Am I first?

2:59 -- no, but you are worthless

Third! This is funny...and sad at the same time

Don't you live internet shrinks? Being one myself, it sounds like this guy is depressed and needs to up and/or change his meds.

To be sure, you don't owe it to your kids+wife to work in biglaw. Your kids might be happier having a Dad who is around to take them to public school over one who sends them to Choate, but is not around.

That being said, you gotta earn *some* bread. 7 years on your ass is pathetic. But Lat, it's not really fair to say that every father/husband owes it to his family to earn at a maximum (if that is what you were indeed implying).

3:09, What does your post mean?

I'm really getting annoyed with clearly deranged posters who comment on xo to accuse *others* of mental problems. Get help and stop projecting.

With his credentials, couldn't he have landed a teaching job at a TTT? That's practically like laying around on your ass all day.

3:13 - Good point. He was in DC. How much does a professor at WCL earn? Or maybe UDC?

If he was really smart, he would have gotten a job at American, the best law school outside of Boston.

I'm with this guy - I'm an Associate with a young kid and there is no way in hell I'm going to grind it out much longer - it ain't worth it - that said, I don't think many of us have the luxury of taking a seven-year leave of absence...

I've found, however, that it would be nearly impossible to be a good father to my kid if I stayed in biglaw. I'd have to consistently work past 9 every night... all for the slimmest chances of making Partner and then having to consistenly bring in millions in business thereafter...

Not. For. Me.

Could have taken the teaching job, taken a few side jobs, downsized the house and been fine. Seven years of navel gazing with a spouse and kids is a bit self absorbed.

I'm with you 3:18 (1). Know guys that have left jobs at Shearman and Davis Polk so they could know their kids.

I'm in agreement with others who commented that it may have been a smart move for him to leave BigLaw for his kids, but it was a stupid move to lay around for 7 years. But do we know what the wife was doing during this time? She could have been working too, especially with a full time Dad around.

something is not right here. this guy needs a shrink. he could have a serious case of depression or something else. nobody could just sit for 7 years and do nothing. so either he was depressed and thats why he did nothing or doing nothing after having full and stressfull days led him to depression. it could also be some other illness.

or the story is not complete and maybe he was gambling all day

Or maybe he was trying to stick it to his wife and kids. I'm just saying.

I knew a guy who sat on his ass for 15 years, at which point he declared himself "retired," (having previously been just "unemployed"). He wasn't depressed *precisely because* he was on his ass. Work stressed him out to a spectacularly abnormal degree, but as long as he avoided it - he was OK.

His wife stuck by him (which is probably more than she owed him under the circumstances).

His wife probably went to law school for her Mrs. and never worked a year beyond her sixth month of pregnancy. F that! I'd be on the first raft to Cuba before I paid a nickel towards that judgment.

Who has an exit strategy? I'd love to hear it.

3:13 is right. I saw people with far less impressive pedigrees get tenure track teaching jobs at my TTT. To be fair, some of these profs really busted ass to do a good job. But a far greater number just completely phoned it in.

Keep living the dream man.

I did just this. I worked in Biglaw for two years. 2 kids under the age of 4 and I hardly saw them. Now a prosecutor for the State and it rocks. The ONLY downside is the $, but it is manageable.

what is Choate?

3:30(1) i am saying that one needs to do something and not just sit on your ass all day. if your work stresses you out to an abnormal degree then do something else. doing nothing is by far the worst thing a person can do, it will make you nuts

Check out this quote of a guideline in the opinion:

If the court makes a determination that a party is earning substantially less than he or she could through reasonable effort, the court may consider potential earning capacity rather than actual earnings. In making this determination, the court shall take into consideration the education, training, and past employment history of the party. These standards are intended to be applied where a finding has been made that the party is capable of working and is unemployed, working part-time or is working a job, trade, or profession other than that for which he/she has been trained."

I'm born and raised in Mass, but don't live there anymore. Let me tell you that MA is the most f'd up state (er... commonwealth) in the union with its antiquated family laws. Imagine busting your ass for 20 something years in the legal field, acquiring enough money to live without working, and then having your old lady (who it says took two years just to get a damn job) divorce you and say pay up.

That dumbass guideline basically penalizes the successful. If you did well, we're never going to let you enjoy it, you'll have to keep working or else we'll constructively attribute the money to you anyway. Ironic thing is, the people who make the most money are probably the ones most likely to split up because they've sacrificed their families and personal lives to make the $$..

Lat, how come you have commented on NYC's trans fat ban. Many associates could be putting their lives at risk by eating trans fats.

this guy is my total hero for pulling what kevin spacey did in American Beauty.

[To burger joint manager] ""I'd like the job with the least amount of experience and responsibility required."
Burger joint manager: I think you're overqualified.
Spacey: Untrue! I have fast food experience!
Manager: Ya, in 1972.....

This guy rules the school.

yep mass sucks and so do the red socks!

3:36, You completely misread my post. The guy was a loon - I'm not citing his example as in any way laudatory.

do you mean the boston red soX, good sir?

how long had he been unemployed when she filed for divorce? these things can take several years. being unemployed for 5 years is no big deal--guys at my high school. . . .

GREAT Lester Burnham reference 3:38!!! That is exactly what I thought when I read the post!

Choate is a private high school in CT.

But it doesn't hold a candle to Andover!

Exeter sucks!

@3:37, Massachusetts law does sound a little messed up if it really means that the court can constructively attribute income to anyone at the highest level they could earn. But wasn't the court just reacting to the unique facts of this case, in which the guy did absolutely nothing for 7 years? If he had taken a respectable but lower paying job in the legal field (prosecutor, legal aid, law professor, etc.), the court should have awarded alimony based on the (fairly low) salary in that job.

Now, if the guy had done that, and the court still said, "no, you are capable of earning more, we don't care if you want to teach law for a modest salary, we are going to attribute income as though you were a biglaw partner," THAT would be seriously screwed up.

Computing potential income of a depressed lawyer and disregarding his depression is like computing the potential income of basketball prospect with a broken back, but disregarding the broken back.

This is outrageous - how can the court possibly assume that a 60+ hour a week BigLaw salary is what he could earn "through reasonable effort"? An effort level at which most people who already started at the very top of the achievement ladder only last a couple of years is reasonable to EXPECT from someone? On a semi-permanent basis?

This guy should murder both the ex-wife and the judge in the slowest and most painful way possible - seriously.

And every unmarried man reading this should print it out, tape it to the wall, and look at it every day. Marriage = slavery, and apparently, it's only getting worse.

Latest.

Re: 3:30(1)...

I am the wife in such a situation, and it was a hard pill to swallow for both my husband and I when we realized he simply could not handle the stress of being an attorney. He's a stay at home dad now while I'm on the partnership track, and it works.

He can TOTALLY get away not paying that judgment. If he has properly insulated his [remaining] money, he is fine.

What are they going to do ... garnish his wages?

This guy obviously paid his dues. He graduated near the top of his class, clerked, and probably already gave a significant portion of his youth to the attain that level of "success." It's tough when your mortality hits you in the face and you realize that making a lot of money and trading YOUR LIFE for it, is a tough pill. Who the hell are we to tell this guy to get back to work? What right do any of us have? He's been working, just not at biglaw or some hedge fund bringing in huge bucks. Maybe he's searching for something better, and for the fact that he can live off of his savings shows he's not an idiot. I say: "To each his own." Hopefully he finds something he loves, and thank the Lord, he's free from that leech of a wife. Hopefully he has a good relationship with his kids... that's way more satisfying than having to buy the love of a "kept" (usually spoiled, and all together worthless) woman.

i don't understand the commenters who believe this guy should be punished for choosing not to work, e.g., the guy needs to do something and not sit on his ass all day. why? if you have the financial resources, which apparently this guy did, why is being a paternal homemaker not an acceptable option?

i don't understand the commenters who believe this guy should be punished for choosing not to work, e.g., the guy needs to do something and not sit on his ass all day. why? if you have the financial resources, which apparently this guy did, why is being a paternal homemaker not an acceptable option?

This could be the best thing that ever happened to this guy and gets him off of his ass and $37,000 a year isn't exactly a kings ransom as far as alimony/child support goes. His ex is still going to have to work for a living (or marry someone who is willing to provide).

I didn't read the opinion, but just from the synopsis I think the court could have done a better job than commiting this man to slavery until he can retire. Why not give him time to find a job he likes and then order a support payment based on what he makes?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't $711.54 a week somewhere close to $35K a year? When you think about it, he could probably work for a year or two, save all of that money in some reasonably conservative investment, and then re-retire safe in the knowledge that the alimony would be covered for the rest of his life.

Nothing like a family court telling you what's best for you, right 4:21?

I eagerly await the time when New York courts require that the overeducated stay-at-home mothers pay alimony when they get divorced, based on their expected potential income from when they were in the work force.

Somehow I doubt this decision cuts both ways.

I think this whole divorce/reasonable efforts thing is awkward, particulary for lawyers, because many of us plan to grind for x years and then stop, or we plan to grind forever and start hating it. But having worked for a judge who handled family law appeals, I can also tell you that lots of divorced higher-earning ex-spouses (at least those who appealed or whose ex-spouse appealed) quit and work for a pittance out of spite so they don't have to give up their money for child support. (The state I lived in preferred property division to alimony.) That always pissed me off. It was like, they're your damn kids. This was true of both males and females, but more commonly males (I'm not saying divorced men suck, just that a pretty high proportion of higher-earning spouses in appellate cases suck, and in that state, there were certainly more higher-earning men than women.)

During that job, my most common thought was "divorcing people suck." Fortunately, it was only about 1/4 to 1/3 of our caseload.

But, 4:16, according to 4:11, marriage = slavery for all men! You must be a scheming, worthless women who is just lulling him into a false sense of security, waiting for your moment to trap him and become a leech on his wallet and soul.

Admit it.

4:16 -- is your husband still able to achieve and maintain an erection after agreeing to that emasculating division of labor?

4:20 - even with financial resources a man needs to do something with himself or else he will turn crazy, depressed etc. its a fact of life and nothing to argue with.

Equal rights for men! Future House Husbands of America, Unite after you finish the dishes.

4:28: Damn, You figured me out.

4:30: Not an issue. I cut it off a long time ago.

--4:16

BTW, the judge only imputed $170-$175k to the husband. And because childcare expenses may have been included in the alimony award, it may be adjusted downward by more 29k/year.

4:30-- Well done sir. Well done! Lol...

If you guys really think housework is so bad that it destroys your gender identity, how can you justify having the little woman do it?

Can't throw a rock on this board without hitting an entitled jerk.

I can't justify the "little woman" doing it unless her earning power is really that low. Outsource that shit.

My Exit Strategy?

I'm putting something like this together.

http://www.lawcash.net/

Who's with me?

This guy needs to move to a country that has actually abolished slavery, rather than just switched which group it's ok to subject to involuntary servitude.

3:39: First, if you don't know what Choate is, you have no business in big law. Second, Choate is a TTT private boarding school. No real redeeming characteristics, shoddy academics and lousy sports. But its "students" have been known to charter planes to Colombia for cocaine runs on weekends, which is pretty cool.

This case is ridiculous and accomplishes in family law what you can't do in employment law (force someone to work).

He very clearly had breakdown (or an epiphany, if you will) and decided it wasn't worth it. With kids that you actually want to see, I can almost assure you that it wasn't worth it.

The thing I don't understand is why quitting when you have a $700k per year salary is not just early retirement. Yeah, he's a douche for not discussing it with her, but at the same time, her bonbon and Dooney & Bourke addiction shouldn't mean he has to kill himself for the rest of his life. Free-loader.

I can't believe that HE did not divorce her sooner - that was his mistake.

4:26(1) - that is exactly what I thought of when I started reading this post (I'm a female earning significantly more than my sig others).

Did his wife work? If so, could she have held a higher earning job?

4:16- lose the zero and get with the hero. I am starting out as a first year this fall, so that gives you at least 3 or 4 years of more money than you're getting from the husband. Let him take care of the kids while we wine and dine all over Manhattan. Meet me at Freeman's this Saturday at noon.

This is one of the most depressing things I've ever read. My dream is to do this for 10 more years and retire. I'll still work, but I want a normal job or a job that makes me happy. That a judge is ordering this guy back into biglaw after he retired makes me nauseous.

The wife made about $54k as a special-ed teacher when she went back to work when they separated. She also supported him through law school, again as a teacher. They were married for 27 years, and then he left their home and quit his job within the span of two weeks. Sounds like there was a lot of fighting about their quality of life, but the judge actually didn't expect him to pay her enough to support their former quality of life together, just the "downsized" quality of life which they had been discussing. So he wasn't expected to go back out and earn $700k, instead, he was expected to earn $170-$175, and the judge deducted her teaching earnings from what alimony she could be provided.

Also, the judge said he would have permitted the husband to pay even less if the husband stopped living large. Based on some other things in the opinion, it seems like it is possible that the husband was going to hold out until the kids were 18, and then start earning buckets again. In other words, that he quit out of spite. Reading between the lines.

I'm still not a huge fan of alimony, but 27 years of marriage is a hell of an opportunity cost for a SAH spouse. And she went straight back to work when they separated.

The judge is NOT ordering him back into biglaw. He is saying that if he wants to live a $170k lifestyle, he cannot deny his wife the same thing by remaining unemployed. It also says that he can apply for a modification order if he is incapable of obtaining a job that earns that much. Someone as senior as he is could be a part-time OC or SC and earn way more than that. I think he is trying to game the system.

And yeah, it can happen to women who are high-earners too.

The $170k lifestyle is actually not much to write home about, though admittedly better than any lifestyle supported by a lower dollar figure....

I disagree with 5:45. This guy was a partner for 17 years at a major DC firm and then decided to retire and live off of his substantial assets (the divorce divides up roughly $ 4 mil. dollars in assets - $2 mil a piece), possibly augmented by a public interest job.

If his wife puts her $2 mil. into 30 year AAA municiple bonds paying 5% she'll take home $100k a year tax free (i.e. a $170K a year salary) on top of the $54k a year she's earning as a teacher. Of course she's a greedy hooker and the trial judge is an idiot, so interest income is ignored and this guy is forced back into a $200k a year job to pay alimony to his millionarre ex-wife.

This massive amount of money, wasn't enough for his bitch of a wife who hadn't worked in 20 years.

This is why I plan to marry some overeducated T14-graduate woman seeking a rich husband, divorce her as a preemptive strike, and roll in the dough.

She _could_ be making $200k a year toiling in biglaw, so please send a check for $35k each year to me post haste.

6:07, can you point me to this marvelous AAA rated bond that returns 5%? If your idea of arguing is to make up facts, why not just assume 20%?

Google "bloomberg municipal bond rates"

Click first link

Scroll down to "National Municipal Bond Yields:
Triple-A Rated, Tax-Exempt Insured Revenue Bonds"

Apologize for being an ass.

6:33 - that plan is a stroke of genius!

Lat -

I sure hope this blog thing, or your love life, works out.

Imputed income based on an assumption that you had stayed "on track" at Wachtell would be a bitch.

As best I can tell, the most time you've spent at a single, actual legal position is about 3 years before bailing to do something else.

That's based on 30 seconds of googling; if it's incorrect, smack me down. If it's correct, talk to your therapist about it and bear it in mind when posting (that is, it's ridiculous for a person who left Wachtell to "edit" a trashy blog (i.e. Wonkette) to lecture folks about responsible work decisions).

You may make a zillion dollars running this site. Or you may not. But, in either event, I will give you the same amount of empathy that you've given this guy.

To put you in context, you're Perez Hilton, except that you're derivative, less funny, less compelling as a person, more hypocritical and contrived, get less hits, take your self more seriously and write about stuff that much, much fewer folks care about.

Other than the above, I like your work.

You guys really don't get the imputed income thing.

He quite his job, but continued to live as if he were making $170-$175k per year. All the judge is saying is that if he wants to live that high (while he still owes his wife alimony) then he has to cut her in on it.

If he were to stop spending so much money on himself and the middle child (over whom he has custody) then he wouldn't have to pay as much support to his wife and the youngest child (over whom she has custody.)

Are you people really naive? Do you think it is a coincidence that he left his wife and then quit his job? The same wife who put him through law school, and raised the children for 21 years? And when he leaves, she doesn't sit around bitching and moaning. She gets her teaching degree updated, and goes back to work as soon as she can get hired, first part-time, then full-time.

He, on the other hand, keeps applying for low-paying legal jobs that he knows he won't get? Why? Someone who is assuming that he is a rational actor might think, aha, he is applying for jobs he won't get that pay peanuts because he wants to minimize his alimony!

If he really didn't want to work, he wouldn't be applying for jobs. If he was really interested in those sectors he was applying to, he would know to apply for (still low-paying) jobs that he would get hired for.

Wake up, people. Who knows why his marriage ended, but he ended it, and is now trying to limit what he pays his wife. He isn't retiring. 9:1 as soon as he is no longer obligated to pay alimony, he'll go back to making the $$$.

"This case is ridiculous and accomplishes in family law what you can't do in employment law (force someone to work)."

Nobody's forcing him to work - the judge is simply articulating what he could be earning given his education and experience level and directing him to pay accordingly. He's opted to hang out for seven years rather than take a lower-paying, less-demanding job and now has to pay the piper. Very big difference. If you don't want to be financially obligated to somebody, don't get married and don't have children. Moreover, don't marry a woman with a low-paying, flexible job because you want her to raise your children and then bitch about it later.

The court isn't saying that he has to go back to biglaw. The court is saying that you can't be unemployed WHEN YOU COULD HAVE A JOB in order to get out of paying alimony and/or child support. He is def not the first schmuck to try this approach and the courts smacked him down - as they should.

No one is saying he has to go back to work making the max.

The women commenting on this story are transparent.

Guys: Don't get married, there is damned little in it for you. She may be great the first year, but in all likelihood she won't be cooking, doing your laundry quite so happily or giving you the other things you need (ahem) much after that. And you'll miss it, but you'll know that if you leave, she'll be taking half your paycheck for quite a long time. Don't do it - b---hes are everywhere, and the benefits, which fade over time for most men, especially with modern women, are not worth the costs.

1:35: I know. It's tough being 5'2".

11:44 wrote "He quite his job, but continued to live as if he were making $170-$175k per year. All the judge is saying is that if he wants to live that high (while he still owes his wife alimony) then he has to cut her in on it."

He was living that lifestyle off of interest on the cash he accumulated after being a partner for 17 years. The trial judge split the assets of the couple 50/50, with each receiving $2 mil.

If he can support himself comfortably (in a $175k a year lifestyle) off the interest earned from those assets, why the hell can't his ex-wife? The trial judge expressly decided not to consider the ex wife's interest income in determining her needs. It makes no sense.

It's not enough that the husband made his ex a multi-millionaire, he has to unretire to pay her alimony? It's ridiculous, and there's no way to justify it.

Two things, 2:47.

I didn't make a point of it, but he is raising middle kid and wife is raising youngest kid. How effed do you think it is that one kid is getting a certain standard of living and the other is not?

Also, if the law in MA were just straight property division, no alimony (like it is in say, AK, except in extraordinary circumstances) then I would totally agree with you. Or if he was really retiring, instead of applying to low-paying jobs that he knew he wouldn't get.

Say it with me. He is biding his time until he no longer has to pay her alimony out of spite. She is not being paid based on his max. earning capacity, but based on his standard of living.

Do you honestly think that she can make anything of herself between now and retirement? She is in her 50's with a teaching degree, and a 21-year gap in her resume. That gap happened because they agreed to get married. He can't just reap the financial benefit of having a SAH spouse, and then kick her to the curb when that part of his life is over.

1:35--Please, don't get married. Pretty please. And I outearn my husband, so the benjamins would be flowing his way if we ever divorced. (biglaw+gov't job).

He hasn't worked in 7 years - he's not biding his time. He's in his 50s and he retired.

So let me get this straight. The wife didn't have to work for over twenty years and her husband gave her two million dollars (tax free), but she's somehow been kicked to the curb? We should all be so lucky.

If I had 2 million dollars (tax free) I would I would quit biglaw in a second and never look back.

He keeps pretending to try and get jobs. He is not retired, nor is he claiming to be retired.

She raised the children, after putting him through law school. I somehow doubt she did it without his consent. He got $2 million tax free as well, because when you are married, in most jurisdictions, the earnings of both parties belong to the marriage.

Like I said, 9:1 after his alimony obligation end, he goes back to work. This isn't the first time I've seen this kind of thing happen. The dumb ones try to hide their income. Even on the interest from $2m, I don't think he could continue to live the way he is living without going back to work eventually. Do the math.

3:04 - Say it with me. The wife got $2M. The idea that he should be forced to give her alimony on top of this is absurd, and if you think otherwise, you're being horribly sexist whether you admit it or not.

Oh, and while you spend your nights satisfying client demands, your husband is satisfying his own with his $40k/year government secretary. Enjoy. - 1:35

It isn't sexist for the higher-paying spouse to pay alimony when one spouse was SAH and their savings do not reflect their cash flow. For someone who makes $700k a year and has made it for about a decade, $4M really isn't that much in savings.

Like I said, if you want to outlaw alimony except for in cases where the property division doesn't provide for one or both spouses, fine. But apparently you have no problem that this jerkoff is aiming to pay no alimony, and minimal child support, so that his youngest child lives with his wife on a salary of $50k a year, while he and the middle child live as though he were making $170k a year. She doesn't have a pension, and any that she can earn starting work in her 50's won't be enough to support her, so the 2M will get her a pretty frugal retirement.

I don't know what kind of dishonest, sleazy, morally bankrupt people you run around with, but my husband isn't going to bang any secretaries, and I'm not going to bang any partners. Do you work in biglaw? If so, are you projecting your worry that your current (or potential future) wife or girlfriend will be running around banging the plumber? Here's a hint---if she is a good person who loves you, and has self-control, and you treat her well, it won't happen.

I see you've backed off from your position that he is "retired." Nice.