Let’s return to our series of open threads on small law firms in different practice areas. We’ve covered seven fields so far; check them out here.

The latest topic to tackle: FAMILY LAW. This is the area of law that our somewhat cantankerous, dearly departed grandmother urged us to enter. She was firmly convinced that when a couple splits up, the divorce lawyers end up with all the couple’s money.

But not everyone is a fan of this practice area. Dahlia Lithwick, Slate’s fabulous and funny Supreme Court correspondent, previously practiced family law at a small firm in Reno, Nevada. It seems that she found divorce law depressing rather than enriching.

Here’s what Lithwick said during a talk at UVA Law School last year, when we asked what led her to move from practicing law to writing about it:

“One thing that really helps is doing doing divorce law.” After representing clients in their “bickering over the pots and pans,” she said, everything else starts to look much more attractive.

That seems like a rather negative take on the field, doesn’t it? In fairness to family law, it has its upsides.

Find out the advantages of this field — and check out the inside of this greeting card (above right), courtesy of the folks at Pig Spigot — after the jump.

Last month, we linked to a story in Courthouse News Service about Kansas Judge Kevin Moriarty. Kansas attorney Kimberly Ireland filed a lawsuit against Judge Moriarty, alleging that he had used inappropriate language and masturbated during her divorce mediation.

In her suit, she said that her ex-husband supported her and had testified about the judge’s inappropriate behavior at the mediation during their divorce trial.

After the post went up, her ex, Kevin Ireland, reached out to us to set the record straight:

First off, I am not in support of this lawsuit. I never had issue with anything the judge did during our mediation.

There may have been some bad language, but there was no beating of the honorable gavel, says Ireland.

Kimberly and Kevin Ireland, of Kansas, decided in 2007 to file for a divorce. Their case was mediated by state judge Kevin Moriarty. Things did not go well from there.

From a pro se complaint [PDF] against Moriarty posted at Courthouse News Service:

Defendant Moriarty used the word “f*&%” during the mediation… Defendant Moriarty discussed plaintiff Ireland’s female undergarments and referred to the same as “panties” during the mediation… Defendant Moriarty discussed plaintiff Ireland’s sex life during the mediation.

According to Kathy Ireland, none of this was relevant to the mediation. But Moriarty thought it was important. And exciting:

Defendant Moriarty appeared to be masturbating during the mediation.

It all sounds pretty crazy, right? But Ireland’s ex-husband is actually backing her up on this.

Boston Magazine has a great article about alimony in Massachusetts. By the time you’re done reading it, you’ll be willing to stay in a dead-end marriage rather than getting divorced in Massachusetts:

When an alimony case comes up before a judge, the focus is almost exclusively on the wealthier ex-spouse’s ability to shell out, and hardly ever on the recipient’s ability to fund his or her own needs. … But unlike in most states—and every other state in New England—here judges historically do not assume any income for the recipient, even if he or she is able to work but chooses not to. (In fact, Massachusetts’ alimony system doesn’t even conform with state rules for other areas of family law. In child support cases, recent reforms explicitly encourage the judge to impute potential income to a recipient if the judge believes the recipient is shirking higher-paying work.)

For all this, what really sticks in the craw of would-be reformers is that alimony in Massachusetts is so often a burden without end…. [I]n Massachusetts: The only way judges here will set a cutoff for alimony is if it is tied to a specific event, like the recipient’s remarriage, death, or new inheritance. And since judges cannot predict what a recipient’s financial circumstances will be at a point in the future, most simply award indefinite alimony and leave it to the payor to seek modification. The vast majority of judges who do want to set a duration get overturned on appeal, so few ever try.

Ouch. Do gays and lesbians in Massachusetts really want to sign up for this? On its face, this alimony scheme seems to make divorce a one way ticket to financial ruin for the spouse with higher earnings. What God has joined together let no man put asunder — unless that man is willing to pay through the nose for the rest of his natural life.

After the jump, why hasn’t this medieval law been changed already?

Many moons ago, when I was a law student, I took Divorce Law based solely on the fact that the professor, who was a New York practitioner, brought in one of his celebrity clients to answer questions on the last day of class. My year, the professor rolled up with James Gandolfini, who, when asked how he could possibly justify going from The Sopranos to Surviving Christmas, intimated that a man had to pay his bills and that — sneaking a glance at the professor, corpulent and clad in horn-rimmed glasses, suspenders and an exquisitely form-fitting monogrammed Bill Lumbergh shirt — divorce is costly.

Indeed it is, Washingtonian reports:

A well-handled divorce is likely to cost each party at least $10,000, and depending on the size and complexity of marital assets and on child-custody issues, it’s not unusual for the figure to reach $50,000. A trial requiring a full complement of private detectives, computer experts, and psychological, psychiatric, and custody witnesses can cost each side well over $100,000.

Alright, sounds vaguely normal, minus the shady “computer experts.” But Washingtonian tells us that like checks at any fine dining establishment, divorce bills sometimes arrive prix fixe, with the gratuity already included:

Some divorce lawyers include a clause in the payment agreement allowing them to ask for a voluntary gratuity in the event of a very good result. When the case is over, the lawyer may remind you of this…

We’re going to need to you to go ahead and click on the jump. MMmmkay?

If you think about it, it kind of makes sense. You’ve just been through the holidays, which is nothing more than an annoying reminder of all the love and happiness other people pretend to have. Meanwhile you’re sitting there trying to choke down a forkful of stuffing while your spouse drunkenly tells the exact same story you’ve heard on the order of 1400 times before, not counting the time you actually witnessed the described events.

So you try to zone out in front of the tube, but the Television God has determined that if you purchase a new Lexus you’ll feel like a kid again. As if some girl who is so rich her family could afford a real live pony is going to go all weak in the knees over a freaking SUV. But whatever, the economy is so bad you can’t even afford a canister of “new car smell.”

Holidays and poverty, they’re murder on marriages. In the U.K. the lawyers are prepared:

And with 17 per cent of divorced men blaming financial problems for the end of their marriage, the credit crunch is putting extra pressure on relationships in trouble.

The report doesn’t discuss how American divorce lawyers deal with the first full work week after Christmas, but in Britain they apparently call it “D-Day.”

The traditional New Year rush to end marriages after the stress of Christmas means divorce lawyers brand today D-Day, or Divorce Day, kick-starting their busiest week of the year.

After the jump, we’re reminded that divorce rarely if ever helps anything.

We’ve previously reported on law firms having difficulty getting clients to pay their bills. It’s not just happening to firms working on deals that go bust; it has also happened to a firm representing a celeb after his marriage went bust. From Am Law Daily:

Blank Rome is suing rapper/actor/activist Mos Def for over $60,000 in unpaid legal bills stemming from his 2006 divorce from Maria Yepes.

The couple ended their 10-year marriage that year in a Brooklyn court, with Judge Sarah Krauss pleading with them to settle their differences outside her courtroom.

Reports say that the Brooklyn-born Mos Def (real name: Dante Smith) owes the money to Blank Rome in the form of unpaid fees and retainers. The Emmy, Golden Globe, and Grammy award-nominated entertainer retained lawyers from the firm’s well-regarded matrimonial practice, which advises high-end clients on divorce, mediation, property distribution, paternity, visitation rights, and trusts and estates.

This is Mos Def’s second month in a row of legal troubles. In November, Las Vegas police issued an arrest warrant after Mos got in a scuffle with a photographer. In more bad news, his portrayal of Chuck Berry in the recently released music biopic extravaganza Cadillac Records was panned by the Los Angeles Times.

We wonder if this will make him rethink the title of his upcoming album, rumored to be titled Ecstatic.

Some good news for Mos Def, after the jump.

In September, Kirkland & Ellis partner Frederick Tanne sued his wife, her lover, and her father for giving him herpes. (We mentioned this lawsuit in passing in Morning Docket at the time of the complaint, and many of you complained about the item not getting its own post. Well, here you go!)

Tanne claimed to have discovered his wife’s infidelity when he found herpes-treatment medicine in their bathroom. According to the New York Post, Tanne got tested for herpes and “discovered he was infected with the incurable virus.” He sued his wife, accusing her of multiple extramarital affairs, and seeking compensation for medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering.

Mrs. Tanne’s dad is a doctor, and prescribed the herpes medication Valtrex to her. He denied his daughter had an affair. His explanation:

[Amy Tanne’s father, Samuel] Messing denied that his daughter was infected.

“My daughter does not have genital herpes,” he said. “This is pure nonsense. I prescribed Valtrex for a cold sore on her lip. She never had a cold sore until she married him.”

He also denied that his daughter ever had an affair.

“He just wants to make things difficult for my family,” Messing said.

The doctor may be a reliable expert witness. The embarrassing twist in the case, after the jump.

SideTaker.com might be the best example of schadenfreude ever created.

It is ostensibly a form of alternative dispute resolution for divorcing or generally unhappy couples. The concept is pretty simple. A disgruntled lover pays a $12 fee and posts his or her grievance on the website. Then he/she invites their partner to do the same. Once the two sides are online, random strangers weigh in on the dispute and vote over a 60 day period for who should prevail.

Obviously the results are not legally binding in any way (not unlike the modern day marriage certificate).

Legal Blog Watch reports that the site’s creators think they are doing some sort of service for the benefit of these couples:

Some are just, but far too many divorces, break ups, and separations happen over non-critical disputes. Over 50% of American marriages end in divorce. In a fight, each person has their side and are usually backed by their friends (on either side). When you can create a jury of anonymous peers to decide who is right or wrong in an argument, then the bias is gone and the person at fault will just have to suck it up.

I can’t imagine hating a woman enough to subject our relationship to the scathing critique of anonymous commenters. I think it’d be more humane just to throw some arsenic in the morning coffee and be done with it.

Wisdom from Side Taker’s “jury” after the jump.

This advertisement, from tiny divorce and bankruptcy firm Davis and Millard, appeared in an Atlanta magazine in June:

We get confusing messages. With the curly font and all the pink, it seems like it should be an ad for lip gloss for teens. But the menacing way the woman grips that rolling pin puts fear in our hearts. The color motif and menace bear a striking similarity to this Serial Mom movie poster.

The text at the top of the ad — “Moving on means never having to talk to your mother-in-law again” — reminds us a bit of this earlier advertisement: “Life’s short. Get a divorce.”

They work on the most significant — and glamorous — legal cases of our time. They get $250,000 signing bonuses when they leave the marble palace at One First Street for private practice. They dominate when it comes to Legal Eagle Wedding Watch.

But at the end of the day, Supreme Court clerks are just like us. Some of their storybook weddings end unhappily.

From Robert Ambrogi, over at Legal Blog Watch:

It is the dream of so many Biglaw lawyers: To simplify, to downsize, to forgo big bucks in favor of personal fulfillment. And it was the dream the former Washington, D.C., Biglaw partner had pursued — at least until his plans were foiled by last week’s Massachusetts Appeals Court opinion in the case, C.D.L. v. M.M.L.

The unidentified lawyer had it all, graduating from law school near the top of his class, clerkships with a federal circuit court and then the Supreme Court, a private practice in energy law with the D.C. office of a large Wall Street firm, average annual income of $700,000, a large house in Maryland and private schools for the kids.

Eventually the travel and stress got to him and he began to contemplate downsizing. He and his wife came up with a plan for him to leave his firm and seek an alternative career, but still earn sufficient income to keep their lifestyles comfortable.

Seems reasonable. But things didn’t turn out quite as they expected.

Read more, below the fold.

The inanity of Kevin Federline’s fame never ceases to amaze. He has achieved widespread recognition by shacking up with Britney Spears, making some babies, and creating some bad music.

K-Fed has garnered enough media attention that there’s some excess for his attorney. Mark Vincent Kaplan is interviewed by the AP this week. He talks about the custody proceedings over Spears and K-Fed’s two children and how the case has helped his career:

The case is arguably among the most significant in the attorney’s 34-year career, and Kaplan said it has inspired personal satisfaction and professional growth.

“Very few lawyers get the opportunity that this case has presented on every possible issue you can think of,” he continued. “Even fewer lawyers recognize the opportunity, and even a smaller percentage of those have the (guts) to go for the opportunity.”

Of course being around celebrity has perks of its own.

“It’s made it possible to not have to make reservations at a restaurant,” he said, “but that too shall pass.”

Celebrity divorces and custody battles seem like a nice niche. No reservations needed at restaurants. He gets to use the paparazzi to do his research instead of hiring private investigators (like that no-good Pellicano guy).

His quote seems a little defensive, though. Maybe because there’s a good percentage of attorneys who wouldn’t want their name followed by “aka K-Fed’s attorney.”

We spotlighted Kaplan previously as a Lawyer to Layabout Lovers. He also served as counsel to Chris Judd, another back-up dancer turned celebrity husband, in his divorce from Jennifer Lopez.

Federline Lawyer Candid About Spears Custody Case: ‘There’s Never Been Anything Like This’ [Associated Press via Law.com]

If we hadn’t already bestowed our Lawsuit of the Day prize, this bizarre tale might have taken the cake.

Meet Donna Campbell (pictured; she looks like a non-green Princess Fiona). When the ex-beauty queen married Arnim Ramdass, she didn’t take his name — and one can hardly blame her.

But she’s happy to take his money (which may really be “their” money; more on that below). From the Miami Herald:

Some husbands shower their wives with gifts when they win the Lotto. Arnim Ramdass kept the good news to himself. And when Donna Campbell found out on her own, her husband went AWOL, leaving the former beauty queen emotionally drained and financially desperate.

So she sued.

Campbell v. Ramdass, the lawsuit, comes to a Miami-Dade courtroom this week. It’s a tale of luck and betrayal, a case study in how a financial windfall can make a seemingly stable marriage go sour in a hurry. At stake: $600,000 in winnings, Ramdass’ cut of a $19 million jackpot he split with 16 other mechanics at Miami International Airport.

Discussion picks up after the jump.

When a Biglaw partner is accused of domestic violence, we can’t help but honor him with ATL’s Lawyer of the Day. But we must note that this article from the New York Daily News drips with lawyer hatred, in describing a case where the attorney was not convicted.

They didn’t even spell Cadwalader partner Ira Schacter’s name correctly. We’ve put the perceived lawyer hatin’ in bold:

A high-powered Manhattan lawyer was cleared of wife-beating charges Tuesday — even though cops said his estranged wife was hurt in a scuffle last fall at the couple’s East Side townhouse.

Ira Schachter, a partner at the white-shoe firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft, was freed despite dramatic photos that appear to show him causing a commotion outside the pricey brownstone on E. 78th St.

Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Larry Stephen also scrapped an order of protection against Ira Schachter, 48, after prosecutors said they couldn’t prove the case against him….

Ira Schachter walked out of court surrounded by an entourage of powerful lawyers, including divorce lawyer Raoul Felder and Ira Sorkin, former head of enforcement at the federal Securities and Exchange Commission.

Not to say that beating your wife is okay. His wife claims he choked her, and police photos showed bruises on her head and neck. Schacter claimed it was self-defense after his wife bit his finger “to the bone.”

One tipster tells us that Ira Schacter is “awkward, very messy, constantly touching himself, a general slob. But not violent.” This tipster opines that Mrs. Schacter is “nuts” and that neither spouse is blameless, but that she was the one who ended up filing charges.

More about Ira Schacter, from a second source:

Very strange guy and hard to describe — everyone suspected he had Asperger’s. He has very quirky mannerisms and a speech impediment…. But he has a ginormous book of business and is probably the only rainmaker in corporate outside of Dennis [Block]….

Not a particularly likable guy. Very controlling of his little fiefdom, and very nasty to anyone perceived to be hitting his bottom line.

I am loathe to blame what may be the victim or defend anyone at CWT, but his wife was known around the firm to be extremely abusive to everyone she came in contact with. [She] could be heard screaming obscenities at undeserving secretaries and Ira over the phone.

They sound like they were meant for each other. Now we are going to watch War of the Roses.

Upper East Side wife reels after judge clears husband of wife-beating charges [New York Daily News]

The divorce trial of James and Dina Matos McGreevey gets under way today. Former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey resigned from the governorship in 2004, announcing that he was a “gay American,” who had carried on an affair with a male advisor. The McGreeveys returned to the headlines earlier this year, when a different male aide claimed Mrs. McGreevey had gotten in on some three-way action with him and her husband.

From the New York Post, back in March:

“We called it the Friday Night Special,” [former aide Teddy] Pedersen said. The “intense” escapades, he said, usually began with a “couple of drinks” at a local T.G.I. Friday’s and culminated in “a hard-core consensual sex orgy” between the three of them at McGreevey’s Woodbridge condo.

The three-way action, if true, complicates Dina Matos’s claim that she was not aware of Jim McGreevey’s homosexuality. From WCBS TV:

The first order of business are closed door proceedings concerning their six-year-old daughter. Jim McGreevey is seeking equal custody.

Dina Matos McGreevey wants $600,000 as compensation for time she would have spent in the governor’s office had her husband not resigned in disgrace. She claims she was not aware of his homosexuality.

McGreevey is apparently studying to become an Episcopal priest right now, while his wife was recently called upon to offer analysis of the Eliot Spitzer scandal. So she didn’t get to spend those years in the Jersey governor’s office — but now she’s a scandal expert and talking head. Isn’t that worth something?

McGreevey Divorce Trial Underway Tuesday [WCBS TV]

Earlier: New York and New Jersey in Competition for Dirtiest Governor Sex Scandal

Heather Mills was awarded nearly $50 million yesterday in her divorce from Paul McCartney. CNN has video of Mills speaking with reporters after the verdict. Mills says:

It was an incredible result in the end to secure mine and my daughter’s future and that of all the charities that I obviously plan on helping and making a difference with.

The funny way Mills says “obviously plan on helping” in the video made us surf over to her official website and look at her charities. The charities seem like a collection of photo opportunities: Heather in a hard hat with a landmine sign, Heather with limbs, etc.

We also discovered a bizarre “Heather’s Friends” section, which includes video testimonials from Richard Branson and Hillary Clinton. Weird.

Mills spends a good amount of time ranting about the law courts’ conspiracy against litigants who represent themselves:

Obviously the court do not want a litigant in person to do well, it’s against everything that they ever wish, so when they write the judgment up they’re never going to make it look in favor.

We would just like to point out that Mills requested nearly $251 million and only received a fifth of that. And now her daughter has to fly coach. We hope her daughter does not ever have to use American Airlines.

Paul McCartney-Heather Mills Divorce Saga Ends in $48.6 Million Settlement [Law.com]
£700 for every hour of the marriage … and Heather Mills is STILL moaning [Daily Mail via Drudge]
Judge awards Heather Mills £24.3 million in divorce ruling [Overlawyered]

* “Are we headed for another Great Depression?” [McClatchy]

* Quelle surprise: Bear Stearns shareholder lawsuit (filed in S.D.N.Y. by Coughlin Stoia). [Bloomberg; WSJ Law Blog (PDF of complaint)]

* Speaking of Bear Stearns, here are some law firms losing out on BSC business. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Tenth Circuit reverses convictions of former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio. [AP]

* Harvard Law School will pay the 3L tuition of future students who agree to work for nonprofit organizations or government for five years following graduation. [New York Times via Tax Prof Blog; Harvard Law School (news release)]

* Settlement in Paul McCartney-Heather Mills divorce (more on this later). [Legal Week]

* SCOTUS to hear Second Amendment / D.C. gun control case today (more on this later too). [New York Times; Reuters]

And now, no lawyers? From the AP:

Britney Spears’ lawyers in her custody battle with ex-husband Kevin Federline are quitting. The law firm Trope and Trope asked a court Wednesday to be relieved as Spears’ attorneys. The firm says there’s been a “breakdown” in communication with the pop princess that makes representing her “impossible,” according to the filing, obtained by CelebTV.com.

Structured finance lawyers, it’s time to put down those securitization agreements and pick up Us Weekly. Representing the embattled pop star is a growing practice area:

On a separate legal front, an attorney for Spears wants the city attorney’s office to prove that the pop star is a permanent California resident and is subject to state laws that require her to have a valid California driver’s license.

Spears faces up to a year of probation if convicted in a misdemeanor case of driving without a valid license, a charge to which she has pleaded not guilty. The case stems from a videotaped fender-bender in a parking lot in August. A hit-and-run charge has been dismissed.

Spears attorney J. Michael Flanagan earlier Wednesday requested that prosecutors be required to demonstrate that Spears, who owns homes in Louisiana and Florida, intends to make Los Angeles her permanent legal home.

Of course she does — Britney Spears is the quintessential Californian.

Now if only the judicial system would just leave… Britney… alone!!!

Spears’ Lawyers Ask to Quit Custody Case [Associated Press]

Rapidly climbing the Most Emailed Articles list over at the New York Times is an op-ed entitled Taking Marriage Private, by Professor Stephanie Coontz. It includes an interesting history of the legal regulation of marriage (which Coontz observes is a fairly recent phenomenon):

Why do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families….

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos.

A prohibition on marrying fabulous Filipinos? Your loss. Everyone knows Filipinos are great lovers.

More after the jump.

In the latest issue of the Legal Times, Nathan Carlile has a somewhat salacious story about Beveridge & Diamond. Perhaps you haven’t heard of this D.C.-based environmental law boutique — which might be mistaken for a livestock brokerage, thanks to the sheep photos on their website. But a livestock brokerage probably has fewer hijinks:

[A] sordid story… has ensnared partners at 95-lawyer Beveridge & Diamond in allegations that include adultery and forgery. The dispute stems from a bitter divorce battle between firm partner John Guttmann and his wife, Nancy Lasater, a nonpracticing attorney who was previously co-chairwoman of the Law Practice Management Section of the D.C. Bar and a solo practitioner who often represented firms on ethics issues.

Some highlights and commentary, after the jump.