Recent Updates
June 21, 2010
ADVERSARIAL OR UNETHICAL?
October 28, 2009
WB&D Attorneys Present at Pro Bono Week
July 17, 2009
Top Ten Super Lawyer!
Archives
ADVERSARIAL OR UNETHICAL?
June 21, 2010
Topic: Divorce
In Beware of Adversarial Divorce Lawyers: One Woman's Story, published in the June 15 Huffington Post (http://huffingtonpost.com/belinda-etezad-rachman/divorce-advice-beware-of_b_608461.html), Belinda Etezad Rachman writes about a young mother who lost custody of her daughter due to a "shark divorce lawyer who saw the opportunity to get an advantage over the 'adversary' instead of trying to help a young couple set up a fair parenting plan that took the child's best interest into consideration." The title of Rachman's article uses the term adversarial; however, she characterizes the lawyer who took advantage of this young mother as a "shark." Rachman states that the "shark" drafted an agreement that gave Dad sole custody of the parties' daughter and that Mom signed it after being told it was a temporary arrangement until she, a cancer survivor and stay-at-home-mom, could move out and find employment to support herself and the child, at which point they would share custody. Once Mom found work and told Dad she was ready to begin having equal time with her daughter, Dad reneged and told her no, the agreement they signed is permanent. Mom now only sees her daughter four times a month.
My question is: Is there a difference between an "adversarial" divorce lawyer and a "shark" divorce lawyer? And if so, who cares?
The answer is yes, there is a difference and the distinction is important to the public perception of family law and divorce attorneys. A divorce is a lawsuit between to individuals who have shared an intimate connection. Let me restate that: it is a lawsuit between two people who (in most instances) have shared the most intimate aspects of themselves. Lawsuits by nature are adversarial and any good divorce attorney will zealously represent her client's interests. That is part of the process and it does not mean an "adversarial" divorce attorney is necessarily a bad thing, although it seems to have come to mean that. A good divorce attorney will also, however, be ethical, and that is the distinction it is important to understand. The "shark" Rachman referenced in her article was not ethical. She violated Rule 4.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (no false statements to third parties) for goodness sakes, by tricking the poor Mom into believing the agreement she signed was temporary. That is simply wrong and the attorney should be appropriately disciplined.
