I am a bit biased on this issue. This bias is likely to be expected. I’m a divorce and family law attorney I believe my knowledge and experience are invaluable when it comes to handling your own divorce. However, I also recognize that everyone, myself included, faces a tough decision-making process repeatedly in life. Hiring a divorce lawyer is a tough decision. It becomes even harder when finances are tight, but the stakes are high. All you can do is balance your own knowledge and experience and apply it to the decision at hand.
Hiring a lawyer is not without risk, for the same reasons. Not all divorce lawyers have the same skills and experience. Some may cost more than others. Efficiency is another area where some outperform the rest. When it comes to billing, others offer more reasonable rates. Additionally, some tend to yield better results. It’s also worth noting that certain individuals are simply more pleasant to work with than others. As a client, you should balance the financial outcome with the impact on your relationship with the other party. This is especially important in child custody cases.
Making this decision requires careful consideration. However, as a divorce lawyer, I believe having one is crucial. When your world is at stake, it’s difficult to weigh every issue properly. It’s unlikely that you’ll be consistently able to exercise good judgment. This is not a slight to you: You are human and humans simply aren’t at their best when the most important things to them are at stake in an adversarial process.
When you “have nothing,” meaning minimal or no assets and debt, have no children, you earn substantially the same income, and your spouse has no divorce lawyer, it may make sense to handle the divorce on your own. However, it would be a mistake to move forward without getting a free attorney consultation when they are so readily available.
Most divorce lawyers, including this one, provide free attorney consultations during which you have the opportunity to explain the facts of your case and learn how things are likely to turn out. To schedule a free attorney consultation with our office, just complete the contact form or call us at 978-225-9030.
From time to time, I write articles about this issue. (I honestly feel a bit preachy in writing about it, but it’s not ordinarily unprompted.) A recent case from the Supreme Judicial Court, the highest court in the Commonwealth, prompted me this time around. On March 22, 2016, the Court issued its ruling in the case of Lasher v. Leslie-Lasher denying the appellant’s appeal and, once again, illustrating why handling your own case is an awful idea.
In that case, the a judgment issued on the parties’ divorce in 2014. Then in March 2015, Mr. Lasher filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2) requesting relief from the judgment based on an allegation that his wife had committed a fraud upon the Court by misrepresenting her finances. The review of the filing timing and opinion footnotes shows that the Husband’s motions were heard on March 25. These motions included a request for reconsideration and relief from judgment. The Husband also filed a motion for the judge’s recusal. He based this request on the Wife providing the judge with a Bible inscribed with his name. The judge then ruled on the motions for reconsideration and to set aside the judgment, denying both and then recusing himself from the case.
At this point I’ll stop and comment. Clearly, there’s a concern by the Husband in the case that there’s been an injustice. What actions should the team have taken? What would have happened if he had hired a competent divorce lawyer? Well, the discovery likely would have been more thorough to begin with, with greater opportunity to get all relevant facts and evidence before the Court in the initial proceeding. A lawyer handling the case would likely have taken the proper steps to, not only present all relevant evidence on the record, but would have properly preserved the issues for appeal if need be. Lastly, a lawyer would have had greater opportunity to remain objective and advocate the facts supporting his or her client’s position, without emotion clouding his or her judgment.
While we do not have every fact available here, we know that the Wife acted provocatively in providing a bible to the Judge. Whether she meant it to be provocative or not, such behavior reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the judge’s impartiality and the function of our justice system.
The husband’s next steps illustrate the pitfalls of lacking competent legal representation. His actions highlight the risks of not having skilled counsel. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the Husband filed an interlocutory appeal pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231 s. 118. He continued through the expense and time commitment associated with pursuing such an appeal until it was finally denied. He then filed a second appeal to the SJC, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 211, s. 3, which is an appeal directly to the Supreme Judicial Court.
That appeal was also denied, with the SJC opining, “It is incumbent on a party seeking exercise of this court’s extraordinary power of general superintendence under G. L. c. 211, § 3, to demonstrate the absence or inadequacy of alternative means of redress./. In this case, the petitioner failed to allege, much less demonstrate, that the Probate and Family Court judge’s order denying relief from the divorce judgment could not adequately be addressed through the ordinary appellate process, in an appeal to a panel of the Appeals Court from the postjudgment order.”
That last paragraph may be a bit confusing to the non-lawyer, so I’m going to translate. The case requires using the ordinary appellate process when appealing a Probate and Family Trial Court ruling. Follow the Rules of Court. When facing important decisions, consult a competent divorce lawyer to avoid mistakes.