Family Lawyer Magazine Podcast

One woman's passion to protect basic human rights. Interview with Barbara Handschu, Family Lawyer Click the play button, wait a few seconds and start listening to this Podcast. My guest today is New York family lawyer Barbara Handschu, who I have invited to speak with me today not only because of the fact that she has had an outstanding family law career and has contributed greatly to the practice of family law, but also because Barbara has been an activist for change.  We’ll be talking with her as a family lawyer, but also as a criminal lawyer and as an activist. Before we get started, I want to give you just a brief little history about Barbara’s background.  She has been very active in both the national and state bar associations.  She was the first female national president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, a prestigious family law group with about 1,700 lawyers across the US, and she’s one of the most respected family lawyers.  In researching who to interview next Barbara’s name has come up a number of times, and I’m glad to have finally grabbed a hold of her. To start at the beginning, Barbara, what got you interested and how did you get into the practice of law? Well, anyone who knows me knows that if you say I can’t do something, that’s going to be the incentive enough for me to do it.  In fact, in 1963 I had just about finished an undergraduate degree in 2½ years at NYU and was getting ready to figure out what I’d do with the rest of my life.  I had a political theory major, which I decided was probably worthless because women weren’t getting college teaching degrees even if they could obtain a PhD.  And then I said, “well, maybe I’ll go to law school” and everyone looked at me and said, “no, you can’t go to law school, there’s not going to be a job for you, you’re going to be taking a guy’s spot.”  I had trouble getting money to attend law school, but thankfully the University of Michigan gave me money and I was able to go.  So I went basically because I was told I wasn’t supposed to go. That was enough of an incentive? That was the absolute incentive, and I arrived in Michigan to discover that I couldn’t live in the law quadrangle where all the law students lived because I was a female and we were six women out of almost 350 in my class. Wow. So there was one of us in each and every section, and needless to say that one woman would always get called on for big questions like the rape case in criminal law. I learned those lessons very quickly, but I adored the law.  To me it was just fascinating to think about any issue from both sides and to be able to come up with arguments for them and just grapple with the concepts.  So I decided being a lawyer was good now.  Of course, back in those days (and I finished law school in 1966), I was told when I said I want to be a trial lawyer, “No.  You’re too little, and besides women are only going to be able to do corporate law or estates.”  And I said that’s not fun.  I don’t want to be a lawyer if I can’t help people, if I can’t make a difference in this world.  And if you think back to the 1960s they were incredibly exciting times.  It was the beginning of the second wave of feminism, and the anti-war movement actually started at the University of Michigan with the first sit-in. Concepts of racial equality were being hard-fought all over the country and to me these were important issues, so I decided I was going to be a people’s lawyer as quickly as I could.  That’s what compelled me into the practice of law and what made me think about being a lawyer. So while you were challenged by people saying that you wouldn’t get to be a lawyer- A trial lawyer. A trial lawyer.  You probably would have been in the background.  Female lawyers at that time would have been doing the paperwork and the research. Women were not even being hired on that level.  Basically, women were being hired by corporations or to do estate work or government jobs.  I mean, there was very little out-front work for women in those days. It sounds like they weren’t really acting as lawyers, just more as administrators who had a legal background. Yes. You’ve come a long way. In fact, for a long time I hid the fact that I knew how to type because I was so afraid somebody was going to ask me to be a secretary. I don’t think that would have suited you too well.  Nowadays everybody types. Now it helps on the computer. Absolutely, we’re all our own secretaries now.  So when did you get into your own practice or were able to go to trial?  How did that happen? In the late 1960s I was in my own practice.  I had worked for a judge before.  I worked writing some law books even before that because I had student loans to pay off and I had to find jobs.  At the same time I was still staying politically active, so by the late 1960s I had my own practice in New York City.  That was the exciting time. So your first goal was to obviously become a lawyer, and your second goal was to be in your own practice.  After those two did other goals pop up that you wanted to achieve? I think my main goal throughout was always to be the best lawyer that I could be and to do my best.  That practice, for me, just evolved and evolved.  My original days in private practice were criminal defence because those were the main things going on.  I handled a few divorces, calling all my friends saying how do you do this and that, and suddenly I realized that I was doing more criminal work than I thought. Then came 1971.  I went up to Buffalo for what I thought was going to be a week to handle the Attica Prison cases because they needed legal help.  I was active in the National Lawyer’s Guild and volunteers were needed to handle all the things that were going on at the Attica Prison after the rebellion in September of 1971.  And that one week turned into 35 years or so. Just tell us a little bit about the Attica Prison. What was going on there? What happened? In September of 1971 the prisoners took over the prison with a list of demands, the primary of which was to have then Governor Rockefeller come to the prison and negotiate.  He refused to come and negotiate and after days of the inmates running the prison, it was retaken by the National Guard.  I think it was 39 people were killed.  All the prisoners had horrible retaliations.  They were put in segregation for months.  They were ultimately transferred to prisons all over the state and there were, as I recall, 41 indictments of prisoners for various things.  I ended up working on a case that involved one of the prisoners in a murder of another prisoner during the uprising.  My co-counsel was Bill Kunstler, may he rest in peace. Wow. Suddenly I was working on a murder case.  I was a very inexperienced lawyer at that point.  I had tried one case ever, a very long bomb possession case in New York City, and I had tried that in the fall of 1971, so you can tell how little experience I had. A trial by fire in your case. Well, luckily one with lots of co-counsel, especially since it was Attica.  Attica had a lot of lawyers working on it all over the country.  People came in to do it.  It was just a massive, massive case. Tell us a little bit about your other political activities, not that this is necessarily political in nature, but I think it is to a certain extent because it’s about change.  And I have a sense from what I know about you that what is at your core is a deep feeling of wanting to protect individual rights no matter who the person is. Thank you.  That’s probably true, and Attica was really about change.  The whole uprising had a number of demands, many of which were just for humane treatment.  And as recently as sometime this week as I was looking at our law journal in the City of New York, and I saw that there was a new case filed because people were being kept in segregation at a prison for months on end, and it was those kinds of conditions that led to Attica and the uprising.  They just wanted proper religious time to observe religious observances, if they were non-traditional to not be held in segregation without hearings, things of that nature.  That was what brought that about.  But over the years, in terms of my activism, non-matrimonial law, there’s a lawsuit in New York that’s called Handschu against Bureau of Special Services.  It’s a class action against the New York City Police Department, and it is the longest running federal case in the district court.  I have quite an honour.  It’s 42 years old and I also have the honor of having six lawyers who have represented me and our class for that number of years, and who’ve all done it pro bono. I don’t think many people could claim that they love their lawyers.  One day my lawyers invited me to come to court and I said, “oh, I’ll come to court, sure.”  And then they asked the judge’s permission for me to sit at counsel table and the judge looked up and, the judge has had this case for probably 20 and more years.  He looked up and he said, “Ms. Handschu, I feel I know you well. Please, join us at table.” So is there any chance of a conclusion to this case or is it going to go on for perpetuity? This case is going to go on forever and ever.  It’s a very important case that has to do with whether or not the police department can single individuals out and conduct surveillance upon those individuals.  And we had filed this case way back and my lawyers thought it would be a joke to put me as the first name plaintiff.  And some people, like Abbey Hoffman, Jerry Reuben, they were upset that I got my name there first.  But basically, we did it because we felt there were individuals from various groups who were being singled out and otherwise lawful activities were becoming the focus of surveillance, and this surveillance should not be happening.  So over the years what has evolved is some

Moving forward while still taking the time to pause, relax, and look back. Interview with Mike McCurley, Family Lawyer Click the play button, wait a few seconds and start listening to this Podcast. My guest today is Dallas Texas Family Lawyer Mike McCurley, whom I have invited to speak with me today not only because of the fact that he has an outstanding family law career and has greatly contributed to the practice of family law, but also because Mike and his family lawyer wife, Mary Johanna McCurley, have really taken the time to design their lives in relation to their practice to help them achieve more balance and harmony. I know both Mike and Mary Johanna personally and think highly of them, and I wanted Mike to share some of his insights on what he has done to help them achieve this balance.  But before we get started, let me begin with a bit of background about Mike McCurley. He is Board Certified in Family Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He has garnered recognition from professional organizations in the community, and was recognized in 2002 as Texas' top family lawyer in Texas Lawyernewspaper, which is published every five years, and he ranked among the top five again in 2007.  In 2001 he earned the prestigious Sam Emison Award for outstanding contribution to the practice of family law from the Texas Academy of Family Law Specialists. He has earned recognition on every Texas Super Lawyers list since they began in 2003, including recognition among the Top 100 Lawyers in Texas and Top 100 Lawyers in Dallas-Fort Worth.  He was also recognized by Worth magazine for high net worth people as one of the Top 100 Lawyers, not just among family lawyers but all top lawyers in the US. He has earned multiple honors by D Magazine as one of the top divorce lawyers in Dallas, and as one of Lawdragon's 500 Leading Lawyers in America.  Additionally, he has been recognized in Best Lawyers in America, Best Lawyers in Texas, Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in American Law, and in the Forbes, Town & Country, and Voguemagazines.  Mike’s executive-style leadership at the firm has also been the focus of a profile in D CEO Magazine. In 2010 and 2011 Mike was invited to participate in Renaissance Weekends.  Bringing together preeminent authorities and noted innovators in their fields of expertise from around the country, these invitation-only retreats are dedicated to personal and national renewal.  Mike is a sought-after source for reporters looking for expert analysis on family law matters, and he serves as a frequent resource for some of the nation’s leading print, broadcast and electronic media outlets, including the Associated Press, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, USA Today, New York Daily News, andChicago Tribune, as well as on programs such as Good Morning Texas. As a lecturer, Mike has also spoken on family law matters across the United States and internationally, and has authored a number of papers and publications on every aspect of family law and trial techniques.  You can find a good number of articles Mike and his partners and associates have written on for lawyer magazines.  He was one of the 30 people who was and still is contributing to the family law magazine.  You can learn more about Mike and his firm, McCurley Orsinger McCurley Nelson & Downing, on their website,  www.momnd.com I feel like we’re halfway done with this interview, Mike because we've taken up all our time listing the recognitions you’ve earned, and which I know you’ve deserved.  Let’s just start back in the beginning and tell people how you got interested in the practice of family law, how it all started. Well, actually, I got all my teaching from when I got divorced myself in 1973.  It was at a time earlier on, when I was still a business lawyer.  Going through the divorce myself I was not very impressed with what I saw available to help me deal with divorce and adjust with the situation.  When my divorce was over, I converted my practice from focusing on business law to divorce law. So when you started out was your goal just to make things better than what they were?  Did you plan to grow a firm at that time or did you have other plans? At that time I was already with a family law firm and I wasn't thinking to grow another firm at that point in time.  I was just thinking that this is an area that needs people that are more precise and skilled in what they do.  So I thought about devoting my career to this particular area of law and when I saw that the more I got into it the more I liked it.  Of course, I did it at a certain level because being a business lawyer was a necessity.  Frankly, to do business  you need to have business. That’s the main reason.  It’s a natural thing for transition; it was just the catalyst from personal experience. Did you have a mentor in your early days when you were starting out in family law? No, not really.  I did have many mentors thereafter, but I mostly had myself as my own mentor.  When I first started in family law the reason I did it was because I had chosen to work in it. So you initially started with your personal opinion of how it should be practiced rather than emulating someone else who was doing a good job in that field. That is correct.  At that point in time divorce law was kind of a necessity that other firms had; it was not a priority. Were there any major influences in your life in terms of people who pointed you in the right direction? Yes, I would have to say that there's a couple of people that certainly made a real big difference in my skills, particularly in the area of family practice and divorce law.  One is a gentleman named Lion McGuire, who is still practicing today though only part time.  Another is a man by the name of Bill Coon, who is retired now and no longer practicing.  Those are the two people that have had the biggest influence in my life as a trial lawyer and a divorce lawyer. What was it about them that influenced you; was it their style?  Was it their personalities or was it the strategic way they looked at cases?  How did they influence you? I would have to say as a complete answer, all of the above.  What you listed is an important combination of traits for any one individual, and both of them had all of the above. Now I know that when you are on a case you tend to develop things from a business point of view, and while I haven’t been a client of yours I suspect that you have a good handle on the emotional situations that people are in when they go through divorce as well.  What sort of work have you done to properly understand the emotional, psychological aspects of divorce? Well, you have to strike a path of proper balance.  Of course you have to maintain professional distance to a certain degree, but at the same time if you pull back too far you then lose empathy for your client.  You must maintain a balance at all times.  I’ve done a number of things to try to improve my own abilities, one of which is to be in an on-going study of CLE law and coaching as well as psychology and psychiatry to better help me understand how the brain works.  A lot of what we are talking about with this emotional aspect is fear-driven.  So unless you understand the concept of what fear does in an in-depth way you will not be able to understand how to help these people in this process.  I can understand, having been through divorce myself, how fear would be a large factor in people’s lives when facing divorce. Do you also see that in the opposing counsel?  That some of their motivations and some of their reactions and the way they operate is due to fear? Of course.  The law practice, and not just in family law, is a fear-driven profession.  They used terms like "deadlock."  You know that they don’t call those “sick lines.” It’s a fear-driven concept in lots of ways, and you have to be cognizant of that.  The best thing in the world as far as I am concerned is to be a good family lawyer and to be proficient in what you do by not operating out of fear.  Be a firm rock; be more strategic in your thinking.  It’s sort of like martial arts. So you are in a firm with how many partners? 6 partners. Could you give me a history of your firm, how it has grown over the years and what the benefits of growth are?  Perhaps mentioning what some of the downsides of having a larger firm are, if there are any. Well it is a decision that you make consciously.  So if I thought of any significant downsides I would probably downsize.  My goal was to actually set about building and maintaining the most proficient, efficient divorce firm that I could that produces results and values and supports the client in every spectrum of need.   So that when someone comes here I feel good about them consuming the product that we deliver.  That was my goal and I believe that we have achieved it. I know that you work more with businesspeople and executives and other high net worth people, but do you offer a range?  Can your firm deal with middle income people as well as upper middleman or upper income? Oh sure.  Our firm, (I was about to joke about the second floor level, we have two levels and two floors here in our firm) has lots of young lawyers, and they don’t all start at the top.  So yes, we can deal with any needs, but we deal mostly with the needs of upper middle class and above; those are the people we want.  We offer different hourly rates, of course.  There are different expertise levels, but always with someone watching over those with less experience and mentoring them if they need it. It’s that sort of process.  You can't have a firm that size and made out of nothing but high net worth lawyers.  That’s the way it once was and that’s just doesn’t work anymore.  You have to take the youngsters and build them up and give them the experienc

How to grow a successful family law practice and be proud of your own work. Interview with David Lee, Family Lawyer Click the play button, wait a few seconds and start listening to this Podcast. David is a partner in the Boston family law firm of Lee, Rivers and Corr.  He has been a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers since 1978, and a past president of the Massachusetts chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.  David is also a former member of the National Board of Governors and a director of the American Academy Charitable Foundation.  Among numerous other accolades, almost too many too count, he has been a top super lawyer in Massachusetts, and recognized by both Boston Magazine and Lawdragon.  It is my pleasure to introduce a frequent speaker and author of articles in the area of family law on a variety of topics including divorce, tax law, business evaluation, stock options, retirement interests, and more, David Lee.  Welcome, and thank you for taking a few minutes to speak to me. To start things off, how did you become interested in doing family law?  I guess beginning with studying and then moving on to actually being in practice. Well, interestingly enough I never took a course in family law in law school. Oh, really? I had no intention of involving myself in the practice of family law.  My intention was, and I was hired by a firm out of law school for this, to do First Amendment appellate work.  I did this with the top lawyer in that field in Boston and within about a month of being at that firm a large divorce case came to one of the partners of that firm.  The person whom he had hired to begin as a new young associate was still on vacation before starting his job after law school and he asked whether or not I could be loaned for his use in the divorce case until the new associate was available. So unbeknownst to me I was traded, and found it very interesting.  I then found out that because of the rapport that I had with this other lawyer I wasn’t traded back. I see.  So he stole you. (laughs) So early on I said I had better learn something about this stuff since it was what I was going to be doing, and I put my head down and tried to learn what I could about this area of law. The point in time when I began to practice in this area of law was one where it wasn’t terribly intellectually focused.  Its principal focus was who could threaten the other more, who could yell louder, and who could intimidate the other side more.  I decided that wasn’t really the style that I wanted to have, and I wanted to learn about this area of law and bring it to a new dimension where it could be thought of with higher regard.  So I approached it that way and then decided that any time I did research and any time that I was asked to do any type of legal memorandum by the person for whom I worked I would write an article about it.  Within a short period of time, within about five years of my being in practice, I had written more articles about the area of family law in Massachusetts than almost anyone; the one person in the Boston area who had written more was about 20-25 years my senior. So were you writing from the point of view of educating yourself about the subject or did you feel like you wanted to get the word out about how you thought the process could be better-handled? Initially when I had the assignment given me to write something it was to educate myself and educate the judge or whoever the assignment was for.  But then later I saw that it was useful to share with the rest of the legal community a unique area of investigation that might be used by them as they pursued cases that might touch upon the same issues. So I assume that back when you started it was fault divorce and that’s why you were talking about people basically bashing each other? Yes.  No-fault divorce came into play later.  But nonetheless for a period of years, even when equitable distribution came to Massachusetts, people were still trying to intimidate as a means of getting an outcome rather than creatively using legal theories to effect a resolution which made sense to both parties. How did you resist that acrimonious way of handling divorce, or did you have to play that game as well when you started? Well, I had to show two things.  First I had to show that I was thoughtful and second I had to show that I was capable of doing some of that if necessary.  But generally through my demeanor and through my development of relationships with people I earned the respect of other lawyers to the point that they understood that they didn’t have to go through that type of act in order to get an effective result. You also probably saw the progression, as family law and divorce became more common, that there has been a transition in terms of the way lawyers deal with each other as well as the way society deals with divorce. I think that is certainly the case.  No-fault divorce has brought about a change like that.  Even if in Massachusetts conduct is still a factor of consideration in a contested no-fault divorce.  There are still conduct elements that enter into the legal approach to that sort of thing. Are you saying that if there has been infidelity in a case that it could weigh in terms of one party getting more than another party? Yes, it can. And I wouldn’t say that it’s a major consideration, but it certainly is something that can be taken into consideration along with inappropriate physical behaviour, verbal behaviour, and other acts that might have had an adverse impact upon the family. Going back to where you started in family law, or maybe where you started in law in general, did you have a mentor in the early years?  Was there anybody who influenced you positively or negatively as to how you would practice in the future? Well, both.  It’s the same person but they had both a positive and negative impact on me. The partner who did divorce work, the one I went to work with after law school, was charismatic, smart, and somebody who knew how to try a case.  I was able to recognize the value of all of those positive things and pick up on them.  At the same time that person was also somebody who had a mercurial personality; he was somebody who wasn’t necessarily well-mannered when dealing with clients.  Thankfully I was able to identify what was positive about what he did and what was, in my view, not beneficial to clients. The benefit that I had in working with this particular person was that he gave me a huge amount of responsibility from the very beginning and he had the quality of cases that allowed me not only to be challenged intellectually but also interested in the subjects.  This enabled me to have experience before the court and experience in substantial negotiations that I might not otherwise have had. I have the feeling, from having talked with you a little bit as well as others, that one of your absolute core qualities is integrity.  I think I saw a little bit of that when you were describing this other person’s negative quality, that they had a little bit less integrity for you in the way that they dealt with their clients or the opposing counsel. Well, integrity I think is the most important quality that one can have in being a lawyer regardless of whether it’s family law or any other area.  But particularly in family law I think there’s such a suggestion or impression in general society that lawyers who do this type of work are not necessarily to be admired or trusted, so it’s that much more critical that you maintain that integrity in your practice in this field. When you started in the area of family law did you have any particular goals at that time?  Did you think that you’d like to be out on your own, doing your own thing?  Or was that not even in your mind at that time, did you just think you wanted to get better at being a family lawyer? Well, I think that my principle or mantra has always been that you only go around once.  It’s not acceptable to just begood at what it is you do, you have to strive to be the best at what it is you do.  Mediocrity is not something that was of any interest to me at the beginning and it never has been of interest to me in the course of my practice.  That was certainly a goal that drove me.  I was fortunate in that the success that I exhibited early in my career caused me to become a partner very early in the law firm that I had worked with. I had remained in that partnership for a period of about ten years before I broke off into a different partnership which is essentially the same one I’ve been a part of since 1984 up to the present. Where do you think not wanting to be mediocre came from?  Is that from your parents or teachers? I think that at its core it came from my parents and was just a general principle going through my education.  Don’t just try to get passing grades; try to get the best grades. And it wasn’t the pressure it was just an accepted form of thinking.  I took that with me into my general practice and I’d say that it was also contributed to by others both in who I came in contact with at work as well as my father-in-law and my wife, who had the same attitude herself in her own profession. Like my father used to say, if you’re going to do the job, do it right.  It sounds like you had the same sort of upbringing that there’s no sense in doing a bad job. The only thing that’s difficult about having that standard is that you never are satisfied with what it is that you think you know. I already summed you up as having a bit of a Type A personality, and I kind of fall into that same category myself.  When you’re driven to do the best you can it’s a challenge.  I’m wondering how you can cope with always expecting the best and how other people in your firm interact with you and react to that. Well, over the course of years people ha

One family lawyer's refusal to give up on his passion for the environment. Interview with Grier Raggio, Family Lawyer Click the play button, wait a few seconds and start listening to this Podcast. I’m pleased today to be speaking with Grier Raggio who’s a Texas family lawyer.  He has been practicing family law since 1968.  He’s a Harvard college graduate, written numerous articles on family law, and also written two books; the most recent book is titled How to Divorce in New York.  Grier is well versed in Texas family law matters including divorce, child custody, and in dealing with large asset cases.  He has been selected to the list of Texas super lawyers on many occasions and he’s been selected as a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial lawyers.  Grier has handled several international family law cases and international child custody cases.  I invited Grier to speak with me today about his family law career, but he is also a politician.  He ran as a Democratic candidate in the 2010 election for the United States House of Representatives seat in Texas’ 32ndcongressional district and he’s also very active in the environmental movement and has a website/blog called weconsumetoomuch.com ; his firm website is  raggiolaw.com . Let’s start with you telling us how you got started as a family lawyer and where that career has taken you. In the 1960s I decided that environmental issues were going to be the most important thing for me for the remainder of my life.  I started doing environmental law when I started a firm in New York in ’71.  So I was doing environmental law and also making a living by doing plaintiffs’ personal injury stuff, which was very lucrative.  But in 1980 with the rejection of Jimmy Carter and the solar panels on the White House I decided to quit bumping my head against that environmental wall for a while; I also didn’t feel like what I was doing as a plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer was really very useful.  New York had changed its law at that time and it adopted an equitable distribution system.  I have two friends, Henry Foster and Doris Reed, who are nationally known legal scholars and they influenced me to start reading up on law and giving lectures on New York law.  That’s how I built a practice doing family law. And were these lectures about family law or were they about any other specific area of law? They were lectures about family law, mainly about the new law in New York, the Equitable Distribution Law. Why was that of interest to you to talk about equitable distribution? Like I said I’d been doing the plaintiff’s personal injury stuff and was making a lot of money, but I was working in what I felt was essentially a very negative system and didn’t feel that I was making any real contribution that was emotionally satisfying to me.  I felt that in family law I could both make a living and do something that was useful. I made a conscious decision to become an expert in family law and got a break because they changed the (Equitable Distribution) law.  Because of this it was new to everybody, and by studying hard and lecturing people about it, I was able to build credibility among lawyers and laypeople. So you had this feeling at your core that you have to be doing something that makes a difference. One thing you learn at Harvard is that one must be useful.  I think a lot of us have that kind of motto.  You have to be doing something that you feel is useful emotionally as well as be able to make a living off of it. You’re not just putting in time. No.  Don’t want to just put in time. Alright, so tell us how your career moved on from there. Well, I was practicing family law in New York and got elected to the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers about as soon as I was eligible.  One of the first things I did in the Academy was get the Academy to start a divorce mediation group.  I assembled a faculty and we did trainings for grizzled old divorce lawyers around the country.  We would have these weekend seminars, they would come in on a Friday and stay till Sunday, and I had a faculty of about seven people who had real experience doing mediation.  It’s funny, you know, I would have them all at a dinner on Friday night when they first got there and I’d ask each of them how they happened to be there in this divorce mediation seminar.  And as I said these were all experienced top of the line family law attorneys— Mainly litigators I’m assuming. Litigators, all litigators. And invariably in the middle someone would stand up and say, “You know, I feel I’m in a group of recovering litigators.” In other words, these people were tired of the litigation process, tired of the excess blood on the floor, and they were looking for another way to do that. We did those trainings for about three years.  I think there were about 1,500 American Academy Matrimonial members at the time and we trained a heavy percentage of them.  We’d have about 50 a weekend and we’d do these all over the country.  That was one of the things I got into.  I also started writing books about helping people avoid unnecessary pain in the divorce process.  I wrote two books; the most recent was How to Divorce in New York and the other one was Divorce in New York.  I was essentially giving people the psychological and emotional tools they needed to avoid unnecessary pain. It sounds like your motivation was similar to mine, though I’m a publisher instead of a family lawyer.  When I started Divorce Magazine I had been going through my own divorce and felt that I needed information and resources to educate me so that I could be better able to go through the process.  It sounds like you felt the same way but were looking at it from a lawyer’s point of view. We’re in a helping profession, you know, and the question is how we do that. I don’t belittle litigators; there are some situations where bitter litigation can’t be avoided and it is necessary, but the bottom line in the usual situation is two people that are in pain.  Right is not solely on one side, but when you sign up as an advocate in the litigation situation you have to act as if your client is the angel and the other side is the devil. Tell me a little bit about your practice in Texas.  I know that your parents were both attorneys.  How much of an influence did they have on your view of the world and your practice of family law? Well, I went into family law in New York in 1980 independently of my family.  My parents started a law firm in Dallas in 1956 and my brothers Tom and Ken, who are both members of the American Academy, joined the firm shortly after they each graduated from law school.  The firm has other attorneys and continues to practice family law with significant property cases here in Dallas.  But I went into this on my own. In 1994 I just had a yearning to go home, and get back to my roots, so I dragged my wife Lorraine, a Brooklyn native, unwillingly to Texas.  Eventually she adjusted and was actually elected as a civil district judge in Dallas County in 2004, the first Democrat to be elected in 22 years; she’s had a distinguished career as a judge. That’s fantastic. She hasn’t totally forgiven me, but she has adjusted.  At any rate I came down here and started practicing with the family firm. Let’s talk a little bit about your political life.  It sounds like you and your wife are aligned at least on your political views; you’re both Democrats and you ran in 2010.  Tell me a little bit about the motivation for doing that and if there’s any connection to practicing family law and being a politician.  Were there any similarities between the two, and did practicing family law prepare you in setting your sights on being a politician? Well, you know, there’s a public service component in both of them.  You want to do something that makes a difference, you want to make an impact and you want to make an impression, to make things better for people. As I’ve mentioned, environmental stuff has been my passion since the 60s, but that kind of went into hibernation after 1980.  It was always there, though, and I continued to be involved in it.  I decided in 2009 that it was time for me to take a shot at trying to do something on the political field.  My campaign was based on this concept that we, the federal government, are spending a buck fifty for every buck we take in.  That’s unsustainable, you know, we’re eating the seed corn, we’re consuming too much.  That in some ways was a surrogate for what my real passion was and is: that we’re consuming too much, period. Deteriorating environmental systems.  They don’t work. It was okay when you talked to them, the voters in Texas, and said: “Look, it doesn't make any sense for the federal government to spend a buck fifty for every buck.”  But then when you got to talk about specifics, that we need to adjust social security, we need to talk about Medicare, that these things just don’t work and they’re not sustainable, the reaction is that no that would hear me. Are you sure you weren't running as a Republican candidate, because you sure sound like one. Well, you know, I think we do spend too much, and that we do consume too much, period.  The idea that deficits don’t matter, that was Ronald Reagan’s mantra. According to Dick Cheney Reagan supposedly proved that deficits don’t matter.  And of course he did a huge amount of additions to the government, as did George W. Bush.  So I don’t know that that’s Democrat or Republican.  I don’t think the Republicans have done a very good job in keeping spending and income in line.  I don’t think anybody’s done a very good job on it really since, I mean, Dwight Eisenhower, who is kind of my hero. That’s going back a f

A behind-the-scenes look at how private investigators collect legal evidence for the courtroom. Interview with Rob Kimmons, Private Investigator

Judge Kathleen McCarthy speaks on why adequate preparation is vital for family lawyers heading to trial.

Warren Adler talks about his inspiration for "War of the Roses"  and shares his views on struggles in marriage and the importance of loving your work.

Nationally recognized QDRO specialist Tim Voit joins Family Lawyer Magazine CEO Dan Couvrette to chat about retirement benefit plans and QDROs during divorce.