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.

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?

The Baby Boomers (the generation that was dealt a resounding defeat last week) is also sometimes called the “Sandwich Generation.” Boomers like to claim that they are the first generation (in the history of “ever” apparently) to have to take care of both their parents and their children while they are still working.

Whiners.

Inter-generational aspersions aside, Goodwin Procter is actually doing something that should help Boomers out. They’ve instituted a very interesting new benefits package:

Free, round-the-clock access to a telephone support center that provides information on services for the elderly, the disabled, and the family members who care for them.

This is a program that could actually help attorneys. As anybody who has ever served as a part-time caretaker/full-time worker can attest to, getting the appropriate information is half the battle.

More details on Goodwin’s program 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.”

In five minutes, at 10 AM Pacific time, the California Supreme Court will hand down its ruling on same-sex marriage. We will update this post — and fill in the blank in the post’s title — once we have the substance of the ruling.

Update: The opinion is here (PDF — and thanks, commenters, for the link and excerpts). Reversing the appeals court, the California Supreme Court struck down the state’s statutory ban on same-sex marriage. Slip op. at 12:

Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

Slip op. at 120:

[T]he language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and… the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

Further Update: From the AP:

The California Supreme Court has overturned a gay marriage ban in a ruling that would make the nation’s largest state the second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings. The justices’ 4-3 decision Thursday says domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. Chief Justice Ron George wrote the opinion….

The case before the court involved a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. With the ruling, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

In re Marriage Cases [Supreme Court of California (PDF)]
California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban [AP]
Calif. same-sex marriage ban struck down [CNN]
Pre-Gaming the California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling [WSJ Law Blog]

For all of you Chicago law students who are strapped for cash and in desperate need of a tattoo or two, we have the craigslist ad for you:

I am searching for a student lawyer who is familar with the divorce laws of Illinois. Someone who is studying family law and would help assist me in my situation. Thus far I have written out my petition and obtain documents to be filed. But, I need someone to review my petition and statement before it is presented to the court. As a token of appreciation I will issue a check of $45.00 and two tattoo needles for two free tattoos(black and grey). Check out my work on www.myspace.com/grandmas26tattoos.

We were hoping for a cool granny on MySpace, but it’s actually a young woman.

Our University of Chicago tipster says:

I’m not studying family law, but if I was, I don’t think I would accept payment in tattoos.

Not even “Biglaw” on your bicep?

In Search For Student Lawyer Who Is Studying Family Law (Brighton Park/ Midway) [Craigslist]

Remember this attorney, who announced the dissolution of his law partnership in most unorthodox fashion? We sure do (and so does “Tim from Anaconda”).

Our friends out west are idiosyncratic when it comes to office decor, too. From a piece by Debra Cassens Weiss for the ABA Journal:

A Montana lawyer said his decision to put a shark tank in his office started out as a joke.

“I said, ‘What would it take to put a shark in a lawyer’s office?’ and it just kind of took off from there,” lawyer Christopher Gillette told the Bozeman Daily Chronicle.

Workers hoisted the 1,000-gallon aquarium through the second-story window of Gillette’s new office in downtown Bozeman on Monday. He plans to fill the tank with a blacktip reef shark and other saltwater fish, including a venomous lionfish.

Forget mediation. Nothing brings about settlement as quickly as the prospect of being devoured by a blacktip reef shark. With a venomous lionfish on hand to clean up any leftovers.

Gillette, who practices family law, says he thinks clients will find the tank to be relaxing. “People seem to be comfortable with fish,” he told the newspaper.

Others will get a chance to watch the marine life, too. Gillette plans to install a camera and broadcast video of his fish tank beginning in February at www.cjgillettelaw.com and www.ccaqua.com.

No word yet on whether Bob Link of Cadwalader — official holder of the “shark tank” nickname, courtesy of the New York Law Journal — plans to install an aquarium at One World Financial Center.

ABA Journal [ABA Journal]

Earlier: An Update on the Managhan Law Firm (aka ‘My Wife Is Sleeping Around and That’s Why We’re No Longer Law Partners’)

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.

You mean old judge! From the AP:

Britney Spears was ordered Monday to surrender custody of her children to ex-husband Kevin Federline.

Superior Court Judge Scott M. Gordon ruled that Federline will take custody of Sean Preston, 2, and Jayden James, 1, beginning Wednesday “until further order of the court.”

If Judge Gordon took Britney’s VMA performance into account, Britney should move for reconsideration. We agree with Chris Nashawaty: she wasn’t as bad as everyone (predictably) claimed she was.

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE! [YouTube]
In Defense of Britney Spears [Entertainment Weekly]
Spears ordered to give kids to Federline [AP]
Britney Spears Has Lost Her Kids [TMZ.com]

Readers of ATL disagree vehemently over the existence of God. But if God does exist, he has a delightfully sick sense of humor. From ABC News:

Twin brothers Raymon and Richard Miller are the father and uncle to a 3-year-old little girl. The problem is, they don’t know which is which. Or who is who. The identical Missouri twins say they were unknowingly having sex with the same woman. And according to the woman’s testimony, she had sex with each man on the same day. Within hours of each other.

When the woman in question, Holly Marie Adams, got pregnant, she named Raymon the father, but he contested and demanded a paternity test, bringing his own brother Richard to court.

But a paternity test in this case could not help. The test showed that both brothers have over a 99.9 percent probability of being the daddy— and neither one wants to pay the child support. The result of the test has not only brought to light the limits of DNA evidence, it has also led to a three-year legal battle, a Miller family feud and a little girl who may never know who her real father is.

Très trashy — but there’s an actual legal issue here. How was it decided?

Find out, after the jump.

* $3.19 a gallon for this? [CNN]

* Hasselhoff videotape (no, not the German music video) leads to loss of custody rights. [CNN]

* Bat-ban Begins — groups sue to overturn NYC ordinance.[SI]

* Senators expand Attorneygate probe. [MSNBC]

* Ethics of “pillow angel” surgery called unlawful. [CNN]

* Jury selection begins in Atlanta courthouse shooting case. [Fulton County Daily Report ]

* Jury rocks State Farm like a hurricane (complete with both wind and storm surge damage), awards $2.5 million in punitive damages. [CNN]

* Houses passes stem cell bill; President promises a veto. [Jurist]

* Second rule of Fight Club: Don’t film Fight Club and sell copies on the internet. [FindLaw]

* You Kidds play nice.[ABC]

From the Daily Mail of the U.K. (where newspapers are more fun to read):

Angelina Jolie has attacked Madonna for adopting a child ‘illegally’. She said the singer should never have visited an impoverished African country with the sole intention of choosing an infant.

Her comments follow accusations that Madonna used her fame and money to speed the adoption of one-year- old David Banda late last year.

‘Madonna knew the situation in Malawi, where he was born,’ said Miss Jolie, who has adopted two Third World youngsters of her own

But Ms. Jolie was diplomatic in her criticism:

“Personally, I prefer to stay on the right side of the law. I would never take a child away from a place where adoption is illegal.’”

Because, you know, following the law is such a personal decision.

This struck us as a little silly:

“‘Brad and I want to continue to adopt, but keeping a big family uses up a lot of money.”

Because it’s just so hard to make ends meet when you earn $10 million per picture, and your partner earns $17 million per picture.

Angelina Jolie attacks Madonna for ‘illegal adoption’ of baby David [Daily Mail]

If you enjoyed the Best Notice of Appeal Ever, as well as the complaint in Ward v. Arm & Hammer, you’ll enjoy our latest pro se filing, too.

It’s an interesting challenge to jurisdiction, filed by a fellow who legally changed his name to Elmo Fred; Griffiths. (Yes, the semicolon is legally part of his name.) The case is a guardianship proceeding for Griffiths’s mother, Ruth Griffiths, brought by one of Elmo’s siblings.

Here’s the first page:

And there’s more. The rest of the document appears after the jump.

* Let’s see…a corrupt Laguardia Community College instructor on the one hand, and students dumb enough to think that a slightly better grade in computer science will compensate for the fact that they attend Laguardia Community College…I won’t comment, lest you think I’m elitist or something. [Newsday]

* Sponsoring babies, but not the Sally Struthers way. [Madisonian]

* And another way in which babies can pay off. [Cookie; The Poop]

* We too are hoping the judge’s mishandling of this case comes back to bite shoot him in the ass. [Legal Reader]

* So Tom Brady is like one of 5 football players I actually recognize. (I’m exaggerating of course — I’m counting Tiki Barber as two.) Well, he’s suing Yahoo! for improperly using his image in its promotion of Fantasy Football. (Which is strange since he did not sue SNL for skits that made him look as interesting as a brick.) [The Smoking Gun]

* Thesauruses can still do the trick. Who knows if I would have passed AP English without one? On the other hand, one of the perks of public high schools is having your Cliffs Notes-cribbed essay graded by a teacher qualified only to teach woodshop and coach girls’ softball. [New York Times]

* What would the Supreme Court say about McDonald’s plans to patent its sandwich-making process? [CNN Legal Pad]

* Ah, law school flirting is just so cute. [Overheard in New York]

* While the poodles seem to be safe, babies, sadly, are not. [WCSH Portland]

* Blood money, in a way. Because someone killed my will to love. [Newsweek via Overlawyered]

But we can’t bring ourselves to do it. Maybe this guy can do some caring for us.

Actually, the Borat connection may be the only vaguely interesting thing about the Pamela Anderson/Kid Rock divorce (court papers filed yesterday). From Page Six:

[Hollywood producer] “Ron Meyer held a screening of ‘Borat’ at his house for a bunch of people, including Pam and Bob [Ritchie, aka Kid Rock],” says an Anderson pal. “It was the first time Bob had seen the movie, and, well, he didn’t like it.”

The hugely popular film shows Sasha Baron Cohen - in character as Borat Sagdiyev - falling in love with Anderson after seeing her in a “Baywatch” rerun, then driving across America in order to propose marriage to her.

Her friend tells Page Six, “Bob started screaming at Pam, saying she had humiliated herself and telling her, ‘You’re nothing but a whore! You’re a slut! How could you do that movie?’ - in front of everyone. It was very embarrassing.

It looks like Pam will be getting her revenge. Anderson has retained high-flying celebrity divorce lawyer Neal R. Hersh, one of the name partners in Hersh, Mannis & Bogen, a top family law boutique in Los Angeles.

One of Neal Hersh’s fellow partners is Judy Bogen, who represented Kim Basinger in her ugly divorce from Alec Baldwin. And Baldwin is no Bogen fan, describing her as a “hideously angry-looking woman,” whose face “looks like a cross between a bulldog and a clenched fist.”

An ATL commenter agrees with Baldwin:

My ex-wife hired Judy Bogen to represent her, and I can confirm Mr. Baldwin’s description of this vile female. He forgot to mention her four inch long fingernails, which obviously hadn’t touched a keyboard and were likely reserved for tearing the heart and soul out of her female clients’ unfortunate spouses.

We eat this stuff up. If you have any other good stories about divorce lawyers from hell, feel free to email them to us.

Pam Anderson Files for Divorce [TMZ.com]
Pam Splits Over Kid Blowup [New York Post]
Neal Hersh bio [FindLaw]

Earlier: Gee, Alec, Tell Us How You Really Feel
Prior ATL coverage of Borat (scroll down)

After details of Britney Spears’s “airtight” prenuptial agreement were disclosed, revealing that her soon-to-be ex-husband, Kevin Federline, wouldn’t get much in the divorce, we began hearing this rumor:

Fed-Ex will be a hero to stragglers everywhere, moreso even than Kato, in his leveraging: [Britney] made an air-tight prenup; he made a videotape of his adventures into what had been allegedly air-tight territory during their honeymoon. Internet P0rn distributor’s offer: $40M. Somehow I think that she is going to cough up more than that to prevent a Paris H. repeat…

But despite any spam you may have received recently touting the “Britney Sex Tape,” it seems that America’s most valuable home video is just an urban legend. From Reuters:

There is no “sex tape” involving pop star Britney Spears and estranged husband Kevin Federline, his lawyer said on Tuesday.

After Spears filed for divorce from the fledgling rapper this month, reports surfaced in the tabloid press that Federline had in his possession a videotape of the couple having sex and was considering making it public.

“There is not a sex video of Kevin and Britney in existence,” said Federline’s divorce lawyer, Mark Vincent Kaplan. Representatives for Spears had no immediate comment.

K-Fed really IS screwed — and all because Britney wasn’t.

(At least not on camera. Unless this publicist’s nightmare counts).

There is no Britney sex tape, Federline’s lawyer says [Reuters]
Britney Spears “STONED” acting strange UNCUT VERSION [YouTube]

To any single celebrities out there who happen to frequent legal gossip blogs, we offer you this piece of friendly advice: Before getting hitched, make your future spouse sign a prenup.

Sounds pretty obvious, right? But consider this, from Forbes’s Prenup Primer:

Last week, Britney Spears filed for divorce from her two-year marriage to Kevin Federline, whose nickname has gone from “K-Fed” to “Fed-Ex.” [A] day later, actors Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillippe also filed for divorce.

The difference between the two: Witherspoon did not have a prenuptial agreement, and Phillippe will likely have a claim to a substantial portion of her $60 million estimated net worth. The estimated $29 million in earnings from her next film may also be at stake — her ex could get half.

But Spears did have a prenuptial agreement. In fact, it was a 60-page agreement that protects most of her estimated $100 million fortune. Britney could get away with paying Federline a measly $300,000, which he says he is owed, plus $30,000 a month for half the number of years they were married, which would amount to one year. That’s pocket change for Britney.

More about the Britney Spears prenup, from the Daily Mail:

Britney even staged an elaborate sham wedding, again to protect her fortune.

The event, on September 18, 2004, in the modest back garden of a friend’s house in the Los Angeles suburb of Studio City, was meant to be the “real thing.” But with Federline yet to sign the pre-nup, a proper wedding could not go ahead.

So, with the paparazzi on her case, Britney decided to stage the “fake” wedding — and drew up a watertight contract to ensure the ceremony was not legally binding.

The pair were then married for real in a secret ceremony on October 6 — after Federline had signed the agreement that banned him from making any future claim against any assets his wife had prior to their marriage.

British newspapers are way more fun than ours. We love the colorful description of Spears’s attorney, Laura Wasser, as “one of Hollywood’s most ruthless lawyers.”

For an impressively detailed analysis of the legal issues surrounding the timing of the Spears-Federline wedding(s) and prenup, check out Death and Taxes — The Blog.

World Exclusive - Every detail of Britney Spears’ pre nup and £65 million fortune [Daily Mail]
Divorce Docs Prove Britney Faked Her “Wedding” [TMZ.com]
Prenup Primer [Forbes]
Sometimes I Run, Sometimes I Hide, Sometimes I Blog About Britney and K-Fed [Death and Taxes - The Blog]
The Role of the Prenup in the Timing of Britney Spears’ Divorce [TaxProf Blog]