Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

Don't do divorces under $2m

"focus on people with marital assets between $2 million and aknas12/05/10
Divorce is miserable, but can be profitable. But even the p therewillbeblood12/05/10
Yes. The. worst. clients. texlaw12/05/10
I can attest that texlaw is correct. mississippilawyer12/05/10
Absolutely. I'd rather work with murderers. descolada04/23/11
“In criminal law, you see bad people acting their best and i therewillbeblood04/23/11
I ate breathed and slept divorce and child custody disputes dopesmokeresquire12/05/10
... Guest12/05/10
Keep in mind while you generally can't do contingency fees d therewillbeblood12/05/10
Add in Facebook evidence. http://www.guardian.co.uk/techn aknas03/09/11
Been doing a lot of it for two years now. Eventually you be Greenhorn03/09/11
Crazy, there's huge pent-up demand. But now it's not who ge aknas04/23/11
There are two types of divorce attorneys: 1) guys like me w PanhandleShitlaw04/23/11
.....don't do divorces under $2b. she’s also spent an e sanka10/11/17
This must be a big reason why I'm not rich/successful. I can superttthero10/11/17
I have to laugh because I'm the same way. It doesn't seem wo thirdtierlaw10/11/17
So, the lawyer knows the only way his bill is getting paid i onehell10/25/17
Its hard for many to resist the helping friend/family and ev esquire13810/30/17
aknas (Dec 5, 2010 - 6:16 pm)

"focus on people with marital assets between $2 million and $15 million"

NYTimes
Taking Sides in a Divorce, Chasing Profit
By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM
Published: December 4, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/business/05divorce.html?adxnnl=1&ref=general&src=me&adxnnlx=1291590090-VPDB07UtMHunCW4hxiV5Ow

Apparently the private business sector has found the sweet spot in divorce law. Unfortunately for the TTT JD, you don't know anyone of $2m assets net worth, and if you did, they sure as hell wouldn't pick you to do the work.

Too many new lawyers do cheap divorces, and it's pro bono, or not worth it, and you can't make it up in volume. There is no hope for you. Please go away. The capitalist market (or what remains of the capitalist market after Obamanation) has spoken.

Reply Like (0)
therewillbeblood (Dec 5, 2010 - 6:18 pm)

Divorce is miserable, but can be profitable. But even the profitable ones are miserable.

Reply Like (0)
texlaw (Dec 5, 2010 - 6:26 pm)

Yes. The. worst. clients.

Reply Like (0)
mississippilawyer (Dec 5, 2010 - 7:59 pm)

I can attest that texlaw is correct.

Reply Like (0)
descolada (Apr 23, 2011 - 12:39 pm)

Absolutely. I'd rather work with murderers.

Reply Like (0)
therewillbeblood (Apr 23, 2011 - 1:51 pm)

“In criminal law, you see bad people acting their best and in matrimonial law, you see good people at their worst."

Reply Like (0)
dopesmokeresquire (Dec 5, 2010 - 6:28 pm)

I ate breathed and slept divorce and child custody disputes at my old law firm for 18 months. It burnt me out BAD, and made me doubt my willingness to even practcie law.

Reply Like (0)
Guest (Dec 5, 2010 - 6:47 pm)

...

Reply Like (0)
therewillbeblood (Dec 5, 2010 - 6:53 pm)

Keep in mind while you generally can't do contingency fees directly in divorce, you can sometimes do contingency fees in collecting on debts (like from spousal support orders) that have been reduced to judgment.

Reply Like (0)
aknas (Mar 9, 2011 - 4:12 am)

Add in Facebook evidence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/08/facebook-us-divorces

Reply Like (0)
Greenhorn (Mar 9, 2011 - 9:42 am)

Been doing a lot of it for two years now. Eventually you become "numb" to the craziness and peoples problems. You just function like a machine in resolving issues, be it serious issues or bullshit (fighting over pots and pans).

I agree it does take a toll on you and I look back and realize that it might have affected my psyche. I don't even really believe in happy marriages anymore or for that matter happy relationships. People ALL seem to be having problems.

Reply Like (0)
aknas (Apr 23, 2011 - 7:40 am)

Crazy, there's huge pent-up demand. But now it's not who gets to keep the $2m house; but, rather, who gets stuck with an underwater house.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b835f9b2-6d0c-11e0-83fe-00144feab49a.html#axzz1KLSwFrE9


Recovery prompts US divorce rebound

By Suzanne Kapner in New York
Published: April 22 2011 20:35 | Last updated: April 22 2011 20:35
In a perverse sign of the economic recovery, the US divorce rate, which dipped in the recession, has bounced back, lawyers and matrimonial experts say.

A stronger economy, lower unemployment and a housing market that – while still weak – is no longer in free fall are all contributing to a rebound in divorce filings.

“There is huge pent-up demand,” said Marshal Willick, a Las Vegas matrimonial attorney, who has noted an upturn in his business.

During the recession, couples who were out of work or unable to sell their house stayed married to save money. The percentage of the population 15 years and older who counted themselves divorced dropped to 9.7 in 2009, from 9.9 three years earlier, according to the Census Bureau. More than half of the 1,600 attorneys who are members of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers reported a downturn in their business in 2009, the most recent year for which survey data are available.

Now, those same lawyers are inundated with new clients. Linda Lea Viken, the group’s president, said her practice in Rapid City, South Dakota, was 25 per cent busier this year, compared with the same period in 2009.

One client first approached her about leaving his wife in 2008, but put the divorce on hold when the local bank would not lend him the money to buy her out of their ranch. As property values in the area rebounded following a steep rise in the price of corn and wheat, the once stalled divorce is “moving full steam ahead”, Ms Viken said.

Divorce has not become any less acrimonious but the fights have changed, lawyers said.

“People no longer argue about who’s keeping the house, but about who’s stuck with it,” Mr Willick said.

So-called underwater homes, that are worth less than the balance on their mortgage, are flummoxing judges who cannot decide whether to treat them as an asset or a liability.

In one Las Vegas case, the husband wanted to sell and the wife did not. While they argued, the value of the home continued to fall, said Gary Silverman, their lawyer. The couple is still in the process of splitting.

Other divorce rituals are also going by the wayside. It was once standard practice to make copies of family photos. “But today, people don’t want to shoulder the expense,” said Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich, a New Jersey lawyer.

Even in times of economic distress, however, there is only so much misery that people can bear. One divorcing Manhattan man had planned to use the proceeds from his Bernard Madoff account to pay for a new apartment when he had left home.

The man still moved out after Mr Madoff’s investment fund was exposed as a Ponzi scheme. “But he got a much smaller apartment,” said his lawyer, Alton Abramowitz.

Reply Like (0)
PanhandleShitlaw (Apr 23, 2011 - 5:26 pm)

There are two types of divorce attorneys:
1) guys like me who churn through lots of simple divorces. There's usually not much to fight over besides child custody and maybe a house. Once in a while, alimony.
2) guys who also fight over giant piles of money.

The problem is that there aren't that many rich people getting divorced at any given time. Most people just don't have the money to pay a lawyer by the hour to fight over every little thing. They want a flat rate, they want it to be over with a minimum of hassle and they want to get on with their lives.

Reply Like (0)
sanka (Oct 11, 2017 - 3:16 pm)

.....don't do divorces under $2b.

she’s also spent an estimated $7.5million on lawyers and experts as she pursues the divorce.
The battle promises to be a long and involved one


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4970162/Lavish-alleged-tax-avoidant-life-divorce-Macklowe.html#ixzz4vEF1NLTo
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Reply Like (0)
superttthero (Oct 11, 2017 - 3:21 pm)

This must be a big reason why I'm not rich/successful. I can't for the life of me imagine why someone at that age would be fighting over so much money. I'm sure whatever settlement the other side is offering, no matter how small, is more money than they need for the rest for their short lives with enough left over to leave many many people rich through wills.

I would just want to kiss the problems goodbye and enjoy what little time I had with my money.

I guess I'm just a simple prole with no clue.

Reply Like (0)
thirdtierlaw (Oct 11, 2017 - 6:25 pm)

I have to laugh because I'm the same way. It doesn't seem worth the stress and fight. I don't care if the estate is worth $2b offer me $10m and they wouldn't ever hear from me again.

But that's why I'm a middle class attorney.

Reply Like (0)
onehell (Oct 25, 2017 - 3:56 pm)

So, the lawyer knows the only way his bill is getting paid is if the financier agrees to front the money to pay it. The lawyer also knows that the financier is not going to make that loan unless they think it will be recouped, with interest, from the settlement.

And yet, the lender claims they "avoid any role in the management of cases, seeking to disarm critics who worry that lenders seeking profits will corrupt the pursuit of justice."

O RLY? From their website:

http://www.balancepointfunding.com/about.html

"We are experts in asset investigation and collection litigation.
•We work with you and the divorce attorney you select to provide comprehensive services and the support you need.
•If warranted, we can supplement your existing divorce team with recommendations for forensic accountants, fraud investigators and asset recovery specialists, when needed.
•We pay your divorce professionals directly, eliminating administration for you."

So, they "supplement the divorce team" and pay the bills directly but aren't involved in the case? Oh please. If you are working with a client who is funded like this, then you have a new boss. That boss is getting paid on a contingent fee and major decisions are going to require the approval of the people they "supplement" you with. Refuse to play ball and they'll simply pull the funding until the client finds a more cooperative attorney. There is no question that professional independence is compromised. Kinda like with insurance defense. Nominally the client is the insured, but we all know the real client is the one paying the bills.

Also, the incentives the bar was trying to remove by prohibiting contingent fees in these cases are right back in the picture. If the settlement won't pay off the loan, your client won't be able to accept it no matter how good it might be for the children or whatever. I think that sort of problem, not "discouraging divorce" is why contingent fees were prohibited in the first place. With a contingent fee, you're looking to make sure there's something left over after the lawyer's cut. With this, you're looking to make sure there's something left over after the financier's cut. Either way, the incentives are similar. The bar has said that such incentives have no place when (for example) children's lives are at stake. This "workaround" complies with the letter but not the intent of that rule.

Oh and by the way, when you have all these people "supplementing" the divorce team whose real employer is the financier, and whose real purpose is to help the financier determine whether the case continues to be worthy of funding, those people's conversations with the attorney and/or the financier might not be privileged, or so an enterprising opposing counsel might argue in seeking to subpoena/depose them.

Reply Like (0)
esquire138 (Oct 30, 2017 - 8:46 pm)

Its hard for many to resist the helping friend/family and even friends of friends with pro bono cases "for the experience" with a fresh out of the envelope bar card. I know that I fell for that trap. And yes, divorce and child custody are the ones people beg the hardest for, and worst of all.......hardest to get out of. The cases never really end. If the divorce has kids, expect to be stuck on the case until they turn 18 (or 21 if they plan to go to college, or life if the kids are disabled)

Reply Like (0)
Post a message in this thread