Many people complain (justifiably) about child support in this regard: parents who qualify to receive child support or to receive more child support by being unemployed, underemployed or who deliberately work lower paying jobs than they are qualified to do, and who then spend those support funds on themselves, not on the needs of the children.
It’s a very good point. We all know (and so do the courts) about child support recipients who (for lack of a better word) “embezzle” child support funds for their own personal use. It happens frequently, unfortunately. And it is hard to detect and to prove to a court. Even if one can prove that child support funds are being misspent by the recipient parent, most courts throw their hands in the air and say, effectively, “OK, so I agree that mom/dad is misspending the funds. What do you want me to do now? Order that you pay less child support? That will only result in the children having less, ‘cuz the recipient ain’t gonna have an epiphany and start spending the lower amount of support on the kids.” It’s a no-win situation for the innocents (children and payor alike).
The Utah State Legislature passed this into law an amendment to Utah Code § 77-36-2.1, which was effective May 3, 2023. The newly amended code section now requires police officers to conduct “lethality assessments” in response to domestic violence calls under certain circumstances.
My immediate reaction to this news was: Oh, no, but I didn’t share that on my blog because I wanted to ensure I didn’t come to any hasty, erroneous conclusions. Now that I’ve had time to reflect on the subject, my reaction is: Oh, no.
While I have no doubt that the intention behind lethality assessments is sincere, I worry about whether lethality assessments will be conducted to protect domestic violence victims or conducted to protect the police.
If you’re a law enforcement officer who doesn’t want to be blamed for failing to protect a victim or potential victim, then what reason would you have not to “err on the side of caution” when you conduct lethality assessments? Essentially, the thinking goes: “I don’t want to be blamed for failing to protect someone from domestic violence. I don’t want to be accused of being insensitive to the vulnerable. So, if the mere allegation of domestic violence arises, I will punish the accused and I 1) won’t look like I’m soft on domestic violence and 2) will appear to be preventing crime (even if there is no crime).”
I’m concerned that lethality assessments can be abused by those who report domestic violence and those who respond to reports of domestic violence, that lethality assessments, which are intended to be a shield to the vulnerable, would be abused as a weapon against innocent people who aren’t violent and/or who don’t pose a threat of violence.
As a divorce lawyer, I am particularly concerned about the potential for lethality assessments to be abused by spouses and parents who are plotting a divorce or child custody action and who make false allegations of domestic violence to gain an advantage over the other spouse or parent in the divorce and or child custody action. Then, not only do we have to worry about police officers who might err on the side of caution when conducting lethality assessments, but we also have to worry about judges who would do the same (“I have my doubts about the credibility of that lethality assessment in the record. But if I say I don’t believe it, then I might appear indifferent to domestic violence. Or if it turns out that the accused is violent, then I’ll be blamed for ‘ignoring’ the lethality assessment. Better for me to err on the side of caution.”).
I am also worried that, following the mandate to conduct lethality assessments, the domestic violence hustlers will “discover” a raft of domestic violence “risk” or “danger” that had heretofore gone “undetected” based upon the lethality assessments data, and that it will be offered as proof that lethality assessments “work”. I’m worried that people will claim that the self-proclaimed domestic violence victims are proof that they are domestic violence victims because of the lethality assessment, which is nothing other than a record of one’s subjective claims of being a victim.
The term for representing yourself in court is “pro se” or “pro per”.
Can you navigate the legal system successfully without a lawyer representing you in your case?
Before I became a legal assistant, I thought the answer to that question was, “Well, it won’t be easy, but how hard could it be, if I tried my best?” You’d be forgiven if you think that way too. Many people do. With the exception of a few who are so rare as to make them statistically insignificant, however, going pro se is a recipe for failure.
To win a case, you need admissible evidence and enough admissible evidence. Do you know (really know) whether you have admissible evidence and enough admissible evidence? If not, proceeding pro se puts you at risk of losing.
To win a case, you first need to know whether the law supports your position. Do you know the law? Can you cite the sections of code and what rules of civil procedure and rules of evidence that apply? Do they support your position? If not, proceeding pro se puts you at risk of losing.
To win a case, you need to present your evidence and your legal argument in compliance with the rules of court and in an engaging and persuasive manner. Do you know how to do that? If not, proceeding pro se puts you at risk of losing.
Even if you went up against a brand new, inexperienced lawyer, who would you bet on? Someone with a college education, plus three years of law school (maybe more), or someone who read some blogs and watched some YouTube videos? Now add 5 to 30 years of experience to the lawyer’s side of the ledger. Do you really think you’re on a level playing field?
Would you go into unfamiliar terrain without a guide? The legal profession, the legal system, and court proceedings are all unfamiliar territory, and you can easily get lost and hurt in unfamiliar territory.
And then there’s the problem that is not so intuitive: you’re not in the club. Most judges and lawyers resent people who believe they can do what legal professionals do. Even pro se litigants who have the evidence, the law, and the arguments down can still lose just because the judge and lawyers don’t want you getting uppity.
Pro se is a path that is not for the faint of heart. It will be an uphill battle at best. If you go the pro se route, you will face people who are more knowledgeable, more experienced, and more skilled than you are or can reasonably ever hope to be.
Seth Godin stated it well when he wrote, “The ease with which someone can invent and spread lies [with advancing technology] is going to take most of us by surprise. It’s going to require an entirely new posture for understanding the world around us.”
This is especially true in family law.
We will soon reach the point (some are there already) in family law where a spouse or parent can create fake email, text, and audio and visual “records” of spousal and child abuse, substance abuse, infidelity, assets and debt, property damage, diminution and dissipation of assets, scientific data, etc. that is all but indistinguishable from the genuine article. The level and volume of fakery will be impossible for all but the wealthiest of litigants to discern (and even then, if a duped judge is too proud or to biased to acknowledge and remedy the fraud, all the proof in the world won’t protect the innocent). When truth is practicably impossible to verify in the legal process, truth becomes meaningless to the process.
I don’t know how best to address this problem (it may already be too late). Unless the profession takes immediate and wise action, the liars will make such a mockery of the legal process so fast and so pervasively that trust in the system will be irreparably destroyed (and with good reason). We may reach a point where society at large gives up on the notion of justice being a function of truth (reality).
One concern I have is members of the profession (both opposing counsel and judges) acting “offended” for outraged or “concerned” if somebody claims that deepfakes and other similar tactics are being engaged. I’m concerned that someone who may in the utmost sincerity raise legitimate concerns about the authenticity and veracity of certain evidence being ridiculed as paranoid, a vexatious litigator, unprofessional, etc. Not out of a genuine belief, but in the hopes that shaming or even persecuting the whistleblower will result in the claims being retracted so that the hard work of getting to the truth can be avoided and or so that the desired outcome is not impeded by the facts. When that happens, then who will judge the judges, and by what standard?
It means that the child custody order is a temporary, as opposed to a permanent and final, order of the court.
Why would a court enter a temporary child custody order? For obvious reasons and necessity. If to parents are fighting over custody of a child and what the ultimate child custody and parent time order will be, it will likely take a year or two before that case goes to trial. The child needs to be taken care of during that period (known as the pendente lite period in the litigation; pendent lite literally means “while the litigation is pending”), and so the court will issue temporary orders as to how much time the child spends with each parent until the final child custody order is made.
These temporary orders are not to be intended have a “prejudicial” effect on the outcome of the final child custody award (but that is rarely the case).
“Prejudicial” in a legal sense means a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience, harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgment. As you can imagine, if the existence or purported success of a temporary order was cited by the court as evidence that the temporary order must become the permanent order of the court, then the so-called “temporary” order is anything but. To assert that a temporary custody order has proven itself to be better than any other possible custody order on the grounds that it has been in place to the exclusion of any other possible custody arrangement would be an example of giving the temporary order prejudicial impact and effect.
And now to address the elephant in the room:
Courts routinely claim that temporary child custody orders cannot and will not have a prejudicial effect on the final child custody order. That is simply not true.
Now clearly, if a court found the temporary orders to be disastrous for the child, and the court will need to impose a different permanent custody order for the sake of the child’s welfare and the sake of the court’s legitimacy.
But what about a temporary order that isn’t best for the child but isn’t manifestly catastrophic? How can anyone believe a judge who says that he or she isn’t looking to the track record of that sub-optimal, so-called temporary order when determining what the permanent child custody order should be?
It takes an extremely intellectually disciplined judge to disregard that temporary orders track record as evidence in favor of that temporary custody arrangement.
Instead, however, most judges will take the path of least resistance and adopt as the permanent order a temporary order that hasn’t been a patent failure, and then cite in support of that decision the fact that the parent opposing that schedule has “failed to produce sufficient evidence” to rebut the proposition that the so-called temporary order is in the best interest of the child. Judges will deny that they do this, but it’s obvious that they do. Do you see the problem with this approach?
When the court:
imposes one and only one custody schedule during the pendente lite phase of the case,
claims that this one and only one schedule will not have a prejudicial effect on the ultimate permanent child custody order,
refuses to implement any other proposed schedule to test and evaluate it against the other schedule,
bars the other parent from implementing his/her proposed custody schedule in any kind of real life/real-time setting during the pendente lite phase,
then cites to the other parent having failed to produce sufficient fact(s) that his/her proposed custody schedule better serves the best interest of the child,
and cites to the track record of the so-called non-prejudicial temporary order as fact(s) in support of the argument for imposing it as a permanent order,
the so-called non-prejudicial temporary order is anything but.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
You don’t have to come up with creative reasons for getting a divorce anymore in the age of no-fault divorce (in the U.S.A.).
You don’t have to find a reason to blame your spouse for seeking a divorce from your spouse. No-fault divorce literally means “no fault” need be shown as grounds for divorce.
With these facts in mind, you almost don’t need to come up with an excuse a “good reason” to obtain a divorce anymore. I say “almost” because while it is true that you do not have to ascribe fault to your spouse as grounds for divorce, you usually have to give a legally recognized reason for the divorce, and in the jurisdiction where I practice divorce law (Utah), the no-fault basis that I’ve yet to have a court question or reject is “irreconcilable differences of the marriage”. Technically, a court could challenge one’s claims of irreconcilable differences and, if it determines that there are not, in fact, irreconcilable differences between the spouses, the court could deny the request for a decree of divorce and dismissed the divorce action, but I’ve never seen that happen in the 25 years I’ve been practicing law to date, and I doubt I ever will.
Many would question the wisdom of no-fault divorce laws and their unintended consequences, but that doesn’t change the fact that no-fault divorce exists and exists in every state in the United States of America.
So if you want a divorce, but you don’t have the typical fault-based grounds available to you, it doesn’t matter anymore.
Now, to answer your specific question: if you sought a divorce purely on the grounds that your spouse lived with her parents during pregnancy, that would probably fail as grounds for divorce. However, if you were to allege that her separation from you for the duration of her pregnancy has caused irreconcilable differences, and you could prove that the marriage is irretrievably broken as a result, you’d win. You’d get a divorce. You might look like a heel for divorcing on those grounds, especially if your wife had good reason to need to spend most or all of her pregnancy in the presence and care of her parents (such as a high-risk pregnancy where she would need someone constantly with her in the event of an emergency or a sudden need to visit the hospital or doctor), but if you just couldn’t stand the fact that your wife stays with her parents during pregnancy and that cause you to give up on the marriage, the court would probably give you a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
Is there anything that can surprise a judge during a contested divorce proceeding?
Of course.
We’ve all read about cases where all of the circumstantial evidence indicated the defendant is guilty, only to be surprised in the eleventh hour some piece of evidence that conclusively proves he couldn’t be guilty, but that someone else is the perpetrator.
We know, sadly, of people mistakenly or wrongfully convicted, which often comes as a surprise (because we hate the idea that the justice system can be and in such cases is corrupt at one or more levels):
Of course. I will describe one common way a judge can be surprised (especially in divorce and family law cases): like all of us, judges have their own worldviews based upon their individual personal experiences, what they were taught as they grew up, their own beliefs and biases. A good judge tries to be as aware as possible of these things, so that he/she will not take a subject approach to the case but will follow where the evidence leads according to what the law dictates.
One of the things that many subjective-minded judges tend to do in divorce and child custody disputes is believe the woman/mother to be:
honest
the better parent of the two
financially dependent on her husband
under the husband’s explicit or implicit control (whether that be financially, emotionally/psychologically, physically, or both)
victimized in some way (whether great or small) by the husband, if the wife claims to have been. Extremely common examples: “He controlled all the money, wouldn’t tell me how much/how little we had, and wouldn’t give me any to spend,” and/or “He forbade me from having a job,” and/or “He physically/sexually/emotionally abused me and/or the children,” and/or “He forced me to engage in sexual acts that I found objectionable/humiliating,” and/or “He never shared in the household chores and childrearing.”
Don’t get me wrong; many wives/mothers are all of these things, but not always. But 25 years as a divorce and family lawyer I can tell you that in my experiences some judges presume the women to be some of these things simply by virtue of them being women, and if the wife/mother makes claims to being any of these things, the judge will often treat such claims as “prima facie” established until the husband/father refutes/rebuts them.
Consequently, it often surprises some such judges when a husband/father proves* that, while he is not perfect:
he is honest and/or the wife/mother has been lying about him or on the subject of other issues in the divorce and/or child custody case.
he is either just as good a parent as his wife or the better parent of the two
and if he proves he’s the better parent, that often comes as so big of a shock to some courts that the court cannot/will not bring itself to accept such a concept, let alone such a fact
that if the wife/mother is in fact financially dependent on him (as many wives often are, though decreasingly so in modern society), he has been forthright and transparent about financial matters with his wife
that he does not exercise any kind of force or control over his wife and/or children but is decent, loving, and treats all of his family members fairly and well
*Getting over that bar is often extremely difficult, sometimes impossible for some husbands/fathers with some judges.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
What should I say to my lawyer who told me that a motion to dismiss isn’t really a thing so we cannot file one?
It may be that a motion to dismiss is in fact not possible (not permitted by the rules under the circumstances of your case) or not wise under the circumstances (possible, but a bad idea), even though you believe otherwise. a lot of people are familiar with certain legal jargon without knowing what it means, and they often throw it around ignorantly and inaccurately.
I can’t tell you how many times clients have come to me believing they have rights to do this or rights not to do that, only to find out that their understanding was erroneous.
A few examples: thinking you have a right to certain documents (or every document known to man) under the “Freedom of Information Act”, believing you don’t have to answer provide requested documents or answer certain questions in a deposition or at trial if they claim that the information sought from them is “private” or “confidential,” believing that because they know the truth/right thing to do, the court must agree with them.
If you have an idea and your lawyer shoots it down without you understanding why, don’t be afraid to ask your lawyer to explain it to you. If your lawyer can’t do that, your idea may not be so bad (but instead your lawyer may not be up to the task).
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
If you find an attorney who knows a sure-fire, fail-safe way to defend an ex-spouse or an ex-boyfriend/ex-girlfriend against “false accusations,” that attorney is likely a multimillionaire because possessing such a skill/power would be superhuman/miraculous.
False accusations exist because they often work. They often work because judges are not infallible and undeceivable.
False allegations calculated to exploit a judge’s compassion, pity, vanity, fears, self-interest, and biases are easy to “prove” or at least hard to persuade a judge to reject, even if the judge is skeptical of the merits of the allegations. Such as? Allegations of domestic violence, spouse abuse, child abuse, and stalking. No judge wants to respond to such allegations by denying “relief” in response to such allegations on the grounds that the applicant has failed to carry her (it’s almost always a woman; that may not be politically correct, but it’s true) burden of proof, only to have the respondent put her in the hospital or morgue later, so judges knowingly and deliberately err on the side of caution, taking a “better safe than sorry” approach. That way, they don’t end up in the news and taking flak for “failing” hapless victims. Sure, recklessly issued restraining and protective orders ruin the lives of innocent guys, but so what? That doesn’t make the news and the judge doesn’t have to worry about losing his/her job over it.
Law from a legal assistant’s point of view, week 34: Electing judiciary officials
By Quinton Lister, legal assistant
I mentioned in a previous post that if I were to build my own legal system that I would make all judiciary officials publicly elected officials. However, I recognize there are pros and cons to electing judges.
PROS (as I see them):
Having elected judges would increase the accountability judiciary officials have to the public. In Utah, we can vote to retain a judge, but we do not vote them into office, as they are appointed by the governor.
Electing judges allows the people to have a greater voice in the justice system. What better way to ensure that the judges represent the people then allowing the people to elect the judges?
A judge who is elected has more incentive to act in accordance with the voice of the people, especially if they face re-election. They cannot “rest on their laurels” so to speak.
CONS (as I see them):
Elected judiciary officials are more susceptible to the influence of special interests. As is the case with any publicly elected official, big money can and will throw its funds behind the candidate they believe will represent their particular interests, even when those interest are contrary to the public interest.
Publicly elected judiciary officials have more incentive to “legislate from the bench” to appease their constituents
* Electing judges can result in inexperienced judges, if the same judge can’t get re-elected. Electing judges can result in a revolving door of new judges coming in and out of the judiciary each election cycle.
*This could be a potential pro in the eyes of some.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
Do I need to show up for court if I was never served papers? I live in South Carolina.
I cannot speak for or about the jurisdiction of South Carolina because I practice law in Utah (so you need to inquire with a lawyer who is licensed to practice in South Carolina), but I can tell you a few things as a general rule of thumb:
Many people are under the mistaken belief that “if they don’t give me them court papers first, the court is powerless to do anything to me”. Not true. Good faith, duly diligent efforts to effectuate service of process on you or at least—depending on the proceedings—notice to you is generally required before court action can be taken against you, but if, despite duly diligent efforts to locate you or chase you down to hand you “them court papers,” you cannot be found or served, there are other ways that a court will deem you to have been served and/or put on notice.
If you hide in an effort to evade service/notice, the court will take that into account and hold that against you. No one can game the system this way. When that happens, the court can order that service on you be accomplished through alternative means. Such as? For example:
the court could order that notice be mailed to your last known address (if you’re not there, that’s your problem, not the court’s);
the court could order that notice be given in the form of an email or text message (to your last-known email address or phone number; if the email address or phone number used is not an address or number you use anymore, that’s your problem, not the court’s);
the court could order that notice be given in the form of an instant message to an open social media account of yours (if you don’t use it anymore, but didn’t close it, that’s your problem, not the court’s);
courts could (as they did frequently in the past, but not so much nowadays) give notice by publishing a notice in the “legal notices”” section of the newspaper (kids, for those of you too young to know what a newspaper is, you can click here)
So if you think that avoiding service of process or closing your eyes and ears to notice is going to thwart the court or the opposing party, the joke’s on you.
If you think you don’t have to appear in court merely because you didn’t receive service of process or notice (or more accurately, did your darnedest to ensure you didn’t get service or notice), again, the joke’s on you.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
Is it true that family courts get paid from child support payments? Can someone explain it to me or link me to an article that explains it?
The courts do not collect child support, they issue orders that and title and enable someone to collect the child support funds. So, while the courts do not get paid to collect child support, the agencies of the state that collect child support do charge a collection fee that they deduct from every payment they collect.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
In the course of my 7 months as a legal assistant to a divorce attorney in Utah, I have already shared some of my thoughts on the role of judges.
I have come to see how much power judges have and it has given me pause to consider the impact a judge can have on the lives of so many people. It is essential for the courts of Utah (and the rest of the United States of America) to be staffed with good and competent judges. I do not claim to know all of what makes a judge good and competent, but I will elaborate on what I mean by “good” and “competent”.
What I mean by a “good” judge is a judge that has a good heart. That does not mean a judge who is lax and lenient, unwilling to “make the punishment fit the crime.” Good judges follow the law and construe and apply it fairly and impartially.
A “competent” judge is knowledgeable of the law and not afraid administer it. Is one who understands the rules of evidence and can be decisive when called upon to be. This is different from what I mean by “good” because competence in this sense means that the judge knows the law, what it means (and what it does not). One who is still learning and willing to learn, even while a judge.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
What affects the outcome of court cases more, the relative strengths and experience of the opposing lawyers, actual facts, relevant law, or some other factor?
I answer this question in the context of divorce and family law, not all legal settings.
Now remember, every case involves some unique elements, every case is affected by different influences and to differing degrees, but GENERALLY SPEAKING, in divorce and family law (in my experience), here are the factors that affect the successful outcome of the case most (in descending order):
being the woman (in a heterosexual divorce or child custody case)
I’m not divorced (God willing, I never will be), so please don’t write me off as a bitter misogynist. I represent both men and women in divorce, and the undeniable fact is (at the time I write this, i.e., the early 21st century in the U.S.A.) that unless the woman has some high-profile strikes against her (i.e., an undeniable history of serious substance abuse, violence (against children and/or spouse), child neglect, mental health instability, serious physical disability, dishonest behavior (including, but not limited to infidelity, lying to the police making false allegations of violent, committing fraud, etc.), it’s the woman’s case to lose. The odds favor the woman.
The odds are getting more even between men and women, but the women still generally have an unfair advantage. No question. Even the women attorneys will tell you that.
It should be clear by now that I my statements are generalities, but if it’s still not clear, I will clarify further: I know there are women who are treated miserably unfairly by the legal system from the get-go in divorce and child custody disputes (I’ve represented some), but they are much, much fewer in number than men who suffer the same fate.
having sufficient undisputed facts on your side
Wait, being the woman is a bigger advantage than having sufficient undisputed facts on your side? Is that what you’re saying, Eric? Generally, yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Don’t get me wrong; sufficient undisputed facts are great, often the deciding factor, but not always (and that’s a shame).
having a skilled, persuasive lawyer on your side
the competency of the judge
how impartial the judge is
being friends with the judge—whether that means your lawyer or you—or just well thought of by the judge is a factor. It shouldn’t be, but it is.
how gullible the judge is
how well the judge understands and applies the law correctly
how well the judge crafts rulings that are 1) no more and no less than the circumstances appear to require; 2) both just and equitable; and 3) work in the real world.
being a victim
If the court to pities you, that helps.
how attractive you are in your appearance and speech. This can cut both ways. Ugly inarticulate people generally get treated worse than attractive and articulate people. Yet being “too” good looking or “too” smart can cause some judges to envy and resent your good fortune in the looks and brains department and thus mistreat you for it. And some judges confuse being ugly and dumb as being worthy of preferential treatment. But overall if you’re ugly and dull-witted, that’s a strike against you more often than not.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
According to Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019):
PROCEEDING
proceeding (16c) 1. The regular and orderly progression of a lawsuit, including all acts and events between the time of commencement and the entry of judgment.
Any procedural means for seeking redress from a tribunal or agency.
An act or step that is part of a larger action.
The business conducted by a court or other official body; a hearing.
Bankruptcy. A particular dispute or matter arising within a pending case — as opposed to the case as a whole.
“‘Proceeding’ is a word much used to express the business done in courts. A proceeding in court is an act done by the authority or direction of the court, express or implied. It is more comprehensive than the word ‘action,’ but it may include in its general sense all the steps taken or measures adopted in the prosecution or defense of an action, including the pleadings and judgment. As applied to actions, the term ‘proceeding’ may include — (1) the institution of the action; (2) the appearance of the defendant; (3) all ancillary or provisional steps, such as arrest, attachment of property, garnishment, injunction, writ of ne exeat; (4) the pleadings; (5) the taking of testimony before trial; (6) all motions made in the action; (7) the trial; (8) the judgment; (9) the execution; (10) proceedings supplementary to execution, in code practice; (11) the taking of the appeal or writ of error; (12) the remittitur, or sending back of the record to the lower court from the appellate or reviewing court; (13) the enforcement of the judgment, or a new trial, as may be directed by the court of last resort.” Edwin E. Bryant, The Law of Pleading Under the Codes of Civil Procedure 3–4 (2d ed. 1899).
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
In principle, do judges view themselves as referees where they interpret what the law says or do they view themselves as CEOs where they decide what the law ought to be?
Trial judges do not make law. They are bound by what the law tells them to do under the circumstances as established by the proof and by other credible, relevant evidence. Where the law and the facts and the relevant evidence don’t dictate to what should be done, judges then exercise their judgment (their “discretion”, as it is known in legal parlance) to decide the issue.
So judges are more like referees than executives.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
Rule of law. The restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.
My time as a legal assistant for a divorce attorney has been instructive and eye opening. One positive thing I have come to appreciate more fully is the miracle of the rule of law.
I have been very skeptical of the law, even from a very young age (I think part of that is just I was always taught to respect authority yet not to take it simply “lying down”). Oftentimes, it is easy for me to say that those who are in power are there not so much because of some noble desire to serve the people but primarily (if not solely) to exercise power over people. My current experiences in the legal profession have not eliminated that view, but I have been pleasantly surprised that there are people who do respect and uphold the rule law.
I do not need to agree with the law to respect the rule of law. I think the most effective lawyers and judges and legislators and litigants are the ones who recognize that to serve society’s interests best we must respect the rule of law (that’s how a democratic republic needs to work). No one is above the law and even though injustice exists, and for a just legal system to exist we need to be law-abiding people.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
What is the biggest mistake a lawyer makes when making closing arguments?
Being long-winded and/or obnoxious, repetitive, rambling, imprecise, boring.
But here’s the kicker: if you are clear and concise, then what you think are “in the bag” issues may not be, what you think are minor points may be major points in the court’s opinion. And so if you ignore the “in the bag” or “minor” points, then the court might hold that against you. In other words, it’s impossible to know if you’ve said too much or too little. You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Closing arguments can drive you mad, sometimes.
Believing the court didn’t make up its mind long before closing argument.
But here’s the kicker: if the court really hasn’t made up its mind already (it has been known to happen), then you can’t in good conscience “phone in” your closing argument because i) that’s unprofessional and unethical; and ii) you don’t want to wonder what might have been had you tried your best.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277