Rhode Island Divorce lawyers have strayed away from being good-hearted and accepting payment arrangements and smaller retainers from divorce clients.
Why?
Well, one reason is far from greed. This story explains one major reason why most Rhode Island divorce lawyers bill against retainers and more and more are asking for larger retainers.
* * Attorney Goodheart's Story * *
Attorney Natalie Goodheart was an experienced Rhode Island divorce lawyer. When Clementine D. Vorce called Attorney Goodheart and explained her story, Attorney Goodheart was appaulled and entered into an agreement to represent Clementine for roughly a 40% reduced hourly rate.
Attorney Natalie Goodheart was true to her name and didn't hold Clementine strictly to their written fee arrangement. Instead, Attorney Goodheart focused on Clementine's needs rather than her own pocket and wasn't sending her a bill every other week despite the mounting hours because Clementine's needs were more important.
It was not your typical case. Sydney had filed suit claiming that he and Clementine were married. Clementine's position was that she wasn't married to Sydney. Yet Attorney Goodheart believed that Clementine was correct when it clearly appeared that Sydney simply was angry the relationship was over and wanted part of Clementine's assets despite his failure to contribute substantially to those assets during their relationship.
Unfortunately this particular Rhode Island divorce case became more difficult as it continued. This was not due to Clementine but due to Sydney wanting more and more from Clementine's assets.
Attorney Goodheart's work hours started mounting up on the case so from time to time she was forced to ask Clementine for a payment against all the hours that hours she was working.
Still, the Rhode Island Divorce attorney kept working for Clementine sometimes without asking for a payment for months despite the increasing hours.
Finally, Sydney forced the Rhode Island divorce to a trial. Attorney Goodheart warned Clementine that a Rhode Island divorce trial would be costly to prepare for and undergo and could cost between $10,000 and $20,000.
Attorney Goodheart and Clementine had already made several offers to resolve the issues present in the case but they were rejected. Clementine was understandably fed up. Clementine informed Attorney Goodheart that she would rather pay her to fight through the Rhode Island divorce trial than to make even one more offer to resolve the case.
Attorney Goodheart prepared extensively for the trial and unlike many cases this was a common law marriage allegation so in the end there would be a winner.
When the dust cleared Attorney Goodheart had won for Clementine. The Rhode Island Judge found there was no marriage and denied and dismissed Sydney's claims.
Attorney Goodheart's prepared the final bill for her representation at the reduced amount of 60% of her normal fee. In addition, she decided to offer to write off another $4,000 if Clementine paid the bill in full in 30 days.
Clementine's response was not the positive one Attorney Goodheart expected, especially in light of their "win" at trial.
Clementine offered to pay Attorney Goodheart 40% of the entire bill as payment in full. Attorney Goodheart was upset by her client's inability to realize what she was already offering yet she agreed to meet Clementine halfway by writing off approximately 50% of her bill.
Attorney Goodheart was astounded by the response. Clementine once again offered Attorney Goodheart the same offer after picking apart the Rhode Island Divorce attorney's performance during the case and the trial and clearly indicating that Attorney Goodhearts services were only worth 40% of the entire bill.
In the end, Attorney Goodheart decided that she wasn't about to let that much work go unpaid. A Notice of Appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court was filed and Attorney Goodheart terminated the attorney/client relationship and gave notice that she intended to collect on the entire debt.
This is on reason why Rhode Island Divorce lawyers bill against retainers and are more and more being less "Good-hearted" and requiring higher retainers.
There are many people who don't pay their divorce lawyers for the good work they do, even when their fees are reduced and the divorce lawyers agree to take a big hit on their fees.
Several Rhode Island attorneys who had the tendency to be "good-hearted" have shared with me that being "good-hearted" just landed them 3 times more clients that don't pay them than the ones that do and their receivables were huge. These attorneys lost several times more money than they make without the ability at tax time to reclaim any of their unpaid hours which may be lost forever.
Many RI divorce lawyers have learned that being good-hearted often leads to bankruptcy because the lawyer needs to be paid and good intentions of clients don't pay very many bills.
The fact is, many lawyers are not fat cats with condos, summer homes, boats, planes, large bank accounts, etc..... Some attorneys make much less than clients simply because clients won't pay a good-hearted attorney's bill.
Clients who don't pay their divorce attorneys cause a circular pattern which increases fees and causes rates and retainers to rise.
Perhaps derrogatory jokes about lawyers should end and jokes are more appropriate for the deadbeat clients who cause the polycentric problem of higher retainers and rates that attorneys need to charge to survive.
Yet for those of us who retain an optimistic hope, we are willing to work for a reasonable legal fee for clients who will actually pay our bills.
Authored By:
Christopher A. Pearsall, Attorney-at-Law
Rhode Island's Full-Time Divorce* Lawyer is Now
Rhode Island's Only Divorce and Family Law Coach!!
Discover the Tremendous Benefits You Receive by
Participating in Family Law Coaching Sessions!
Visit the RhodeIslandDivorceCoach.com
Call (401) 632-6976 Now
to
Schedule Your Low-Cost Rhode Island Divorce* or Family Law* Coaching Session!
Experience the Difference!
Copyright 2000 to Present. Christopher A. Pearsall, Esquire
Offering Rhode Island Rhode Island Divorce and Family Law Coaching for a New Millenium!
Note: If this article contains a case scenario with names, dates or amounts, any resemblance any connection to any person or situation now or previously existing is purely accidental, unintentional, and is merely a mistaken creation in the mind of the reader.
* The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all attorneys in the general practice of law. The court does not license or certify any lawyer as an expert or specialist in any particular field of practice.
- - Recommended Websites - -
Pearsall.net | AttorneyPearsall.com | Rhode Island Divorce Tips | ChristopherPearsall.com | GuaranteedWealth.com | Rhode Island Divorce Attorney | Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer | ChrisPearsall.com | LegalScholar.com | Pearsall-Law-Associates.com | Rhode Island Divorce Attorneys | Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers | Rhode Island Divorce Coach | RI Divorce Coach | RI Divorce Lawyer on Twitter | Rhode Island Divorce Coach on Twitter | Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer on Facebook.com| Attorney Chris Pearsall at LawGuru.com | Rhode Island Family Law Lawyer - RI Consumer Tips









Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers Ponder whether getting at the Truth is Prohibited in Rhode Island Family Court?
A particular Rhode Island Family Court issue arose a little more than four (4) years ago. It was in the form of a particular question that I discussed with no less than nine (9) lawyers only a few of whom I even remember and who shall remain nameless.
Yet it doesn't matter who the lawyers were. It matters that I overheard several lawyers who were unfamiliar to me discussing the same question not long ago relating to their own experiences in the Rhode Island Family Court.
The Rhode Island Family Court judges each have discretionary power by law. Most assuredly they are the authority as to what can and cannot be done in their courtrooms short of a directive from the Chief Judge of the Family Court.
One of the main things that the Rhode Island Family Court judges generally endeavor to do is to protect and preserve the family unit as a whole. I have not found this wording in any specific manual, statute, treatise, case law or Administrative Order of the Court. I have learned this consistently from numerous judges over my years of practice in the family courts and before various judges.
Yet I am not the only Rhode Island Attorney who been thwarted in his or her divorce and/or post-divorce efforts at presenting the best representation possible for clients by a judge's prohibition of calling a child of the parties as a witness in a divorce or post-divorce case.
Now, I understand and agree with the preservation of the family unit. I am a strong advocate for uncontested divorces, reasonable people, counseling for those who need it, reunification of parents with their children if it is reasonably possible without psychological injury to minor children.
Ultimately I believe this should be a concern of the RI Family Court as a judicial institution as well as the individual family court judges appointed to serve the people and address the countless issues they hear day in and day out both fairly and equitably.
Yet it is disconcerting as a Rhode Island lawyer representing a party in, for instance a post-divorce matter involving the violation of the court's order to (1) be prohibited by a judge from calling a child of the parties as a material witness to defend my client or prove my client's case when the "child of the parties" is no longer a minor and/or when the child of the parties has insisted on testifying to reveal the truth of what he or she knows has occurred, and (2) to then have the judge berate or accuse me or my client of trying to take steps to undermine and possibly destroy the family unit.
Most assuredly, if the child of the parties were a minor of younger years then I might expect some skepticism on the judge's part and the attorney and/or client might well deserve a rebuke in the eyes of some judges. Yet some judges have prohibited children of the parties who may be as old as 23 and who are married, have children of their own and who may have developed a career that rivals their own parents. In such cases, wouldn't the prohibition of testimony violate a person's right to present either their case or their defense, notwithstanding a RI Family Court Judge's concern for the preservation of the family unit?
Perhaps a proper alternative for a 17 year old might be for the RI Judge to speak with the minor child of the parties in camera with counsel so that the judge might determine the nature of the testimony, the level of it's material significance, the weight that might be given to the testimony or even the maturity level of the 17 year old minor child to determine the appropriateness of the testimony.
Clearly some attorneys might simply call a minor child to the stand and ask questions designed to emotionally injure the other parents by using the minor child merely as a tool. Such conduct should not be tolerated. Yet to jump to the conclusion that this is what is happening when one party calls a child of the parties to the stand without further examination or consideration by the judge may place blind faith in mere allegations made by counsel who is zealously representing his or her client and who might clearly benefit by the exclusion of say, the 22 year old daughter who saw and/or heard the father violate the court's order directly and without hesitation.
However, might a better route be for the Judge to suss out the nature of the testimony offered by the child of the parties and it's purpose, determine any possible bias of the child, and consider other pertinent factors.
This would seem to be a more prudent route that would result in a more equitable decision and the pursuit of justice via hearing what may be the clearest indicator of the truth as to what did or did not occur rather than a family court judge simply setting a rule that in his or her courtroom a child of the parties shall not be allowed to testify regardless of age, maturity level, or the direct importance or content of the testimony itself.
There is always the fear that as practitioners before the Rhode Island family court, that if we mention an issue that may be considered by some to be controversial that as legal practitioners we might then become a persona non-gratis (a person not in favor with the court) and thereby risk that judge's will suddenly rule against our clients at every turn.
However, I choose to believe that the members of our judiciary are above such a juvenile standard of conduct. Absent an extreme and direct encounter with a particular judge to a significantly greater degree, I believe that our judiciary is always cognizant that our family court judges are always aware that they are capable of improvement in their roles in the Rhode Island Judicial System just as we should be as Rhode Island lawyers.
This seems to simply be a matter of counter-balancing the two issues of family preservation with the search for truth with lies in each parties right to present evidence before the court to either made their case or to defend themselves against what may be unfounded allegations.
Therefore, I bring this issue to the forefront more for the consideration of the judiciary and for the betterment both of practitioners and the clients they seek to serve.
I certainly welcome any comments from the court, fellow practitioners and from the general public as I am certainly not beyond learning which I find to be a daily and never-ending practice of improvement to better serve my clients and present information to the court in a way that does not waste the court's time but also presents to the court the information needed for our judiciary to make well-informed, equitable, and just decisions for all.
Happy Holidays to the Members of the Rhode Island Family Court and to all who read my articles.
Posted by Attorney Christopher A. Pearsall on December 14, 2011 at 10:38 AM in Commentaries, Divorce & Questions, Divorce & Trials, Divorce Hearings and Trials, Divorce Lawyers, Divorce Lawyers & Practice Philosophies, Divorce Principles, Divorce Questions, Family Court & Children, Family Law Protective Measures, Minor Children, Post-Judgment Divorce Issues, Protection from Abuse, Rhode Island Divorce Articles, RI Attorney Misconduct, RI Divorce and Perspectives, RI Family Court and Witnesses, RI Family Court Judges - Philosophy, Tricky Divorce Issues | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Technorati Tags: attorney berated, attorneys in ri, bar child from testifying, berated lawyers, calling minor children as witnesses, children of parties as witnesses, constructive criticism, destruction family unit, divorce ri, in camera considerations, in chambers meeting, judicial discretion, judicial discretion, lawyers ri, lawyers ri divorce, material testimony, minor child witness, motions for contempt, Non-minor child of parties, post-judgment ri matters, practice of law, preservation family unit, preserve family unit, preventing witness testimony, rhode island, Rhode Island Family Court, Rhode Island Judiciary, rhode island post-divorce matters, rhodeisland attorneys, RI, ri divorce matters, ri family court judges, ri family lawyer concerns, ri judges, testimony prohibited, witness bias, witnesses, witnesses in ri
Reblog (0) | | Digg This | Save to del.icio.us |