If your attorney calls you, it’s important. Take the call, and if you can’t take the call, then call back ASAP (meaning same day, and not at 4:47 p.m.). Hours can often make the difference between winning and losing. If your lawyer is desperately trying to get in touch with you in the morning and you don’t respond until later that day, or worse, days later, it may be too late. Really. No, really.
So, you have gotten news that your attorney has quit. Your attorney wrote you an email informing you that he or she your counsel either will soon withdraw as your counsel or has filed and served a notice of withdrawal of counsel. What does this mean? How does this work?
Did you not pay your lawyer? Were you not cooperating with your lawyer? Were you disregarding your lawyer’s advice? Actively working against your lawyer? Sabotaging your own case?
Was the case just too much for your lawyer? Did your lawyer get sick or did an emergency arise that requires all of his/her attention? Could your lawyer sense that you were disappointed in your lawyer’s performance and didn’t want to stick around?
Regardless of what the reason was, you no longer have or will soon not have legal counsel. You will need to find another lawyer to represent you.
You may believe that you could do better than your legal counsel. You wouldn’t be the first to think that way. You are likely frightfully mistaken. Unless you are a genius who can learn in weeks what it take others years to master, you will not get a good enough handle on the legal system in time. Even if you did master the law, that doesn’t mean you can succeed as well as a lawyer could.
The law on the books is not always the law handed down in court. Insiders have, and will always have, an advantage over those who aren’t legal professionals.
And the legal profession is not kind to those who “did not pay their dues” in law school and by taking the bar exam. Pro se litigants (i.e., people who represent themselves in court cases) who are the equals of lawyers in their writing and oral arguments make most lawyers feel inferior and threatened (and that includes the former lawyers who are now judges). When pro se litigants are so “presumptuous” as to think they will be taken as seriously as the lawyers, the system tends to discriminate against the pro se litigants. So even if your lawyer is nothing more than a useful prop, get one.
Who would you believe more in a court case: a person who admits to his/her faults, who honestly discloses all of his/her relevant information (even the information that hurts his/her case), and answered questions with “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” or a person who lied (even if just a couple times)?
One of the worst things to happen in a divorce case is for your credibility to come into question. If the court finds you lied about just one matter, it can cite that one lie as reason not to believe you on virtually all matters.
Simply put, to avoid damaging your credibility, always be truthful. This should be obvious, but I am amazed at how often clients of the firm I work for try to get away with lying (and how often they try to get away with lying about stuff that doesn’t really matter anyway, but I digress). The truth is learned and established by facts that are proven to be facts by the evidence in support of those facts. Your judge will not care much, if at all, about how you feel he or she should rule, the judge is (or should be) guided by the truth, by the facts, and then apply the law according to what the facts are.
To ensure your credibility is not questioned, admit when you are wrong. If you try to bend the truth about your sins and mistake or conceal the truth about them, you are a liar. Try to justify it any way you like, lying is lying. Whether by commission (expressly lying) or omission (withholding the whole truth, selectively disclosing the facts, shading the truth, spin, you get the idea), it’s all lying. While there are some situations in which you are not obligated to tell the truth about crime or possible crime you have committed (see the Fifth Amendment), questions of and risk of being convicted of crimes doesn’t arise very often in divorce cases. Honesty is the best policy.
I am amazed at how often client fail to understand that they lose credibility when they provide us with inaccurate information. While you may not be able to remember everything regarding your finances or your personal and family history, that doesn’t give you a license to fudge your answers or give incomplete answers. The “I didn’t understand” and “I don’t recall” excuses don’t inspire confidence in your credibility. They have just the opposite effect; they make you look lazy, scheming, and dishonest. Honest people are not forgetful people. Honest people aren’t afraid to produce their bank statements (all of them). Honest people aren’t afraid to disclose that side job. If you claim to have few or no records of things that normal people usually have records for, the default conclusion is that you have something to hide. While there are limits on what the opposing party can ask of you, when what they request complies with the rules, then answer questions completely and with complete honesty, produce all of the documents that are discoverable. Even if what you answer and what you produce may expose some of your flaws, it will also reveal you as honest and believable.
Once it’s damaged, credibility is hard to repair. Better never to do anything to call your credibility into doubt. Be honest. It’s the right thing to do, and if doing the right thing isn’t enough motivation for you, honesty tends to be the better “strategy” than lying and deception.
I have noticed three chronic problems with clients in just the few weeks I have been working as a legal assistant.
1) Most clients seem to have an almost allergic reaction to providing required information to the court and to the opposing party and to filling out documents required by the court. It does not merely surprise me how hard it is to get required information out of most clients, it’s shocking and demoralizing. It doesn’t seem to matter what information is required, how long or how short the document they have to fill out is, and it doesn’t seem to matter whether they are the petitioners or respondents in the case.
2) Most clients seem to have a blind spot for deadlines. They could be reminded weeks (even months) in advance of a looming deadline, then reminded every week, then every other day, then every day, then multiple a day, and still act surprised when we chew them out in the 11th hour for having little to nothing done and shooting themselves in the foot as result.
We get that a divorce case is gut-wrenching. We understand that it’s discouraging–even terrifying–to deal with the allegations and the costs. We understand the all too human desire to bury your head in the sand and hope in vain that it will all just go away. We understand why the temptation to procrastinate is so strong. Which is why you need to do the work, in full and on time. Avoidance will only make things harder, will only make things worse.
3) Many clients provide false and/or incomplete information to the court and to the opposing party in the course of a divorce case. Whether they outright lie or are simply being careless, the consequence is the same: credibility is damaged, (often irreparably) and the case is weakened (sometimes irreparably). The more honest and completely forthcoming you are, the stronger your armor is in the litigation battle. Truth be told, lying and deception can result in some big wins sometimes, but lying and deception are wrong (and despite their general reputation for playing fast and loose with the truth, there are some lawyers out there who take their oaths to be honest and just seriously). If being morally upstanding isn’t enough to inspire you to be honest, frankly the risks of lying and deception aren’t worth the consequences if you’re caught (and most liars get caught).
4) It’s amazing how often clients get in legal trouble over the course of their divorce proceedings. They’ve been stand-up and law-abiding citizens their whole lives up to that point, but then they “miraculously” are accused of domestic violence, stalking, substance abuse, tax evasion, DUI, child molestation, etc. Now, clearly there is a difference between committing a crime and being falsely accused of a crime by a spouse who is trying to use the false allegations as leverage in the divorce action, but it is surprising how often divorce causes good people to snap. Whether they end up in jail (or picking up trash along the Interstate to work off their community service) or passed out on the floor drunk or high or both, many good people are pushed over the edge by divorce. Remember that when a divorce case is filed, you may find yourself reaching your breaking point. Be prepared. Swallow your pride. Keep your judgment clear. Don’t be afraid to find the occasional listening ear or shoulder to cry on. Find safe and non-incriminating ways to deal with the despair, fear, anger, and anxiety by spending time with family and friends, fellow church members, or, if need be, a good (a good, not just any) counselor or therapist.
The reason someone retains the services of an attorney in a divorce case is to get the help they need to do what they cannot and should not do themselves in the divorce case. A good lawyer is a good value. But the best lawyer in the world is not a wizard. Your lawyer shouldn’t be spending his time and your money saving you from yourself. Do yourself a favor and keep this in mind (and avoid the chronic missteps I see clients engage in far too often).
How one writes in the legal world and how one writes in the world of creative are both very similar and very different. When I became a legal assistant, I thought that expository and creative writing would rarely overlap, yet they do, and they do more often than I’d expected.
Word choice is crucial in both legal and creative writing. Word choice affects how the scene or clause plays out. Word choice affects whether the idea is conveyed effectively (or not).When writing creatively, one builds a scene either from the ground or based upon previous paragraphs. It is about weaving a description and dialogue into a complete scene. These complete scenes are arranged according to the conventions of storytelling that each genre follows. Eventually a complete story appears, whether it is a novel, novella, or short story.
Legal writing is the same in this sense that one is also building on statutes, court rules, and caselaw. Each sentence builds on the one previously to construct an argument and analysis.
Whether one is trying to spare a criminal defendant from punishment or persuade a judge or jury to rule in a party’s favor, how one says what one means is crucial. One piece of advice I am finding applies equally both to creative and legal writing is: “You may think you have done enough if you write so that you can be understood. Well, you haven’t. You must write so that you can’t be misunderstood.”
After working in civil law for a short time (specifically, in divorce and family law), I think that many people have the wrong idea about justice and the court system. When someone is asked to explain justice, they would say that it is punishing those who have done wrong and the exoneration of the innocent. It is a far more complicated, difficult (and often disappointing) process than I’d imagined.
And in divorce and family law, justice is (or at least should be) aided through the application of equity. Unlike criminal law, divorce is not about whether one violated the law, it’s a matter of ensuring that the spouses and children are treated fairly in the process of dissolving a marriage and making single people of those who were married. It’s the process of trying to find an equitable way to disentangle themselves from each other.
The principles behind the application equity are expressed in what are known as the “maxims of equity”. There are 20 to 22 maxims, depending upon the source you may consult. Not every maxim of equity applies in a divorce case. Those that apply in divorce are:
Equity looks on that as done which ought to have been done
Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy
Equity will not allow a wrongdoer to profit by a wrong
Equity does not punish
Equity is a sort of equality
One who seeks equity must do equity
Delay defeats Equity, or Equity aids the vigilant not the indolent
Equity imputes an intention to fulfil an obligation
He who comes into equity must come with clean hands
Equity delights to do justice and not by halves
Equity follows the laws
Equity will not assist a volunteer
Equity will not complete an imperfect gift
Where equities are equal, the law will prevail
Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud
Between equal equities the first in order of time shall prevail
A complete list of the maxims of equity from the Wikipedia article on the subject (with a detailed, yet still concise, explanation of the maxims of equity can be found on Wikipedia here: Maxims of equity – Wikipedia.
I have finished my first week as a legal assistant. In that time, I have been to a few court proceedings. Previous to taking this job as a legal assistant, my only interaction with the court was being summoned for jury duty.
I have found that real life legal work is different from what you see in the movies and TV shows. Frankly, I prefer the dramatized versions.
The court proceedings that I have watched or participated in this week have been online via Webex. Remote court appearances are a huge convenience over the bad old days when everyone had to appear physically in a courtroom. I have seen people apprear for court proceedings via Webex in their cars, bedrooms, living rooms, from prison, their offices, and one cabin so far. People can still show up to court in person (sometimes they must), but they are then also included on the video call, if other participants appear via Webex.
I have seen sentencing, an adoption case, rescheduling, and objections all within the span of an hour. I saw a lawyer ask the court for directions on how to proceed because she had never appeared in that kind of proceeding before.
Many court case proceedings are scheduled at the same time, but don’t happen all that the same time. This has been lovingly referred to as “the cattle call”. People often wait up to an hour or more before their case is heard. This is one reason why remote appearances are a convenience; rather than having to twiddle your thumbs waiting at the courthouse, you can be at work or home and work or do other things while you wait until your case is finally called.
For the most part, court proceedings are a boring experience to the outside observer. There aren’t many “high-octane” moments where the bad guys almost win or the surprise witness bursts through the door. It often seems to me to be a matter of who the better b.s. artist is. This is where lawyers as a profession get their reputation for “gotcha” phrasing. I have seen entire arguments or refutations hinge on a single word. These aren’t arguments that would save or destroy the world, they are largely about whether something should happen. I think that the reason many proceedings are largely boring is due to the fact that they involve regular people. Regular people aren’t in charge of the fate of the world, just their own. If I was watching major corporations being taken down for nefarious deeds, then it would be more dramatic. I think that people forget that regular everyday life is everywhere, even in the courtroom.
The first thing you should know is that I am a writer. I have authored some short stories and some other things you haven’t heard of. I have been a Legal Assistant for two days, and I had some expectations when I started. Honestly, my expectations came from courtroom dramas and fiction novels. I was expecting Atticus Finch and the team from Suits. I was expecting other lawyers to be as bloodthirsty as Vlad Tepes.
What I have found is that they exist not as an archetype, but as people. Each one is just a person. Whether they are fighting against the rightfully earned reputation of their profession or living in the shadow of it, they are just people. Some of them work and care for the Law, some for their clients, and some for themselves.
The shows that we watch and books that we read about lawyers and the legal profession prop up personalities to make them larger than life. That is what makes them good stories. However, the best stories are based on a kernel of truth. I endeavor to learn more about the profession and dispel the illusions and mystification surrounding the profession.
I generally wouldn’t recommend trying to get the assistance of the court to remedy this problem. The legal system is not designed to address this problem well, if at all. And even when it can do something worthwhile, the legal system does not generally address this problem well, if at all.
Let’s assume that if you were just given the opportunity to prove that your ex-spouse (and I’m going to approach this question as applying to a manipulative father OR mother) is manipulating your children, you could prove it in spades. With that in mind:
If you ask the judge to interview the kids, odds are that the court will refuse to do so, coming up with all kinds of lame excuses as to why the judge “can’t” or “shouldn’t”. Most of these excuses stem from a belief that a judge interviewing the child will “traumatize” the children, yet these same judges seem to see nothing traumatizing about a guardian ad litem, custody evaluator, social worker, counselor, or therapist interviewing the children.
But even if the judge were to agree to interview the children, by the time the court gets around to conducting the interviews, weeks—even months—may have passed from the day you made the request of the judge to interview the children. In that time in between, the manipulative parent could coach, bribe, and/or coerce the children into saying to the judge anything but the truth. And if the manipulative parent is the one requesting that the judge interview the children, the coaching, bribing, and/or coercion of the children could have been going on for weeks, months, even years before. These are often two of the excuses judges will cite as their basis for refusing to interview children. There is some merit to these excuses, but the solution is not refusing to interview the children, the solution lies in mitigating child manipulation.
But even if you could somehow overcome the first two previously described obstacles and the judge eventually interviews the children, you may find the judge’s reception and analysis of the children’s testimony to be rather obtuse. Not always, but more often than you’d expect. Responses like, “The children tell me that Mom/Dad is regularly disparaging and telling the children lies about the other parent when the children are with Mom/Dad, but now that I’m aware of it, I trust that Mom/Dad will stop doing it, so I’m not going to make any changes” or “The children tell me that Mom/Dad is regularly disparaging and telling the children lies about the other parent when the children are with Mom/Dad, so I’m going to order Mom/Dad to stop doing it and take a parenting class. That ought to fix it.” I’m not sure judges who do this kind of thing believe it themselves but just do it to create the impression the matter has been addressed and “dealt with”.
If you are a parent with an ex-spouse who manipulates the children in an effort to alienate them from you, I have yet to find a quick, simple, easy, reliable way to combat and overcome parental alienation. If I did find it, I’d be a multimillionaire. There are many people out there who will tell you how to deal with and defeat alienation. A lot of this advice is appealing psychobabble. A lot of this advice is pandering to your fears, heartbreak, and anger. There must be some good advice out there as well. There are some common sense actions to be taken. There is value in meeting with a truly competent child psychologist to better understand the dynamics of parental alienation. But other than that, I’d be lying if I told you I could tell the difference between the wheat and the chaff.
What I can tell is that trying to beat parental alienation through the courts is, for the most part, a major waste of time, money, emotional energy, and effort. Sometimes the alienator’s behavior is so over the top that it can easily be identified and there are some remedies that the court can and should/must take in response. Otherwise, the best things you can do to mitigate and overcome parental alienation are those things within your legal, lawful, moral, and ethical control.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
Magical Law in the Wizarding World: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire pt. 1
Welcome back to Magical Law in the Wizarding World where I analyze Magical Law in the Harry Potter books, this week we will be looking at Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. However, due to the size of this book and the amount of information we learn about Magical Law it will be divided into two parts. We are first introduced to the fact that there wizards sometimes deal with police in the Muggle world. In Chapter 1, The Riddle House, when the police were summoned to investigate the mysterious death of the Riddle family. However, it isn’t until the sixth book, “Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince” that we learn what really happened to the Riddle family that night. This shows us that even Wizards can’t completely hide from the country or society they live in. Such as it is in the United States, societies and groups, such as Indian tribes, Amish and Mennonite communities, etc. are still subject to certain laws within the state and country where they live.
The beginning of the book starts out with the Quidditch World Cup. This is when we are first introduced to the idea that the Wizarding World exists in more places than just in England. An international society necessitates international laws. Across Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (book one), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (book three), and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (book four), the word ‘international’ is mentioned 16 times. Within those 16 times we learn about the Department of International Magical Cooperation, international law, International Association of Quidditch, International Magical Cooperation and Magical Games and Sports, International Confederation of Wizards, International Ban on Dueling, and the International Code of Wizarding Secrecy.
Finally, I do have an honorable mention when it comes to policies in the Wizarding World…and that would be regarding Cauldron Thickness. We learn that Percy Weasley, one of Ron’s older brothers is working at the Department of International Magical Cooperation in chapter three The Invitation. In Chapter 5 Weasleys’ Wizard Wheezes, we learn that Percy is working on “A report for the Department of International Magical Cooperation,” Percy goes on to say that they’re “trying to standardize cauldron thickness. Some of these foreign imports are just a shade too thin — leakages have been increasing at a rate of almost three percent a year —” after Ron sneers at him, Percy goes on to continue to express concern “unless some sort of international law is imposed” the market risks being flooded with flimsy, shallow-bottomed unsafe cauldrons. Even in the Wizarding World they have consumer safety concerns.
Join me next week for Magical Law in the Wizarding World in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire pt. 2.
Magical Law in the Wizarding World: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Welcome back to magical law in the Wizarding World the series where we analyze magical law in the Harry Potter books. For this video we will be analyzing Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
As we have learned in the two pervious videos, there are two major laws that govern the Wizarding World. The International Statue of Wizarding Secrecy and the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery, both, as with the pervious two books, were broken at the very beginning of the book. In chapter two, Aunt Marge’s Big Mistake, Harry in front of Muggles, blows his aunt into a balloon out of anger when Aunt Marge was talking awfully about Harry’s dead parents. Harry’s uncle demanded that Harry bring Aunt Marge back to which Harry refused, grabbed his belongings, and left his aunt and uncle’s house.
In chapter three, The Knight Bus, Harry chagrined about how “he had just done serious magic, which meant that he was almost certainly expelled from Hogwarts. He had broken the Decree for the Restriction of Underage Wizardry so badly, he was surprised Ministry of Magic representatives weren’t swooping down on him where he sat.” He sat outside wondering “What, was going to happen to him? Would he be arrested, or would he simply be outlawed from the wizarding world?” This shows to me that even though Harry manages to break the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery each year so far, he still understands that it is a law and he could be punished for it.
Later on in the chapter, Harry is greeted at the Leaky Cauldron by the Minister of Magic, Cornelius Fudge, “Oh, my dear boy, we’re not going to punish you for a little thing like that!…It was an accident! We don’t send people to Azkaban just for blowing up their aunts!” Harry was very skeptical of Fudge’s response since the year before Harry had been served with a notice notifying him that if any more magic happens at his house then he would be expelled from Hogwarts, Fudge told him that, “Circumstances change, Harry…” Later on we learn that the reason why Fudge did not expel Harry or punish him, because the safest place for Harry to be was Hogwarts.
In the first chapter, Owl Post we are introduced to Sirius Black on the muggle new network that he was an escaped convict who was, “armed and extremely dangerous.” Then in chapter three, The Knight Bus we learn that Sirius Black was a wizard who had escaped Azkaban, the wizarding prison. As stated in the book, “While Muggles have been told that Black is carrying a gun (a kind of metal wand that Muggles use to kill each other), the magical community lives in fear of a massacre like that of twelve years ago, when Black murdered thirteen people with a single curse.” In chapter ten, The Marauder’s Map we learn more about what Sirius Black did and why he was in Azkaban. Fudge explained how “nobody but trained Hit Wizards from the Magical Law Enforcement Squad would have stood a chance against Black once he was cornered. I was Junior Minister in the Department of Magical Catastrophes at the time, and I was one of the first on the scene after Black murdered all those people. I – I will never forget it. I still dream about it sometimes. A crater in the middle of the street, so deep it had cracked the sewer below. Bodies everywhere. Muggles screaming. And Black standing there laughing, with what was left of Pettigrew in front of him… a heap of bloodstained robes and a few — a few fragments…Black was taken away by twenty members of the Magical Law Enforcement ‘Squad and Pettigrew received the Order of Merlin, First Class, which I think was some comfort to his poor mother. Black’s been in Azkaban ever since.”
This explanation of Black and him being arrested shows us once again of the amounts of departments in the Ministry of Magic that work to keep the Wizarding World a secret to Muggles and how they strive to keep all the wizards obeying the laws and that there are consequences for wizards and witches that do not obey the law.
Azkaban is guarded by Dementors… dementors are first introduced to us in chapter five, The Dementor when dementors were on the Hogwarts Express looking for Sirius Black. Remus Lupin described dementors in chapter ten, The Marauder’s Map, “Dementors are among the foulest creatures that walk this earth. They infest the darkest, filthiest places, they glory in decay and despair, they drain peace, hope, and happiness out of the air around them… Get too near a Dementor and every good feeling, every happy memory will be sucked out of you. If it can, the Dementor will feed on you long enough to reduce you to something like itself… soulless and evil. You will be left with nothing but the worst experiences of your life, and you will just be an empty shell that lost its soul.” The is important to note because it shows yet again that there things and systems in place to keep Wizarding World running within it’s own laws.
In chapter 11, The Firebolt, we are first introduced to hearings in the magical world. Back in chapter six, Talons and Tea Leaves Draco Malfoy had gotten too close to Hagrid’s hippogriff and had gotten hurt. His father, Lucius Malfoy, brought the incident to the Ministry of Magic. In chapter 11, The Firebolt, Hagrid receives a letter which reads, “we must register our concern about the hippogriff in question. We have decided to uphold the official complaint of Mr. Lucius Malfoy, and this matter will therefore be taken to the Committee for the Disposal of Dangerous Creatures. The hearing will take place on April 20th, and we ask you to present yourself and your hippogriff at the Committee’s offices in London on that date…” This shows us how the Wizarding World holds hearings. Hermione reassured Hagrid by saying that, “You’ll have to put up a good strong defense, Hagrid…I’m sure I’ve read about a case of hippogriff-baiting…where the hippogriff got off I’ll look it up for you, Hagrid, and see exactly what happened.” However, this shows to us that precedent in law exist in the Wizarding World, I might even say it’s safe to assume that the Wizarding World uses common law like England and 49 of the United States, however, I still need to gather more data and information before I can prove that point. Another part that shows the Wizarding World might practice common law would be later on in the same chapter when it is stated that Harry, “Ron, and Hermione went to the library the next day and returned to the empty common room laden with books that might help prepare a defense for Buckbeak. The three of them sat in front of the roaring fire, slowly turning the pages of dusty volumes about famous cases If marauding beasts, speaking occasionally when they ran across something relevant.”
In chapter 15, The Quidditch Final we learn that Hagrid lost his case, and that the Hippogriff has been set to be executed. In chapter 16, Professor Trelawney’s Prediction we learn that Hagrid lost his appeal. This shows us how there are processes within the Wizarding World to accuse someone of something, have a hearing on the issues, and appeal the decision.
In chapter 18, Moody, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs we learn how the Ministry of Magic keeps tabs of people who are a Animagus, someone who can turn into an animal. I found this particularly interesting because it reminded me of watch lists, no fly lists, and other lists we have in the United States where the government keeps tabs on people that they find could poses a greater threat than other people.
A honorable mention of laws within the Wizarding World that are only mentioned in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban are the laws regarding time and the Time Turner that is used to go back in time to change history.
This book has shown us that there are hearings, precedent in law, appeals, judgements, jails, prison guards, magical law enforcement, and more that are similar with our world and government.
Join us next week for magical law in the Wizarding World in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.
Magical Law in the Wizarding World: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Welcome back to magical law in the Wizarding World the series where I analyze magical law in the Harry Potter books. For this video we will be analyzing Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
As we have learned in the two pervious videos, there are two major laws that govern the Wizarding World. The International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy and the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery, both, as with the pervious two books, were broken at the very beginning of the book. In chapter two, Aunt Marge’s Big Mistake, Harry in front of Muggles, blows his aunt into a balloon out of anger when Aunt Marge was talking awfully about Harry’s dead parents. Harry’s uncle demanded that Harry bring Aunt Marge back, but Harry refused, grabbed his belongings, and left his aunt and uncle’s house.
In chapter three, The Knight Bus, Harry was chagrined over how “he had just done serious magic, which meant that he was almost certainly expelled from Hogwarts. He had broken the Decree for the Restriction of Underage Wizardry so badly that he was surprised Ministry of Magic representatives weren’t swooping down on him where he sat.” He sat outside wondering “What was going to happen to him? Would he be arrested, or would he simply be outlawed from the wizarding world?” Even though Harry manages to break the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery each year so far, he still understands that it is a law and he could be punished for it.
Later on in the chapter, Harry is greeted at the Leaky Cauldron by the Minister of Magic, Cornelius Fudge, “Oh, my dear boy, we’re not going to punish you for a little thing like that!…It was an accident! We don’t send people to Azkaban just for blowing up their aunts!” Harry was very skeptical of Fudge’s response since the year before Harry had been served with a notice notifying him that if he performs any more magic at his muggle family members’ house then he would be expelled from Hogwarts, but Fudge told him, “Circumstances change, Harry…” Later on we learn that the reason why Fudge did not expel Harry or punish him was because the wizarding world needed to keep Harry safe, and the safest place for Harry to be was Hogwarts. In the first chapter, Owl Post, we are introduced to Sirius Black on the muggle new network. We learn that he was an escaped convict who was, “armed and extremely dangerous.” Then in chapter three, The Knight Bus we learn that Sirius Black was a wizard who had escaped Azkaban, the wizarding prison. As stated in the book, “While Muggles have been told that Black is carrying a gun (a kind of metal wand that Muggles use to kill each other), the magical community lives in fear of a massacre like that of twelve years ago, when Black murdered thirteen people with a single curse.” In chapter ten, The Marauder’s Map we learn more about what Sirius Black did and why he was in Azkaban. Fudge explained how “nobody but trained Hit Wizards from the Magical Law Enforcement Squad would have stood a chance against Black once he was cornered. I was Junior Minister in the Department of Magical Catastrophes at the time, and I was one of the first on the scene after Black murdered all those people.
This story of Sirius Black and him being arrested shows us once again that even the wizarding world can’t escape bureaucracy as learn about even more departments in the Ministry of Magic and how they strive to keep all the wizards and witches obeying the law. Let’s talk about the wizarding world’s correctional system. Azkaban prison is guarded by Dementors. Dementors are first introduced to us in chapter five (aptly entitled “The Dementor”) when dementors were described as being on the Hogwarts Express looking for Sirius Black. Remus Lupin described dementors in chapter ten, The Marauder’s Map. Quote, “Dementors are among the foulest creatures that walk this earth. They infest the darkest, filthiest places, they glory in decay and despair, they drain peace, hope, and happiness out of the air around them… Get too near a Dementor and every good feeling, every happy memory will be sucked out of you. If it can, the Dementor will feed on you long enough to reduce you to something like itself… soulless and evil. You will be left with nothing but the worst experiences of your life, and you will just be an empty shell that lost its soul.” So what would you equate the dementors to in our world? A really intense, deathly serious combination of Homeland Security and the FBI?
In chapter 11, The Firebolt, we are first introduced to legal proceedings of a sort in the magical world. Back in chapter six, Talons and Tea Leaves, Draco Malfoy had gotten too close to Hagrid’s hippogriff and had gotten hurt. His father, Lucius Malfoy, brought the incident to the Ministry of Magic. In chapter 11, Hagrid receives a letter which reads, “we must register our concern about the hippogriff in question. We have decided to uphold the official complaint of Mr. Lucius Malfoy, and this matter will therefore be taken to the Committee for the Disposal of Dangerous Creatures. The hearing will take place on April 20th, and we ask you to present yourself and your hippogriff at the Committee’s offices in London on that date…” So the Wizarding World holds hearings. Hermione reassured Hagrid by saying that, “You’ll have to put up a good strong defense, Hagrid…I’m sure I’ve read about a case of hippogriff-baiting…where the hippogriff got off I’ll look it up for you, Hagrid, and see exactly what happened.” That shows us that precedent in law exists in the Wizarding World, I might even say it’s safe to assume that the Wizarding World uses common law like England and 49 of the United States. There is other evidence in later books that further suggest the Wizarding World might follow common law principles when it is revealed that Harry, “Ron, and Hermione went to the library the next day and returned to the empty common room laden with books that might help prepare a defense for Buckbeak the hippogriff. “The three of them sat in front of the roaring fire, slowly turning the pages of dusty volumes about famous cases If marauding beasts, speaking occasionally when they ran across something relevant.”
In chapter 15, The Quidditch Final, we learn that Hagrid lost his case, and that the Hippogriff has been taken away to be executed. In chapter 16, Professor Trelawney’s Prediction, we learn that Hagrid lost his appeal.
In chapter 18, Moody, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs, we learn how the Ministry of Magic keeps tabs of people who are a Animagus, someone who can turn into an animal. I found this particularly interesting because it reminded me of watch lists, no fly lists, and other such lists we have in the United States where the government keeps tabs on people that they find pose or could pose a particularly great threat to others. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban shows us that there the wizarding world is a world of laws. There are hearings, precedent in law, appeals, judgements, jails, prison guards, magical law enforcement, and more that are similar to our world and government.
Join me next week for magical law in the Wizarding World in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.
Magical Law in the Wizarding World: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Welcome back to magical law in the Wizarding World the series where we analyze magical law in the Harry Potter books. For this video we will be analyzing Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
Quickly within the second chapter of the Chamber of Secrets we are reminded of the two most basic laws within the Wizarding World. The International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy and the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery when Ron Wealsey and his twin brothers come to rescue Harry from his aunt and uncle’s house in a flying car. When Ron sees Harry he says, “…dad came home and said you’d got an official warning for using magic in front of muggles…you know we’re not supposed to do spells outside of school.” We are being reminded that it is against the law to use magic in front of muggles (the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy) and that underage wizards are not allowed to use magic outside of school (Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery).
Later, in chapter three The Burrow we learn that Arthur Wealsey oversees the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Office at the Ministry of Magic. When Harry asks what exactly Ron’s dad does, Ron explains it by saying, “It’s all to do with bewitching things that are Muggle-made, you know, in case they end up back in a Muggle shop or house. Like, last year, some old witch died, and her tea set was sold to an antiques shop. This Muggle woman bought it, took it home, and tried to serve her friends tea in it…The teapot went berserk and squirted boiling tea all over the place and one man ended up in the hospital with the sugar tongs clamped to his nose. Dad was going frantic — it’s only him and an old warlock called Perkins in the office — and they had to do Memory Charms and all sorts of stuff to cover it up —” Ron also mentions that if his father did a ‘raid’ on his own house he would have to put himself under arrest. I am pretty sure that the first time ‘raids’ are mentioned in the Harry Potter books are on page 31 of the Chamber of Secrets, however if I am wrong. Please let me know.
Raids are when the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Office shows up unannounced to people’s houses to collect any bewitched muggle items that would land back in the hands of muggles. This is important because in chapter four At Flourish and Blotts we are presented with a scene of Mr. Malfoy selling items to Mr. Borgin at Borgin and Burkes – a known dark magical object antique shop. Mr. Malfoy while talking to Mr. Borgin says, “You have heard, of course, that the Ministry is conducting more raids…I have a few — ah — items at home that might embarrass me, if the Ministry were to call.…I have not been visited yet…[but]…There are rumors about a new Muggle Protection Act — no doubt that flea-bitten, Muggle-loving fool Arthur Weasley is behind it…and as you see, certain of these poisons might make it appear…” This shows that there were polices in the Wizarding World that have strong enough consequences that even former death eaters, close followers of Voldemort, were concerned of the repercussions of breaking the laws.
Speaking of repercussions for breaking laws in the Wizarding World, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is the first time we are introduced to the jail that exists for wizards – Azkaban. We are introduced to the idea of it when the Minister of Magic (Cornelius Fudge) who we are also first introduced to in this book, comes to take Hagrid to Azkaban to calm people suspicions that he is the heir of Slytherin and that he has opened the Chamber of Secrets. However, it isn’t until Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (book 3) that we learn more about Azkaban.
On a side note, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets introduces us to the bribery, blackmail, and corruption that exists in the Wizarding World. Mr. Malfoy brough a letter from the Governor to suspend Dumbledore as the headmaster of Hogwarts, however in chapter eighteen Dobby’s Reward Dumbledore returned to Hogwarts to which Mr. Malfoy responded by saying, “You’ve come back. The governors suspended you, but you still saw fit to return to Hogwarts.” To which Dumbledore responds by saying, “Well, you see…the other eleven governors contacted me today. It was something like being caught in a hailstorm of owls, to tell the truth. They’d heard that Arthur Weasley’s daughter had been killed and wanted me back here at once. They seemed to think I was the best man for the job after all. Very strange tales they told me, too…Several of them seemed to think that you had threatened to curse their families if they didn’t agree to suspend me in the first place.” This shows us that there is still fear in the Wizarding World and that it is not a perfect law-abiding world.
There is one more instance of law breaking I want to bring up – Ron and Harry using Mr. Weasley’s flying car to get them to Hogwarts. We are first introduced to Mr. Weasley’s flying car by Ron and his twin brothers when they are picking up/kidnapping harry from his uncle and aunt’s house. When Harry inquired about the car, Ron and his brother mentioned that Mr. Wealsey had written a loophole in the laws of muggle artifacts that was currently the law. Mr. Wealsey wrote that you could bewitch muggle artifacts as long as you weren’t planning on using them. That is why he made a car that could fly but was never planning on flying it. When Ron and Harry were trying to get to Platform 9 ¾ they were unable to and decided to use Mr. Weasley’s car to fly to Hogwarts instead of doing anything else what would have been more practical. Anyways, while Ron and Harry were flying to Hogwarts, they forgot to use the invisibility button, and they were seen by muggles. Breaking the International Statue of Wizarding Secrecy among many other muggle laws and caused a ruckus within the wizarding community. We later find out that Mr. Wealsey was facing an inquiry at work because of the car he had built to fly that he never intended on flying. I wanted to mention this situation because it shows that there are a certain number of checks and balances within the wizarding community. Even though Mr. Wealsey was the head of his department, there was still an inquire into him, and the actions he took.
Interestingly, enough Ron and Harry somehow seem to escape most legal punishments when they break the law but in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, we do some people held to a higher standard. Join me next week as we discuss Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
I am a big book reader. In fact, I am on about my 27th book in 2022 so far. So, for my fourteenth week of being a legal assistant, I want to tell you about some of my favorite books about legal topics that I’ve read and why I like them. We will start off with one of my favorite college textbooks/law books. First off is Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making by Deborah Stone. This book really opens your eyes to all the different sides of making laws. It is important while making laws that you understand every aspect and every type of glasses through which someone could look at the law. One of my favorite book series growing up was the Theodore Boone series by bestselling author (and former real lawyer) John Grisham. These books follow a young boy who is the son of two lawyers and how he offers his friends legal advice. I have yet to reread these books since becoming a legal assistant, but it would be fun to read them again to see if and how my opinion of them changes. One of the more recent legal books I have read is Where the Crawdads Sing by Delia Owens. I loved how this book intertwined the courtroom and conversations Kya had with her lawyer with what happened. It was fun to read along with the court what was happening and to find out along with them the facts of the case. I also liked how we did not know the result of the court case, we were learning along with everyone else. Last but not least, another of my favorite legal books is of course the…Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling….. hey! They have court and prison in those books. I am rereading the Harry Potter series and it’s interesting to read it from a legal perspective. And there is a whole page on the Harry Potter Wiki about Magical Law. (that link is in the description section of this video), In fact, in the future I will make a video about Magical Law in the wizarding world. See you next week.
Magical Law in the Wizarding World: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.
Believe me when I tell you that this video is about law. Stay with me. We are first introduced to the Wizarding World of Harry Potter in the book Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. And it only seems right to start off my analysis of magical law in the Wizarding World by starting with that very first book. If you have not read the Harry Potter Books this video contains many spoilers, so do not continue watching if you have not read the books and think you might want to read them in the future.
There is one major law that governs the Wizarding World, and that is that magic is to be kept a secret from those who do not themselves practice magic or know what magic is. That means keeping it secret from the Muggles; “muggles” is a term for a person who does not possess supernatural powers, in other words, people like you and me. This law is called the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy and it was passed into law in 1692, according to chapter five of Quidditch Through the Ages.
As is the case with all laws, there are institutions that exist for its creation, interpretation, and enforcement. And the Wizarding World is no exception. The first time the Ministry of Magic is mentioned is in Chapter Five Diagon Alley of the Sorcerer’s Stone during an exchange Harry has with Rubeus Hagrid. This exchange starts when Hagrid says, “Ministry o’ Magic messin’ things up as usual.” Harry responds by asking “There’s a Ministry of Magic?” and then later asks “But what does a Ministry of Magic do? ” Hagrid responds, “[T]heir main job is to keep it from the Muggles that there’s still witches an’ wizards up an’ down the country.” I find it interesting, all the laws that are in the Wizarding World that is, especially now that I am a legal assistant.
Within the Sorcerer’s Stone there are a few random laws that are mentioned here and there. I’ll mention some. This is not a conclusive list, so if you think of some more, please leave them in the comments section below.
Owning dragons is illegal. In chapter 14 Norbert the Norwegian Ridgeback we learn that Hagrid was hatching a dragon in his apartment. In a conversation between Harry Potter and Ron Weasley Harry says, “Hagrid’s always wanted a dragon, he told me so the first time I ever met him.” To which Ron response by saying, “But it’s against our laws. Dragon breeding was outlawed by the Warlocks’ Convention of 1709, everyone knows that.”
Preforming magic, if you were expelled from a wizarding school, is explained to us in chapter four The Keeper of the Keys, as illegal too. At least this was the case for Hagrid who said asked Harry not to mention any of the magic he preformed because, “Be grateful if yeh didn’t mention that ter anyone at Hogwarts, I’m – er – not supposed ter do magic, strictly speakin’.” When Harry asked him why, Hagrid responded that, “I was at Hogwarts meself but I – er – got ex-pelled, ter tell yeh the truth. In me third year. They snapped me wand in half an’ everything…” However, I am unsure if everyone who gets expelled from a wizarding school is not allowed to do magic or it is on a case by case basis.
In chapter 15, The Forbidden Forest it is mentioned that killing a unicorn is a crime and according to the Harry Potter Fandom Website unicorn blood is, “probably a Non-Tradeable Item, since the sale of this substance is controlled by the Ministry of Magic, making it strictly forbidden.” When Harry and his classmates were in the Forbidden Forest while serving detention, they are looking for what has been slaying and drinking the blood of unicorns in the forest. While in the forest Harry meets Firenze the Centaur who tells Harry, among other things about killing unicorns, “The blood of a unicorn will keep you alive, even if you are an inch from death, but at a terrible price.”
Students using magic outside of school while still under the age of 17 is also illegal according to the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery, which was passed in 1875, but we do not learn more about it until you get to book two: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
While preparing this I started to realize how many laws Hagrid constantly breaks while still trying to do what is right. There are of course plenty of Hogwarts rules Harry, Ron, Hermione, and others in the Wizarding World break, but those are rules, not laws. In the future books we learn more about other laws and the punishments for breaking them.
Thinking about these laws from a legal assistant’s perspective is very interesting. Imagine having to move for or draft an order or something of the sort for violating Wizarding World law. Those would be some interesting things to draft. However, the Wizarding World’s legal and court systems are different from what we have in the United States. We will get more into that later when we talk about Magical Law in the Wizarding World: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
I feel like in the past twelve weeks of being a legal assistant and in my last twelve videos I have been a bit pessimistic. But I have decided for my thirteenth week and thirteenth video I will try to be cheery. Today I will be talking about aspects of the legal system that bring me joy. We will start off with people who respond, and respond on time, to my emails. That brings me great joy. Any job in the legal world cannot get done without other people communicating timely, getting the work fully done, and by the deadlines. Having cheery conversations with firm clients also brings me joy. It is nice to talk and chat with people you are working for and are trying to help. It is also joyful when other lawyers work towards the best interest of their clients as well. It builds my faith in the world when I see other lawyers who are not taking advantage of their clients or opposing parties and helping them to dispose of their cases quickly, inexpensively and fairly. Well, next week I’ll likely go back to being pessimistic, but I hope you enjoyed a bit of cheer this time around.
Do your research with due diligence. Interview a lot of different firms and attorneys (I’m talking 5 to 10, not just 2 or 3—you’ll never get a feel for the diversity of competence and incompetence unless you do). Don’t be offensive in your questioning, but do ask candid and serious questions of those you interview to get an idea of the lawyer’s (and of the office’s) personality and professional culture, and approach to the work.
Lawyers are trained to be persuasive, so don’t be taken in by simply what they say or how well you perceive they say it. Most lawyers who are mediocre and incompetent can still charm you in conversation fairly well, if you’re not discerning.
Don’t hire the least expensive or the most expensive attorney. Hire the best attorney you can afford, and if the best attorney you can afford is incompetent, then you either need to get more money for a good attorney or you’re probably better off with no attorney at all. Paying an incompetent attorney is just wasting your money.
Don’t base your decision on online reviews. Great online lawyer reviews are easy to fake and usually are fake.
Don’t hire based solely or primarily upon the recommendations of friends alone. Some friends have no idea who’s good or bad, but they “recommend” people so that they look smart and connected, not really to help you. Some friends surprisingly don’t know a good attorney from a bad one, even if they think they do.
Even when you’ve done your best to ensure you hired a good attorney, it is virtually impossible to know whether you’ve hired a good or bad divorce and family lawyer until after you’ve worked with him/her for a few days or weeks. Pay close attention in those first days and weeks.
“Hire slow, fire fast” is good advice for who your attorney is. Take your time to find who you believe—after conducting a solid investigation—is a good attorney before you hire one. In the unfortunate event you realize your attorney stinks, don’t beat yourself up about; many, many lawyers succeed by being deceitful. But once you discover your choice of attorney was a bad choice (a bad lawyer), replace him/her as fast as you reasonably can. Don’t try to reform your bad attorney. Odds are high that it won’t work. Don’t hold on to your incompetent attorney because of sunk costs. Your lousy attorney will only cost you more the longer he/she stays on your case. Hire slow, but fire (when you need to fire) fast.
If your lawyer:
(or a member of his/her staff) returns your calls and emails and text messages promptly and addresses all of your questions and concerns (your good, thoughtful questions and concerns—if you are the type who runs to the phone or the computer in a panic or on a whim with any and every question having failed to do your own homework first, expect your lawyer to get testy with you sooner than later);
(or a member of his/her staff) promptly sends you complete copies of correspondence with opposing counsel and others involved in the case;
(or a member of his/her staff) promptly sends you complete copies of everything he/she files with the court and that opposing counsel files with the court;
(or a member of his/her staff) sends you drafts of the motions and other documents he/she is preparing to file with the court, so that you can review and comment on them and approve them for filing with the court before they are filed with the court;
and his/her staff reflect a desire to do their best in every aspect of their work;
checks in with you regularly to give you update and to see how you’re holding up;
explains the legal process to you before you file your case and as your case unfolds;
shows up to court on time, is clearly knowledgeable of the facts and the applicable law, and is prepared to argue your case zealously at hearings;
isn’t afraid to tell you when your case or elements of your case is/are weak, and doesn’t offer or agree to do whatever you want “if the price is right”; and
isn’t afraid to take your case to trial (in other words, isn’t champing at the bit to get you to agree to quick and dirty settlement),
you likely have a good lawyer. A lawyer who delivers real value for the money you pay your lawyer. If your lawyer or his/her staff doesn’t do these all of these things, you likely have a bad lawyer.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
If you are contemplating divorce or are currently in the divorce process, you’d be wise to listen to what I have to share with you. I’ve got some law office insider advice for you on how clients can get and stay on the good side of their attorneys. In my twelve weeks of working as a legal assistant I have quickly and definitively learned a few ways to make your attorney happy and upset. Of course, I cannot speak for every law office or attorney, but in the family law practice office I work at, this is what I have observed, and that appears to be universal. So here are my current top three cautions:
What to do:
Complete required forms that are sent to you in a timely manner. Don’t wait for your attorney or their staff to contact you to remind you to complete the document, just get it done and send it back with the supporting documents. Don’t wait until the last minute to complete them. If you work on them a little bit each day during the time you have between receiving them and when they are due, you and your attorney will have the least amount of trouble and you and your attorney can do your best work.
Answer questions on forms as completely and as accurately and as honestly as possible. When preparing the first draft or two, it is better for you to give your attorney too much information than too little, when in doubt. It’s much easier to winnow things out to get to the best stuff. It’s a crying shame when the client loses the benefit of information and documents that could have helped the case but didn’t because they were never shared.
Take the initiative. It’s your case. Give it the attention it deserves. When you have an idea or question or request, tell your attorney about it ASAP. ‘Think you have a document or other evidence that could help your case? Tell your attorney about it. Send your attorney a copy to review. Have a concern or question or comment that could solve or avoid trouble in your case? Express it. E-mail your attorney about it. Schedule a time with your attorney to meet or talk on the phone about it.
What NOT to do:
Communicate and make deals with your soon to be ex without consulting your attorney and making a plan of action for the best results (or at least the least risk). Instead, find out if it’s better to communicate through your attorney. Conferring with your attorney before you act and communicating through an attorney when necessary or prudent makes it far less likely you’ll say or do things that hurt your case and you (or your kids).
Assume that the forms your attorney sends you and the questions your attorney asks you somehow magically do not apply to you. Instead, make sure to complete all forms and to answer all of your attorney’s questions completely and fully and in the utmost good faith.
Assume that since your case isn’t moving as fast, as inexpensively, and as easily as you’d like that your attorney is to blame. There are plenty of lousy lawyers out there, and if you know you have a bad attorney you should replace him or her immediately. But even the best attorneys aren’t wizards; they cannot force opposing counsel to reply to questions fully or timely, they cannot the courts to schedule court dates when it’s convenient, and they cannot make up through their personal hard work and willpower for clients who neglect their case.
Completely Unnecessary Times I Feel Like I Have to Pull Teeth to Help a Client.
I have officially been a legal assistant for eleven weeks now, and I feel like I had to pull teeth to get some information from clients that the clients know or should know they need to give to me. Clients going through a divorce must compile, complete, and file certain documents with the court as part of the process of divorce. These forms you fill out and the documents to be produced are required by the court. They aren’t busy work. Once in a while we get a client who fully completes forms, completely answers questions, and informatively responds to document and other requests in a timely manner. They are all too rare. I often send out requests to clients two, three, even four weeks before they are due, yet still have to call, nag, and annoy them literally every day into doing what they already know they need to do. If parties to a divorce case don’t complete the forms and produce the documents to the court and to the opposing side, clients can be fined and otherwise severely sanctioned by the court. You would think with those penalties hanging over their heads, clients would carefully, if not eagerly, strive to fill out and give me documents they are required to produce for the court. You would think that after receiving from me the forms to complete and the list of documents to produce that a client would send them back neat and complete and as soon as possible, and at least by the given deadlines. That they would diligently search for and find the supporting documents to send to me and that they would be thanking me for helping them with their divorce and for keeping their case not only alive but strong and for keeping them in the court’s good graces. Unfortunately, and painfully, that is not usually the case. And the clients suffer for it. If you are thinking about going through a divorce or are in the process of a divorce, help your attorney help you. We can’t answer the questions only you can answer. We don’t have copies of your tax refunds, pay stubs, and bank statements. It helps ensure you and your attorney are well prepared, which helps ensure your success in your divorce case. And no, there is no easier or better way to do it.
When in an argument or a disagreement most people want to get in the last word or win. I think that’s no different with people who are going through a divorce. In fact, I feel like the feeling to beat someone you once loved or shared a life with makes getting in the last word and/or winning even stronger.
We always hear about different ways people have acted in revenge against their former friends and significant others. Putting fish in curtains, slashing tires, leaking embarrassing pictures, but I think that there is another form of revenge that isn’t talked about as much: using and abusing the courts for revenge. Those who do so have been hurt, so they want others to hurt. Misery loves company.
So far in my ten weeks as a legal assistant in a divorce and family law practice, I have seen people who are already divorced file motions and petitions to modify their divorce decrees, and not for any good reason besides revenge or sticking to their ex. And they don’t care who gets hurt, even if they get hurt. They’ll seek to modify the child custody award just to scare and intimidate a good parent. They’ll try to block kids from enrolling in school. They’ll accuse a clearly decent parent of being anything but. There is a lot of pain in family and divorce law, much of which is caused needlessly by a desire to cause the other spouse or parent to suffer.