is opinions, to which you are entitled, and some not necessarily accurate legal positions. Prenups depend entirely on the state the people are in when the document is created, and where they are when they get divorced. Different states look at different aspects of prenups ... differently. It may be entirely possible to shield individual retirement savings in a divorce. Or not. Depending on where you are. Good lawyers need to be involved in the creation of a prenup.

And, as I said, the bigger the $$$ involved the crazier the attacks will be. Someone with $100M is for sure going to get every prenup, will, and trust challenged simply because of the dollars involved. But the typical person with a typical 401k protected by a prenup done properly is quite likely to find their assets safely protected. Different states view alimony provisions in a prenup differently, with some honoring it and others not.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

StillSearching said:


> And to think my daughter has 1 year left of law school. I hope I’ve left her with good morals to use.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well to be fair we are only discussing criminal/divorce proceedings here,there are so many other aspects to law, property,medical negligence,intellectual property (Patent) law to name but a few.


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

Rick Blaine said:


> This isn't complicated. When a lawyer represents a scoundrel and wins the case that attorney owns the injustice.


I don't see a real difference between someone who gets the advantage via a good attorney and someone who gets the advantage because of looks, height, sex appeal, et cetera. Why is it so bad to leverage a legal eagle while considered ok to leverage physical attributes for personal advantage? Can you say the gorgeous chick who escapes a traffic ticket is a scoundrel who owns the injustice?


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

VladDracul said:


> I don't see a real difference between someone who gets the advantage via a good attorney and someone who gets the advantage because of looks, height, sex appeal, et cetera. Why is it so bad to leverage a legal eagle while considered ok to leverage physical attributes for personal advantage? Can you say the gorgeous chick who escapes a traffic ticket is a scoundrel who owns the injustice?


This reminds me of a thread a few months ago where the subject of hot college girls living with guys who let them live rent free in return for being their girlfriend.These guys would probably never succeed with girls as hot as this if it wasn’t for the fact they had their own apts/houses.
Most of the people who voiced objections were guys.....


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

Andy1001 said:


> When I started my own business I had to use a particular type of lawyer,an intellectual property specialist to be exact.Some of my designs were being copied and sold in Europe by an American company.I won the case after spending over two years and ten million dollars on legal fees,the other guys just couldn’t fight on ,they didn’t have the cash.The judge awarded me two hundred grand a week for every week that they had ripped me off.When they asked to settle I completely destroyed them as far as the law would let me,I took their business,cars,property and everyone working for them was laid off.
> Did I enjoy doing it? I’ll be honest and say I didn’t give them a second thought,they were stealing ideas that had taken me years to get into development and I would have spent my last dollar to take them down.My own lawyer asked me did I not think I was going to far and my answer to her was I will happily leave them penniless and if she had a problem I will get another lawyer.
> This is my point.Your lawyer works for YOU.
> As an aside I don’t think I would go so far now,I have mellowed a little.


I don't have any problem with the fact that you were so harsh that it resulted in innocent people being laid off. You were pursuing justice; those layoffs were the result of their employer's actions in ripping off your designs in the first place. Their salaries had been involuntarily funded by you for who knows how long in the first place.


----------



## sandcastle (Sep 5, 2014)

The Family Law branch of the Court system is completely rigged and an artificially controlled market.

Meet and Confer can go on for years.
Discovery ? Break every law and not one person cares.

The less money your communal assets are the quicker you get a settlement. And of course Daddy wants 50/50 on the kids.

Remember- one can bifurcate and sit on the assets until the SOL are up.

Totally rigged game- thanks Knid!


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

Andy1001 said:


> This reminds me of a thread a few months ago where the subject of hot college girls living with guys who let them live rent free in return for being their girlfriend.These guys would probably never succeed with girls as hot as this if it wasn’t for the fact they had their own apts/houses.


Its almost as if folks think its a bad thing to score with a hot chick if its done by any means other than physical attributes she finds attractive. I don't see the logic in that thinking. Its just quid pro quo by way of another medium of exchange. One guy has the chiseled good looks and the other guy has the apartment. Both have something the hot college girls want (which puts a smile on both guys' faces).


----------



## Rick Blaine (Mar 27, 2017)

VladDracul said:


> I don't see a real difference between someone who gets the advantage via a good attorney and someone who gets the advantage because of looks, height, sex appeal, et cetera. Why is it so bad to leverage a legal eagle while considered ok to leverage physical attributes for personal advantage? Can you say the gorgeous chick who escapes a traffic ticket is a scoundrel who owns the injustice?


Two things can be equally true.


----------



## Rick Blaine (Mar 27, 2017)

Andy1001 said:


> If you are talking purely financial benefits then surely you realize that the lawyer gets paid win or lose in most lawsuits and especially in divorce cases.
> As to owning the injustice I think you are being naive.Lawyers don’t make law,they try to apply it to the best of their ability for the benefit of their client.
> Now I know there are many people here on tam who have been screwed over by smart lawyers working for their spouses and I’m not in any way trying to justify that but this goes back to the op’s first post.
> Get the best lawyer you can find,beg borrow or steal but do not go up against a shark with a toothpick,you will get eaten.


Naive? Not at all. I hired an excellent attorney when I divorced my wife who cheated. My attorney served me quite well. I get the legal system, and furthermore I understand that the rule of law sucks but it's the best system available. Still, none of that has anything to do with my original post. The attorney who represents and serves a client who violates and steals from a another person cannot be excused from the injustice just because he was doing his job.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

It's not the attorney's fault that the laws are unjust, we all own that.


----------



## Bonkers (Nov 26, 2017)

Rick Blaine said:


> Naive? Not at all. I hired an excellent attorney when I divorced my wife who cheated. My attorney served me quite well. I get the legal system, and furthermore I understand that the rule of law sucks but it's the best system available. Still, none of that has anything to do with my original post. The attorney who represents and serves a client who violates and steals from a another person cannot be excused from the injustice just because he was doing his job.


Who isn't going to "excuse the attorney from injustice"??

You?

You think a well paid attorney gives a rat's ass if someone excuses them for it?


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

VermiciousKnid said:


> I do take a lot of pleasure when my firm helps a betrayed spouse really crush the life out of their cheating spouse in divorce court. I'm a managing partner these days so I haven't done case work in quite a while but I get pulled in for consultation all the time. I've used affairs to get really favorable divorce settlements for clients who were the betrayed spouse. Once, years ago, I had a male client whose wife was screwing her AP in the car while their 1 year old was present in the car seat. They got busted by police in a park and I used that to get all her parental rights terminated and she's also now a registered sex offender and can only have supervised visitation with the child who would be around 10 by now. A lot of people don't know that having sex in front of a child with an adult that is NOT a biological parent of the child is a sex crime.
> 
> Anyway, I was reviewing a case recently where we're representing the wife in a divorce but she was the cheater. I'm not fond of those instances but we'll still do our best for our clients. They're in their 40's, she cheated with a single coworker in his 20's. She got the house, primary custody of the kids, and they split 401K's. Hers had a total value of $11K. His had over $400K in it. She got $200K of his retirement account. He got $5500 from hers. She also moved the new boyfriend into the family home and he now shares the same bed as her hubby used to. He's in a two bedroom apartment. I know because as part of the divorce agreement we (she and us) got to inspect the new digs to make sure they were suitable for the kids when they visit him (two weekends per month, 1 week over the summer).


The fact that "crush the life out of" is a phrase that comes so easily out of the lips of so many lawyers is the reason why our system is ****ed. When that phrase is so common, then collaboration cannot live in this environment.

Yeah, the bed thing...equality is all about each person getting what they want - which is not equal in visual terms.

When a man divorces, he HAS to get rid of the bed. No woman will share a bed that the man had another woman in. Women? Every one I've been with had plenty of men in her bed before me and made sure I knew about it, too.
Cases like this actually make me feel like crap but it would be unethical not to do the best you can for your clients.



VermiciousKnid said:


> The point is life isn't fair and good people get screwed. If you're in any of these situations get the best lawyer you can.


Life is 100% random and chaotic, which is the most fair that anything can be. It's our legal system that institutionalizes unfairness.


----------



## Rick Blaine (Mar 27, 2017)

Bonkers said:


> Who isn't going to "excuse the attorney from injustice"??
> 
> You?
> 
> You think a well paid attorney gives a rat's ass if someone excuses them for it?


We are accountable for our actions. Lao Tzu put it this way:

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become your actions.
Watch you actions; they become your character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

Rick Blaine said:


> We are accountable for our actions. Lao Tzu put it this way:
> 
> Watch your thoughts; they become words.
> Watch your words; they become your actions.
> ...


He said care what other people think you will always be their prisoner.
He also said the best fighter is never angry.
Don’t get mad,get a better lawyer.(He didn’t say that,I did)


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

sokillme said:


> It's not the attorney's fault that the laws are unjust, we all own that.


The large majority of elected officials are lawyers or have law degrees. It's not the attorneys fault the laws are not fair but the elected officials, lawyers, who have the power to change laws and understand full well how screwed up they are have no incentive to enact change because in the case of divorce it''s a money maker for lawyers. 

Most attorneys I know have huge egos which isn't a bad thing but I do think it clouds judgement at times. They must work in the best interests of the client but in my opinion sometimes the best interests of the client isn't "winning" the big settlement but getting what is generally the most disruptive event in a person's life over with I a fair and quick manner is the best interests of the client and that gets lost.


----------



## CantBelieveThis (Feb 25, 2014)

VermiciousKnid said:


> Anyway, I was reviewing a case recently where we're representing the wife in a divorce but she was the cheater. I'm not fond of those instances but we'll still do our best for our clients. They're in their 40's, she cheated with a single coworker in his 20's. She got the house, primary custody of the kids, and they split 401K's. Hers had a total value of $11K. His had over $400K in it. She got $200K of his retirement account. He got $5500 from hers. She also moved the new boyfriend into the family home and he now shares the same bed as her hubby used to. He's in a two bedroom apartment. I know because as part of the divorce agreement we (she and us) got to inspect the new digs to make sure they were suitable for the kids when they visit him (two weekends per month, 1 week over the summer).


This would been me if I had divorced my W 4 years ago when she cheated, my lawyer told me the exact same scenario, and oh add to that bullcrap lifetime alimony courtesy of the state of FL family laws. Thankfully she snapped out if it and has done a lot work to R with me and things are totally different now. Is very easy to throw "divorce them!" , but that's just words, reality is a totally different story, ijs... Even then there are cases where u do have to do it no matter what, and it does stink the laws are such garbage.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

Well divorce laws created MGTOW. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## musicftw07 (Jun 23, 2016)

StillSearching said:


> Well divorce laws created MGTOW.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Truer words have never been spoken.

I highly disagree with MGTOW politics, but I find considerable value in the lifestyle. Going my own way for a few years allowed me to vastly increase my earnings and forge a better relationship with my daughter.

I'd marry my girlfriend in a few years with no reservations. She's the perfect lady for me. But I won't go in without a pre-nup, and she agrees. We both have assets we wish to protect.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

StillSearching said:


> Well divorce laws created MGTOW.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


When one of our male clients was really taking it in the rear end in a divorce, he was doing a lot of online reading and came across MGTOW and "red pill" philosophy. He told me about it one day when we were having lunch. He said reading that stuff was helping him find his strength and manhood more than anything else has. More than sites like these, more than his therapist. I told him whatever makes you feel better and be stronger can't be bad although I had never heard of either of these things. Western societies have been emasculating males for decades now. I see it in the jilted men we serve.

I myself am not John Wayne but I'm a lawyer so I'm used to standing up for myself and being a total a-hole as needed (I love my wife but if she betrayed me I'd have no problem telling her to GTFO and bringing the legal hammer down on her head) but younger men have really been indoctrinated into a fem-dominant society. They're meek and they're very effeminate acting. Subsequently their cheating wives are strong and dominant. They cheat, their jilted hubbies cry and beg them to please stay with them...blah blah blah. I've seen it over and over. A brow-beaten husband used to be an exception back in the 80's when I started practicing. Now they're the norm and strong men not willing to put up with a cheating wife are the exception.

I completely agree that MGTOW and red pill only exist as a backlash to the effeminization of western culture.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Wow, this thread really makes me sick at what our system of justice has become. Judges legislating from the bench. If 50/50 is the standard, it should be 50/50 barring some insane stuff (drugs, violence, what not). I also think that the whole legal profession needs to have training in doing what is morally correct. IT is not morally correct to go for 'full custody' without cause. I would argue it is also unethical. Same with division of assets.

thank god I am not going through D.... knock on wood.


----------



## CantBelieveThis (Feb 25, 2014)

VermiciousKnid said:


> When one of our male clients was really taking it in the rear end in a divorce, he was doing a lot of online reading and came across MGTOW and "red pill" philosophy. He told me about it one day when we were having lunch. He said reading that stuff was helping him find his strength and manhood more than anything else has. More than sites like these, more than his therapist. I told him whatever makes you feel better and be stronger can't be bad although I had never heard of either of these things. Western societies have been emasculating males for decades now. I see it in the jilted men we serve.
> 
> I myself am not John Wayne but I'm a lawyer so I'm used to standing up for myself and being a total a-hole as needed (I love my wife but if she betrayed me I'd have no problem telling her to GTFO and bringing the legal hammer down on her head) but younger men have really been indoctrinated into a fem-dominant society. They're meek and they're very effeminate acting. Subsequently their cheating wives are strong and dominant. They cheat, their jilted hubbies cry and beg them to please stay with them...blah blah blah. I've seen it over and over. A brow-beaten husband used to be an exception back in the 80's when I started practicing. Now they're the norm and strong men not willing to put up with a cheating wife are the exception.
> 
> I completely agree that MGTOW and red pill only exist as a backlash to the effeminization of western culture.


MGTOW, I learn something new everyday, love my Wikipedia 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Broken_in_Brooklyn (Feb 21, 2013)

VermiciousKnid said:


> I do take a lot of pleasure when my firm helps a betrayed spouse really crush the life out of their cheating spouse in divorce court. I'm a managing partner these days so I haven't done case work in quite a while but I get pulled in for consultation all the time. I've used affairs to get really favorable divorce settlements for clients who were the betrayed spouse. Once, years ago, I had a male client whose wife was screwing her AP in the car while their 1 year old was present in the car seat. They got busted by police in a park and I used that to get all her parental rights terminated and she's also now a registered sex offender and can only have supervised visitation with the child who would be around 10 by now. A lot of people don't know that having sex in front of a child with an adult that is NOT a biological parent of the child is a sex crime.
> 
> Anyway, I was reviewing a case recently where we're representing the wife in a divorce but she was the cheater. I'm not fond of those instances but we'll still do our best for our clients. They're in their 40's, she cheated with a single coworker in his 20's. * She got the house, primary custody of the kids, and they split 401K's.* Hers had a total value of $11K. His had over $400K in it. She got $200K of his retirement account. He got $5500 from hers. She also moved the new boyfriend into the family home and he now shares the same bed as her hubby used to. He's in a two bedroom apartment. I know because as part of the divorce agreement we (she and us) got to inspect the new digs to make sure they were suitable for the kids when they visit him (two weekends per month, 1 week over the summer).
> 
> ...


 OP , I have a couple of questions regarding your first post.

1) Was this a equitable distribution state in terms of marital assets accrued during marriage?

2) Were their salaries similar? i.e each contributed equally during the duration of the marriage? 

3) In this particular state 's divorce laws does the best interests of dependent children trump the laws concerning equitable distribution? 

4) How would you rate this guy's lawyer? Would a better lawyer or a better paid lawyer been able to change the outcome?


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

Broken_in_Brooklyn said:


> OP , I have a couple of questions regarding your first post.
> 
> 1) Was this a equitable distribution state in terms of marital assets accrued during marriage?
> 
> ...


1. "Equitable distribution" is left a vague concept on purpose. There are some guidelines but a lot of it is subjective and is left for the judge to decide.

2. In that particular case she was a stay-at-home-mom.

3. Child welfare usually trumps most other laws. In family court the judges have a lot more leeway than in criminal court. There is more of an effort by the judge to "do what's right" even if it is not fully compliant with conflicting laws. There are many cases in criminal and civil courts where different laws conflict with each other. That's one of the roles of judges, to decide the outcome when that happens. Child welfare is like a sacred cow in most situations.

4. His lawyer was competent but there wasn't much that even a much more expensive attorney could have done. Her cheating meant nothing to the court. It never does. What was important was keeping the kids' lives as intact as possible. No way her husband was going to get even 50/50 custody. He made a lot of money but his job required a lot of travel. She was a SAHM. She's there for the kids any/all times they need her. He can't be, he's out earning the family income. This was pretty open and shut who would get the kids and the family home.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

naiveonedave said:


> Wow, this thread really makes me sick at what our system of justice has become. Judges legislating from the bench. If 50/50 is the standard, it should be 50/50 barring some insane stuff (drugs, violence, what not). I also think that the whole legal profession needs to have training in doing what is morally correct. IT is not morally correct to go for 'full custody' without cause. I would argue it is also unethical. Same with division of assets.
> 
> thank god I am not going through D.... knock on wood.


I agree with you philosophically but again, "law is reason, free from passion." Morality is a very subjective concept. When the nazis were gassing Jews, if you had asked them, they would have said what they were doing was moral. The courts try very hard to keep reason as the paramount guideline of the legal process and to keep morality out of it. That's why cheating has almost zero impact in family court unless it was explicitly covered in a pre-nup. Even pre-nup's are barely worth the paper they're written on. Especially if they don't align with state divorce/custody laws. Private agreements never trump the law. 

50/50 custody is a common misconception/urban legend. Rarely is it granted because 50/50 for the kids having to move back and forth to two different households until they're 18 years old is not what's in their best interest. It's in their best interest to stay in the family home (unless it's decreed that it has to be sold for financial reasons) and to stay with whomever was already the primary caregiver, 90+ % of the time that's the mother. The father usually gets every other weekend and one or two weeks over the summer. That allows the children to maintain some contact and relationship with the non-care giving parent without causing harmful disruptions in their lives. At least that's what the courts in all western cultures have decided. Some cultures are different. Under Shariah law the man dominates everything in a divorce. He alone decides if there will even be a divorce and he decides who lives where and how much custody/visitation of children that he and/or his wife will have. In their culture that's the moral thing to do.

Morality is subjective.


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

VermiciousKnid said:


> 1. "Equitable distribution" is left a vague concept on purpose. There are some guidelines but a lot of it is subjective and is left for the judge to decide.
> 
> 2. In that particular case she was a stay-at-home-mom.
> 
> ...


Well with the way that feel out on him, If i were him everyone on Gods green earth would know what she'd done to the marriage.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

StillSearching said:


> Well with the way that feel out on him, If i were him everyone on Gods green earth would know what she'd done to the marriage.


As long as that is kept truthful then you have every right to blast it from the highest mountains to the widest audience you can manage.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

VermiciousKnid said:


> I agree with you philosophically but again, "law is reason, free from passion." Morality is a very subjective concept. When the nazis were gassing Jews, if you had asked them, they would have said what they were doing was moral. The courts try very hard to keep reason as the paramount guideline of the legal process and to keep morality out of it. That's why cheating has almost zero impact in family court unless it was explicitly covered in a pre-nup. Even pre-nup's are barely worth the paper they're written on. Especially if they don't align with state divorce/custody laws. Private agreements never trump the law.
> 
> 50/50 custody is a common misconception/urban legend. Rarely is it granted because 50/50 for the kids having to move back and forth to two different households until they're 18 years old is not what's in their best interest. It's in their best interest to stay in the family home (unless it's decreed that it has to be sold for financial reasons) and to stay with whomever was already the primary caregiver, 90+ % of the time that's the mother. The father usually gets every other weekend and one or two weeks over the summer. That allows the children to maintain some contact and relationship with the non-care giving parent without causing harmful disruptions in their lives. At least that's what the courts in all western cultures have decided. Some cultures are different. Under Shariah law the man dominates everything in a divorce. He alone decides if there will even be a divorce and he decides who lives where and how much custody/visitation of children that he and/or his wife will have. In their culture that's the moral thing to do.
> 
> Morality is subjective.


agree to disagree on morality being subjective. (at least inside of the same country.)

I can see why judges think that, however, the impact of the loss of time the father gets with his kids is vastly underrated. It helps build the current generation of wimpy men and some crap behavior in women. In this case, I see why it isn't 50/50, but it should be every other weekend, 1/2 of xmas break and as much of summer break as the father could support, up to all of it, assuming they are living reasonably close. She (and He) probably should be prevented from moving more than 30 miles apart or so, without judicial review. Too easy for her to uproot the kids and then he gets even less time.


----------



## Broken_in_Brooklyn (Feb 21, 2013)

VermiciousKnid said:


> 1. "Equitable distribution" is left a vague concept on purpose. There are some guidelines but a lot of it is subjective and is left for the judge to decide.
> 
> 2. In that particular case she was a stay-at-home-mom.
> 
> ...


When the kids are grown she keeps the house? Could not a lawyer have argued that since she got 50% of his 401 should he not get 50% of home when children turn 18 or 21 or finish uni?


----------



## CantBelieveThis (Feb 25, 2014)

VermiciousKnid said:


> done. Her cheating meant nothing to the court. It never does. What was important was keeping the kids' lives as intact as possible. No way her husband was going to get even 50/50 custody. He made a lot of money but his job required a lot of travel. She was a SAHM. She's there for the kids any/all times they need her. He can't be, he's out earning the family income. This was pretty open and shut who would get the kids and the family home.


Dam even more similar to my situation,the more details you give!! I couldn't have wanted "or gotten 50/50 because of lot of business travel also, ****ty situation to see your kids even less because of career and a cheating spouse.
What really kills me is the lifetime alimony crap, what the heck is up w that??? Any insight you have into that? 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## CantBelieveThis (Feb 25, 2014)

VermiciousKnid said:


> As long as that is kept truthful then you have every right to blast it from the highest mountains to the widest audience you can manage.


True but so what, what would benefit one get out of that, and if your kids are older teenagers to understand I don't think it does them any good see their mom be humiliated...Right?
One thing Ive learned from bring a BH, no matter if you D or R, you have to eat a **** sandwich one size or the other..... Just totally cruel to be betrayed and yet still have to swallow it in any, even slightest way shape or form.
That being said being betrayed has not been the most painful experience of my life.... 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

CantBelieveThis said:


> Dam even more similar to my situation,the more details you give!! I couldn't have wanted "or gotten 50/50 because of lot of business travel also, ****ty situation to see your kids even less because of career and a cheating spouse.
> What really kills me is the lifetime alimony crap, what the heck is up w that??? Any insight you have into that?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


A lot of states have moved away from that. That presumes that a woman is never able to provide for herself. I believe you said you're in Florida? If so, unfortunately your state still has it. There was a bill a couple years ago I remember that would have ended permanent alimony but your governor vetoed it. If it does pass you can petition the court to do a review of your alimony. A good lawyer will help you work up a case, with documentation, showing that permanent alimony is financially straining on you. You can work that up yourself too.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

CantBelieveThis said:


> What really kills me is the lifetime alimony crap, what the heck is up w that??? Any insight you have into that?


In my state, lifetime alimony is a vestige of the very traditional family which is still widely popular here in the dominant religion. It is still very common to have a SAHM, at least until the kids are all in school. Then, moms frequently work only part time so that they can be home whenever the kids are home. Moms are expected to be competent and hard working in their roles, including running the household finances, which enables the husband to work hard at pursuing income. It is a partnership, where the SAHM does much to facilitate the finances, she's not a bum who sits on the couch ignoring the kids and doing no housework.

Alimony philosophically makes sense from a distance, as it was an expectation from the beginning that the wife would stay home.

Here alimony is permanent after 20 yrs of marriage. Between 10yrs and 20yrs it is 1:1 (so a 16 year marriage would result in 16 years of alimony). Less than 10 yrs of marriage, alimony is optional at the judges discretion. Alimony ends with re-marriage, and historically one would expect remarriage to occur in this culture. Though historically one would generally not expect divorce, not the way divorce is today.

The modern secular culture where both spouses work and can earn equally doesn't fit the original reasons for lifetime alimony. With no-fault divorce and equal rates of bad behavior between men and women, lifetime alimony is frequently a great injustice.


----------



## TheGoodGuy (Apr 22, 2013)

VermiciousKnid said:


> * Her cheating meant nothing to the court. * It never does. What was important was keeping the kids' lives as intact as possible. No way her husband was going to get even 50/50 custody. He made a lot of money but his job required a lot of travel. She was a SAHM. She's there for the kids any/all times they need her. He can't be, he's out earning the family income. This was pretty open and shut who would get the kids and the family home.


This makes me ill.


----------



## Uhenrcx0531 (Jan 2, 2018)

VermiciousKnid said:


> I do take a lot of pleasure when my firm helps a betrayed spouse really crush the life out of their cheating spouse in divorce court. I'm a managing partner these days so I haven't done case work in quite a while but I get pulled in for consultation all the time. I've used affairs to get really favorable divorce settlements for clients who were the betrayed spouse. Once, years ago, I had a male client whose wife was screwing her AP in the car while their 1 year old was present in the car seat. They got busted by police in a park and I used that to get all her parental rights terminated and she's also now a registered sex offender and can only have supervised visitation with the child who would be around 10 by now. A lot of people don't know that having sex in front of a child with an adult that is NOT a biological parent of the child is a sex crime.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




How do you find the best attorney? 
My husband has been cheating on me for the last 4 years with prostitutes, strippers & a couple area single broke Moms — he paid all of them for sexual favors 

He makes a very good living .. I work very part time, married 9 years.. no children together ... so I have met with a few attorneys & haven’t been impressed 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

Uhenrcx0531 said:


> How do you find the best attorney?
> My husband has been cheating on me for the last 4 years with prostitutes, strippers & a couple area single broke Moms — he paid all of them for sexual favors
> 
> He makes a very good living .. I work very part time, married 9 years.. no children together ... so I have met with a few attorneys & haven’t been impressed
> ...


Those attorneys weren't giving you their all because there are no kids. You working only part time and not having kids is going to look bad to the judge. They'll think you had no good reason to not be contributing a full time income to the marriage. In a case like yours it'll just be splitting marital assets and going your separate ways. There will be no alimony for either. There could be some arguments about you recovering your share of the marital assets spent on these hookers. That depends on which state you reside in.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

the more I think about this thread, the worse I think of Lawyers. As shown in this thread, their aim is really to be as greedy as possible for their client. The greed is the lack of morality, ethics, justice, etc. Sorry if this offends anyone.


----------



## Uhenrcx0531 (Jan 2, 2018)

VermiciousKnid said:


> Those attorneys weren't giving you their all because there are no kids. You working only part time and not having kids is going to look bad to the judge. They'll think you had no good reason to not be contributing a full time income to the marriage. In a case like yours it'll just be splitting marital assets and going your separate ways. There will be no alimony for either. There could be some arguments about you recovering your share of the marital assets spent on these hookers. That depends on which state you reside in.




Ohio
I work p/t because I’ve had 3 spinal fusion surgeries & visit a pain clinic regularly... 
(Refuse to go on disability)
my husband makes 500k a year & we traveled a lot... I’m not a mooch.. 
I have 2 teens, no children together


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

CantBelieveThis said:


> True but so what, what would benefit one get out of that, and if your kids are older teenagers to understand I don't think it does them any good see their mom be humiliated...Right?
> One thing Ive learned from bring a BH, no matter if you D or R, you have to eat a **** sandwich one size or the other..... Just totally cruel to be betrayed and yet still have to swallow it in any, even slightest way shape or form.
> *That being said being betrayed has not been the most painful experience of my life*....
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


All true. I've eaten that sandwich.
It may not be the worse pain in my life either. 
But i'm reminded that according to Dante, Judecca: The Ninth level of Hell is reserved for betrayers of the ones they love.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

naiveonedave said:


> the more I think about this thread, the worse I think of Lawyers. As shown in this thread, their aim is really to be as greedy as possible for their client. The greed is the lack of morality, ethics, justice, etc. Sorry if this offends anyone.


We're there to assist our clients as much as the law will allow. That could be financially, custody of children, division of assets, etc. My firm also helps people adopt children within the U.S. and from other countries.

I understand the general dislike for lawyers. Lawyers know and we joke about it all the time but I can't stress enough how important it is that you seek out the best lawyer you can find if you find yourself in a legal bind. We really are there to do the very best for you.


----------



## dubsey (Feb 21, 2013)

A lawyer's aim isn't greed, it's to do whatever is in the best interest's of their client. Full Stop. That could be greed, but most times isn't, and has nothing to do with a lack of morality or ethics. Actually, quite the opposite, by not doing what's in their client's best interest, that would be a complete and utter lack of ethics and morality. If there's a lack of ethics or morality, it comes almost entirely from the client. They're the one in charge.

When I divorced, I could have instructed my attorney to do a lot worse and made life a living hell for my wife. It wasn't in my best interests to do so, as we had to move on and become the best co-parents we could be for our child. Destroying her financially wouldn't help me out in any way. We had more than one conversation about "you don't have to do this, you know" and I'd reply with something like "yeah, but at what cost? I'm paying you to remind her of that, and convince her this is a really good deal, far better than she's entitled"


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Unethical lol. There is a good reason everyone thinks lawyers are absolute scumbags. Because 99.99999999% of the time you guys are. Then you explain away being a complete scumbag with your ethics and code. Whatever helps you sleep at night buddy.


The canon of legal ethics does demand doing the absolute best for your client, and there's nothing wrong with that. 

However... the OP, especially at his level as managing partner, has great discretion in who to choose to take on a client. It's not like he's some entry level public defender.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

dubsey said:


> A lawyer's aim isn't greed, it's to do whatever is in the best interest's of their client. Full Stop. That could be greed, but most times isn't, and has nothing to do with a lack of morality or ethics. Actually, quite the opposite, by not doing what's in their client's best interest, that would be a complete and utter lack of ethics and morality. If there's a lack of ethics or morality, it comes almost entirely from the client. They're the one in charge.
> 
> When I divorced, I could have instructed my attorney to do a lot worse and made life a living hell for my wife. It wasn't in my best interests to do so, as we had to move on and become the best co-parents we could be for our child. Destroying her financially wouldn't help me out in any way. We had more than one conversation about "you don't have to do this, you know" and I'd reply with something like "yeah, but at what cost? I'm paying you to remind her of that, and convince her this is a really good deal, far better than she's entitled"


The problem I have with your first paragraph is the way we measure success and failure in divorce court is typically financial. Who gets the most of the current pie and who gets the most of the future pie. IT IS GREED based, at least to some large extent. It is sometimes driven by the clients (I want to take my pos stbex spouse to the cleaners), sometimes its is driven by the legal profession. Why are there 'call lee free' people out there? They are trying to extract money from one party to the other, no matter what the real issues are.

In your case, you tempered the greed. That is what should happen. In the OP, the guy got taken to the cleaners. This is diametrically opposed to what you did.


----------



## dubsey (Feb 21, 2013)

Correct, but greed isn't the problem for the attorney. The attorney's ethics and morality are strictly beholden to the will of their client. It's not a lawyer problem. No different than a doctor having to perform a procedure on a criminal who probably deserves to die. It's their job, and the ethical & moral thing is to do it to the best of their abilities within the guidelines provided by their client.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> The canon of legal ethics does demand doing the absolute best for your client, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> However... the OP, especially at his level as managing partner, has great discretion in who to choose to take on a client. It's not like he's some entry level public defender.


Herein lies the problem. Raping one half in favor of the other is almost always immoral/unethical/unjust. Especially in things like divorce court and family law or situations where I am suing someone for 10X the harm I received (think accident or something). Also, as the OP stated, the judges try to do best for the kid, but often that is at the total expense of one of the adults, which is typically the man. 

There needs to be some balance. I know a guy who got screwed in divorce court. She was cheating, she got the $100K house (in 1995) and pretty much everything including alimony and child support. She never worked, got a move in bf. He lived is a pos trailer. This should never happen. A couple with children who divorce are going to have to expect standards of living to drop, the problem is that often the kids and custodial parent standard of living doesn't and the other parents does. I get the dead beat parent thing, but that is totally different, that is after the court case is settled.

I am sure there are cases where putting the criminal away for life are moral/ethical and just.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

naiveonedave said:


> There needs to be some balance. I know a guy who got screwed in divorce court. She was cheating, she got the $100K house (in 1995) and pretty much everything including alimony and child support. She never worked, got a move in bf. He lived is a pos trailer. This should never happen.


This sounds very much like the OPs case that "makes him feel bad." Which goes right back to my point. If he really is such a hot **** lawyer with the legal acumen to get that kind of settlement for a POS WS, he can simply choose not to accept that client, knowing that if he does accept, he will rape hubby without mercy.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

dubsey said:


> Correct, but greed isn't the problem for the attorney. The attorney's ethics and morality are strictly beholden to the will of their client. It's not a lawyer problem. No different than a doctor having to perform a procedure on a criminal who probably deserves to die. It's their job, and the ethical & moral thing is to do it to the best of their abilities within the guidelines provided by their client.


I disagree. The attorney's goal should be to get to a just outcome for their client. As I said earlier in the thread, there is one school of thought that the process itself is justice. However, the other school of thought would be that some measure of moral correctness is required for their to be justice. A case which runs through the system can, and frequently does, result in a terribly un-just outcome.

For example, if a lawyer knows beyond any doubt his client is guilty of all 100 murders he is accused of, is it moral for the lawyer to proceed in a way which leads to acquittal (presuming the prosecution was handled lawfully)? By bullying an emotionally fragile witness or other such tactic he might win acquittal. Now we might foist the blame onto the judge for allowing whatever mistakes happen, or we might blame the jury for being emotionally swayed by the defense (e.g. OJ). But was it morally ok for the lawyer to use every legal trick in the book to set the mass murderer free?

I'm not interested in creating all kinds of convoluted hypotheticals. I'm just making the point that such a defense attorney from an ethical standpoint might look for a sentence which considers all the known facts of the circumstances, and of course the attorney should seek to ensure all the evidence and testimony during the trial are legal (4th Amendment) and accurate. Justice for the client would be a sentence appropriate to the crimes, considering the facts and circumstances. Justice for society would be the same, which is conviction of the perp and rational sentencing. 

This is where the two philosophies part ways. If the process itself is justice, the outcome of any particular case is irrelevant. Yet for the people involved in the case, their entire lives are at stake. To them the outcome is the only relevant thing!

Looking at divorce cases then in the same light, I see justice as containing some measure of ethical behavior. Yet our legal system intentionally removes any such considerations. It is all about winning the most.

The reality is if a lawyer tells his client he won't fight for him, the client may fire him. And we know there are always humans out there willing to do _anything_ for money. So I don't see anything ever changing. Though any particular lawyer certainly can tell his client that he won't go where the client wants, thus maintaining his own ethical standards albeit at the possible loss of income. We don't have a justice system, we have a legal system.


----------

