I kinda get the impression the impression stems in significant part from an episode of L.A. Law in which Jonathan Rollins, then new to the firm, represents a woman in a property division and deliberately drags it out with trivia and minutiae to make the husband lose patience and agree to anything if it’ll just end the process.
Rollins eventually became president, so I guess it worked out for him.
You admit that most people who seek out the services of a lawyer are out of their depth, but you don’t think we should have lawyers?
And that is the crux of the problem; we have elaborate laws regarding divorce. These were drafted by lawyers/legislators. If adherence to laws were observed, a divorce would be a 3 hour ordeal. Instead, the lawyers and judges draw them out for months, possibly years.
There is no reason for this to happen-the results are the same, and include huge bills for the divorcing parties.
Well, laws are complex because life is complex. What exactly do you want changed ralph? You seem to indicate that the existing divorce laws are adequate, and the consensus seems to be that lawyers are probably necessary to help the average person understand them. If lawyers don’t adhere to the law they can be fired and be held criminally and civilly responsible. Exactly how would things work in the system you are proposing ralph?
Where did the myth that judges and lawyers sit in dark rooms dreaming up needlessly complicated rules originate?
Oh yes, Lordy yes. My father, who’s been practicing since I was in diapers, habitually tells exceptionally vindictive clients “Look, I can get you divorced cheaply. Revenge costs extra.”
The idea that lawyers intentionally write obscure laws to make more work for lawyers is a canard I would love to see die. The goal of good legal drafting is clarity, not obfuscation. Why would I enter into a secret agreement to make my job as difficult, tedious, and incomprehensible as possible?
Come to think of it, I’ve been saying this exact same thing to the exact same people for at least four years.
Well, statute “X” says that child support will be X$/month.
Statute “Y” says that visitation shall be X days per week.
Statute “Z” says that college tuition will be paid 50% by parent A and 50% by parent B.
You catch the drift? Who needs extended court appearences? Get it over with at minimal expense and minimal use of $300/hour lawyers.
I had a simple order for modification cost me $6000.00! (lawyer showed up for 2 hours). The judge acted bored.
So why did you use a lawyer not do it yourself? If the law defined what it was going to be, and there was no wiggle room, you made a pretty stupid decision to pay someone $6000 for it.
Statute X, Y, and Z may say that… although I doubt it. And that is fine, all sides being equal, making equal amounts of money, contributing equally financially. That is fine if both parents are equally fit to parent. But that is not the world we live in.
And as has been said above, when people get to the point of divorce, they are typically not feeling very concillitory. Throw children into the mix, and the most mild mannered, law abiding citizens can turn into the most outrageous liars, cheaters and stealers.
I am a lawyer practicing in a small town. My anecdotal experience is that it is “typically” the clients that tend to drag on proceedings, happy to spend $600 in attorneys fees over a $100 asset.
So the Joneses get a divorce. The husband is a contractor/plumber, and the wife knows full well that he does half his work on a cash-only basis and doesn’t necessarily report the full amount. She, in turn, runs a small advertising agency which has for the past five years shown a decent profit. But somehow this year she gave her top graphic designer, who she’s been screwing for more than a year, a massive raise, which has cut the profit considerably.
Quick, if he wins custody, how much child support does she owe?
You pay your lawyer $3,000/hour? Can I be your attorney? Hell, I’ll do lot’s of things around your house for $1,000 an hour.
You can’t legislate stupid consumerism away.