Actually not. Any agreement between you will be completely construed against the lawyer, and is likely to be struck as unconscionable if it isn’t fair. That’s assuming the other party isn’t represented, and if he or she is, then there is no disadvantage. Especially assuming the lawyer party is likely to be the higher earner, and will therefore end up paying for the other party’s representation.
And it is also a massive (unfounded) assumption that the majority of lawyers know anything at all about family law.
You are correct that there is a professional rule of responsibility that makes it against the rules to do this. Just like there are rules of professional responsibility that make it an obligation for lawyers to do work pro bono. And it is just as binding, or salutary. In the 22 years that I monthly read the discipline reports I have never seen a single case of a lawyer being disciplined for not doing pro bono work, or for continuing a litigation to run up fees. Not a damned one. I have seen lawyers run up fees unnecessarily since I started working as a law clerk 25 years ago and still see it today. It is the exception to find a lawyer in private practice who is not primarily billing hours rather than getting clients out of trouble. I congratulate lawyers who actually end litigation at the first opportunity, but it is the exception to the general condition. And please stop being obtuse in a serious discussion when somebody uses the word “rule” in a different sense, or at least attach a smiley.
Lawyers have richly earned the reputation they are given in our society.
I am a lawyer, but there was no way I was going to handle my own divorce. First of all, divorce law is an area I’m not that familiar with. But secondly, and more importantly, I wanted somebody who was not emotionally wrapped up in the matter to represent my interests. And that’s what I got. Yes, my lawyer was a colleague, but he represented me unemotionally and made sure that the settlement was appropriate under the law–both statute and common law.
I cannot imagine going through what I did without a lawyer. In addition to the negotiations regarding settlement, the paperwork regarding, for example, land titles and whatnot was something I was not emotionally equipped to deal with at that time. Thankfully, he did. I’d suggest lawyers are necessary when dealing with divorces.
By changing how they are paid? People paid by the hour tend to take longer to finish the things that they are paid to do by the hour. I’m sure most lawyers fight against this incentive, but it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch, as they say.
Allowing hourly billing for something as variable and as emotional as divorce may provide an opportunity for some unscrupulous lawyers to play on clients’ emotions and drag out proceedings. Should the state bars consider requiring flat or contingent fees for routine divorces?
If I were in the market for a divorce lawyer right now, I’d look for one willing to work for a flat fee.
The lawyer who handled any Visa-related issues for an American employee of mine got paid by the task, and he inflated tasks. The issue is not in how the bills are calculated, but in whether you happen to be dealing with a pig (with my apologies to bacon).
Of course this is a debate. I am asking: since divorce laws cover child support, asset division, visitation, and many other things, why do you need two lawyers (@ 300$/hour), and a judge to decide this stuff for you?
I envision a process where you and your spouse fill out a form (listing your assets, incomes, etc.), then the program spits out a settlement. If one party feels he/she is being cheated, you file a complaint.
I find the whole courtroom aspect of divorce pretty inane, and expensive-particularly when the two major actors (the lawyers) have all kinds of reasons to draw things out. Divorce is big business to the legal industry, and it consumes assets that should rightly go to the children.
Ok, I would love to meet a lawyer who tries to drag things on. You should know that for every ten minutes of whatever, be it advocacy, client conference, negotiation, a lawyer has spent at least 2 hours preparing? I drag things out, hey hell with the Bar Council, my own stress levels would kill me.
Because people are NOT reasonable in Divorce. They’re fucking insane, dealing from emotional states and not from reason or logic. They drag things out demanding absolutes and insane settlement ideas that they should know that they’re not going to get, just to insult or harm the other party. They lie, they cheat, they hide assets, they slander the other party, they very often do everything possible to emotionally destroy each other. This is why each side needs it’s own representative (attorney) to attempt to convey their demands without emotion and hopefully, to mitigate the more absurd ones, and a third party (judge) to arbitrate the final outcome.
This, in spades. I and my lawyer then-husband divorced after 8 years together. No children, no significant assets, little debt.
He drafted the paperwork and wanted me to look it over. I, with an attorney stepfather, brother, uncle, and best friend, and paralegal mother, but not being a lawyer myself, wanted someone to look over what he’d drafted. Not to contest it, just to look at it. After all, he was the attorney in this state, I was not, and my relatives practiced in a different state.
He went ballistic. Hired his own lawyer (the lawyer in whose firm he worked, so it was free for him), and proceeded to drag out the process for the next 1.5 years, demanding things to which he was not entitled (half of every single piece of furniture I’d owned before I met him, half of every inheritance I might received from my family in the future, etc.). It cost me thousands of dollars, him nothing, and more tears than were necessary.
One could argue that it was my desire to have my own lawyer look over what he (a lawyer) was able to draft on his own and for free that made things so combative. However, I could see how someone other than me (relatively intelligent and conversant with the legal field) could easily be taken advantage of by a soon-to-be-ex that’s a lawyer representing him/herself.
Or you know what? Never mind. It’s a collateral matter and not worth wasting everyone’s time.
Yes, there are some lawyers who aren’t very ethical people – maybe about the same as in the population at large. But at least we have bodies which police us. Most people can do all sorts of unethical stuff in their professions and there’s no one to call them on it unless somebody gets killed.
As to the OP, the question itself makes clear why it’s a foolish idea. Divorce law, like lots of laws, is complex. Someone who wants to ensure they’re not getting hosed by those complexities will want the advice of a professional whose job it is to know them inside and out.
No, you’re asking a question, and everyone has given you the same answer. Yes, there is a role for attorneys in the divorce process. Still not a debate…maybe to GQ.
Because laws are subject to interpretation. And trust me in a divorce, one side is probably not going to like the other sides interpretation. And in most cases the laws are complex and confusing. Not everyone is capable of interpeting the law for their own benefit, and one side may be at an uneven advantage without the assistance of counsel.
Everyone has the right to not have a counsel, but the op is advocating the banning of counsel in divorce cases which is ludicrous at best.
That doesn’t answer the question. The suggestion was to “let the judge sort through the whole thing without lawyers for either side”. The judge can interpret the laws. And if so, the “other sides interpretation” is not a factor.
Judges are not paid to sift through the individual facts of every case looking for the pertinent ones to bring up that are crucial to one party or the other’s case. That’s why clients hire attorneys. So the attorney’s can sift through those facts then bring the pertinent arguments before the judge to decide.
I don’t think the taxpayers should foot the bill of a judges time to take on this additional burden.
I disagree that net/net less work would need to be done. Each party would need to be met with and questions asked. It wouldn’t be fair to penalize Wife A because she didn’t think of the right things to tell the judge, while her Husband did. That’s where individual representation has its benefit.