House Money

Family law is a mixture of rules and loose principals. Some issues are largely governed by rules applied mechanically in the vast majority of cases (see e.g. child support). Others are left within the broad discretion of your presiding judge. Alimony is the classic example; I can usually tell my clients whether they are entitled to alimony but the amount and duration is impossible to predict accurately. Any attorney who tells you different is selling something.

Sometimes, not often, clients ask me why I don't take more aggressive bargaining positions on alimony at mediation. They take the simplistic view that starting higher gives us more room to negotiate, even if it requires making demands with no real legal or financial basis. A couple of reasons I don't do this:

1. It's a waste of time. Sometimes I'll throw an inflated offer at an inexperienced opposing attorney, but in most situations those ploys are easily sniffed out and swatted down. In fact, when I receive such an offer I take it as a sign the other side doesn't really want to settle, so my counteroffers get stingier in equal measure.
2. There are other issues. Lots of times, I get an unreasonable offer on one issue, but the other side tries to compensate by offering more value somewhere else (like the proposed property split). If my client gets incensed by the unreasonable part, I have to work hard to make sure he/she sees the while chess board.
3. It's your ass, not mine. This is a part of my personal settlement philosophy. A lawyer is like a gambler who always gets to play with house money. I have no problem being aggressive, and I love trying cases but its your life I'm playing with. I always feel better starting conservative then letting you, my client, decide how much risk you're comfortable with. I'll always support you and try to handicap the odds as best I can, but I will also insist that final decision be yours and yours alone.

 

Posted with Blogsy