In 2001 Brookman, a law firm in London, ran ads in the men’s bathrooms of pubs soliciting divorce business with a picture of a packed suitcase and the slogan “Ditch the bitch”. The Advertising Standards Agency later ruled against a complaint that the ad was offensive and encouraged divorce. Defenders of the law firm pointed out that it was evenhanded and also solicited women’s business with ads saying bad things about men. (“Dump the chump…”, Lawyers Weekly Australia, Aug. 19, 2004; account of controversy at ad agency site; Scott Norvell, “Tongue Tied”, FoxNews.com, May 21, 2001).
Posts Tagged ‘divorce’
Illinois court race: what it takes to win?
Careful about crossing the Litigation Lobby, cont’d: Dwight Kay, the finance chairman of Republican Lloyd Karmeier’s campaign in the hotly contested race for a seat on the Illinois Supreme Court (see Aug. 29, etc.), is crying foul and suing two political consultants over a visit the two paid to the home of Kay’s ex-wife in which Kay says the two falsely represented themselves as disability investigators and sought to elicit information from her about the couple’s divorce. One of the two consultants, Doug Wojcieszak, heads up a group called Victims and Families United, which is backed by trial lawyers in Illinois’s famed Madison County and promotes their interests. Wojcieszak and co-defendant Tom Denton of Tactical Consulting in Carbondale deny the charges and call the suit politically motivated and an example of hypocrisy (Jim Muir, “Two local men accused of Constitutional rights violations”, Southern Illinoisan, Aug. 12; “Defendants say lawsuit politically motivated”, same date).
Per AP, “Wojcieszak admits visiting Diane Kay on July 13. He said he was looking into Dwight Kay’s legal past since the candidate Kay supports, Karmeier, ‘wants to limit others’ access to the courts. …Wojcieszak also denies allegations he was behind an incident of garbage rifling last spring outside the Okawville office of Sen. David Luechtefeld, a longtime friend of Karmeier’s and chairman of his campaign.” (Susan Skiles Luke, “Lawyers group to watch judicial election ads”, AP/Chicago Sun-Times, no longer online). Curiously, Wojcieszak “served for a year as the executive director of Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch, a tort-reform group” and later switched sides. (Illinois Times, May 27).
California grandparents get visitation rights
State legislation is often reactive, suffering from the belief that no problem can possibly be made worse by creating a “remedy” for it in the judicial system. A few years back, a number of grandparents anecdotally and adversely affected by a child’s divorce mounted an effective publicity campaign calling for new laws, destined to pass because of the absence of an organized counter-lobby of citizens wishing to preserve their future parenting decisions from judicial micromanagement (Oct. 21, 2002). Thus, California Family Code ?? 3103-3104 permit grandparents to litigate visitation rights if a child’s parents divorce, even on the objections of both parents. It also permits the litigation of collateral issues arising from the existence of grandparents’ visitation rights, including using such rights as a “factor” to order a change of residence of the child (? 3103(f)) or providing for the resolution of additional child support issues relating to the grandparents’ visits (? 3103(g)). The possibility of such litigation is not an insubstantial bargaining chip, given that other California family law permits the court to order one spouse to pay the litigation expenses of both spouses. The law is in the news because one such litigation made it to the California Supreme Court, which upheld the constitutionality of the law in a 4-3 decision in In re Marriage of Harris, distinguishing it from a broader Washington state law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 in Troxel v. Granville. (Maura Dolan, “Court Backs Rights of Grandparents”, L.A. Times, Aug. 24; Bob Egelko, “Custody ruling backs grandparents’ rights”, San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 24; David Watson, “Statutes on Grandparent Visitation Pass Constitutional Muster”, Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Aug. 24) (via Bashman).
Canada: dog alimony arrives
“For the first time in Canada, a court has ordered a man to give his ex-wife monthly support payments for their dog. Kenneth Duncan, a truck driver in Edmonton, was told to pay $200 a month in alimony towards the upkeep of Crunchy, a St. Bernard. …Had Crunchy been a child, the monthly payment would have been $691.” (“Albertan ordered to pay ex-wife $200 a month for pet support”, CBC News, Aug. 10). More on pets in divorce: Feb. 17, 2003; May 14-15, 2002.
Jacoby & Meyers: zero net worth?
“An accountant tapped to help clean up the state’s matrimonial courts is under investigation by the FBI for allegedly making crooked evaluations in cases before embattled Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond, The Post has learned. … The feds are looking into complaints about [forensic accountant John R.] Johnson stemming from divorce squabbles in which he evaluated marital assets. The cases in Diamond’s court include the divorces of millionaire lawyer Gail Koff, head of the Jacoby & Meyers law firm, and fashion designer Cathy Hardwick.
“Johnson determined that Jacoby & Meyers had zero net worth — a finding that supported Diamond’s ruling. She had ruled that Koff’s husband, architect Ralph Brill, was responsible for half of the firm’s $8 million debt from tax problems. … Johnson also said that Hardwick’s name had no value.” (Brad Hamilton, “Divorce Expert Eyed for Covering His Assets”, New York Post, Jun. 27). Koff, we note, is the author of the Jacoby & Meyers Guide to Divorce (Henry Holt, 1991).
NYC’s Wilens & Baker reprimanded
New York subway riders have long been familiar with the high-volume ad campaigns of Wilens & Baker with its hotlines 1-800-DIVORCE (on which see Dec. 18-19, 2000), 1-800-IMMIGRATION and 1-800-BANKRUPT. At the moment the firm’s big campaign is aimed at recruiting patients who have received hormone replacement therapy: if they’ve taken Premarin or Prempro and later developed breast cancer, heart problems, or many other ailments, they may be entitled to compensation, the ads say. Wilens & Baker’s website declares that the law firm has “a real understanding of the emotional hardship that accompanies extremely unfortunate circumstances”.
Hmmm. It turns out the 12-lawyer firm and its partner Lawrence M. Wilens have just been censured by the New York judiciary for “engaging in a pattern of rude, neglectful and demeaning conduct toward clients” after admitting to 19 violations of the state’s Code of Professional Responsibility, according to New York Lawyer/New York Law Journal, which has numerous colorful details (Anthony Lin, “High-Visibility NY Law Firm Censured”, May 21). Although W&B’s Prempro website declares: “You deserve a firm which specializes in personal injury and mass tort litigation”, it does not mention that 80 percent of W&B’s caseload is actually in immigration law. In the disciplinary proceedings, the firm’s employees and Mr. Wilens in particular were found to have hurled insults at various immigrant clients, including those who could not afford to pay their bills. The firm said it had changed its practices and “Mr. Wilens and other senior lawyers at the firm completed anger management classes”, but the appellate panel refused a plea to keep the reprimand secret. It was also apparently unswayed by a character reference submitted by “Richard Katcher, the chairman of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, one of the city’s top corporate law firms. Mr. Katcher told the committee he was ‘buddies’ with Mr. Wilens and that they frequently dined, socialized and vacationed together. He said he had recommended Wilens and Baker on a number of occasions and Mr. Wilens was well regarded in professional and social circles.” David Giacalone, whose invaluable website has again suspended its specifically legal commentary, covers the story (May 21, & see his comments section).
Send Overlawyered a letter, go on TV
Viewers of Catherine Crier’s show on Court TV yesterday (see yesterday’s entry) should follow these links to find out more about the stories we discussed: lawsuit over unsolicited faxes results in unsolicited faxes to clients; the perils of road courtesy; lawyers paying per click for searches on words like “mesothelioma”; Florida divorce lawyers send “Dear Prospective Client” letters to persons who don’t know yet that they’re being divorced (& see Apr. 14); and court refuses to enforce scuba diving waiver. The highlight came when Crier interviewed by telephone Overlawyered reader Rick Provost of Richmond, Va., who wrote a letter to the editor alerting us to the story after receiving an unsolicited fax advising him of his rights in the class action lawsuit.
U.K.: “Legal system is failing fathers, says judge”
Britain: “One of the country’s most senior family judges launched a blistering attack on the legal system yesterday for failing divorced and separated fathers. Mr Justice Munby said he felt ‘ashamed’ after dealing with a man who had fought unsuccessfully for five years to see his daughter,” the mother having ignored contact arrangements and groundlessly accused him of abuse and domestic violence. (Sarah Womack and Yolanda Copes-Stepney, Daily Telegraph, Apr. 2).
Your laptop? Hand it over
Yet another hazard of modern divorce: the judge may forbid you to use, alter or even turn on your personal computer — work files and all — lest you erase or overwrite some email or spreadsheet that your hubby might want to hold against you. “Stamford Superior Court Judge Kevin Tierney recently took the highly unusual step of ordering Mary Ranta to stop using her laptop altogether and immediately turn it over to the court clerk’s office. … Tierney said his goal was to preserve electronic data for discovery.” (Thomas B. Scheffey, “Lockdown Ordered for Laptop”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Mar. 16).
U.K.: Fathers stage law firm protest
Fifteen members of a group called Fathers 4 Justice stormed the offices of solicitors Parker Bird in Huddersfield, England, citing the firm’s “major contribution in the pouring petrol on the flames in divorce and childcare cases”. Locking the door behind them, chanting and waving flags until police arrived, the men said they had bestowed a “Golden Petrol Can” award on the law firm and a spokesman said “We feel that many solicitors manipulate family law against fathers.” (“Angry fathers in law firm protest”, Huddersfield Daily Examiner, Feb. 26)(via Law.com). David Giacalone comments (Feb. 26): “I’m surprised this sort of protest hasn’t happened more often in the USA.”