Showing posts with label mediation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mediation. Show all posts

Monday, February 15, 2010

The "jerk" factor in a divorce

Last week the Northwest Herald ran an ad by the Woodstock law firm of Gitlin, Busche & Stetler in which the "jerk" factor was explained as a reason for the unknown (and high) cost of a divorce.

First, I have complained to the Northwest Herald on previous occasions that these large, regular box ads need to carry "Advertisement" across the top, so that readers are clearly informed that these are ads. The 2-point font used at the bottom of the message to inform readers that "These Q&A's (sic) are published as a service to the community" should read "These Q&As are a paid legal advertisement."

Any practitioner should be able to explain his fee schedule and estimate total professional fees for a legal matter, even including divorce. The ad claims that fees for divorce are unpredictable because "It is not known how the other spouse will react and what the other spouse will do. Here the "jerk" factor enters into play, that is, how reasonable are you and how reasonable is your spouse."

Well, if one party to a divorce makes outrageous or exorbitant claims for property or support, then the other party is going to say "No! Let the battle begin." Is that person then a jerk? I don't think so.

So a lawyer should just lay out his/her fees: for example, $450/hour for the senior partner; $300 for the junior partner; $150/hour for a paralegal; $80/hour for a secretary.

I'll venture a guess that few clients understand a fee schedule that looks like that or that they read carefully and understand the Engagement Letter that outlines those fees. They also may not understand just how quickly a retainer will be expended. Suppose the senior and junior partners sit down for two hours to "discuss" your case; your retainer will take a hit for $1,500. Will you get your money's worth out of that meeting?

The high cost of legal fees in a divorce is one reason for considering mediation. The two parties sit down with a mediator, whose job it is to work out an agreement between the parties without the lawyers. A lot of lawyers might not like mediation, because it can sharply reduce total legal fees in a divorce. The mediator might be a lawyer, but his job is not to represent either party; his job is to work out a settlement.

If you are considering a divorce or looking for a way to resolve any legal conflict, consider mediation. Do an internet search for "mediation" or "divorce mediation" or whatever you can to educate yourself, as you approach retaining a lawyer or hiring a mediator.

A good start might be www.divorceinfo.com

Friday, January 30, 2009

Woodstock PD Contract Yet?

Has the City completed its labor negotiations with the officers of the Woodstock Police Department yet?

It's my understanding that the officers have been working without a contract for over a year. Longer? Is there an officer of the department who would like to comment here on what it feels like to work in a department that cannot (will not) complete union negotiations for over a year?

What is the cost to have negotiators/mediators involved? Is the City actually paying $250.00 per hour for a mediator to try to move things off dead-center? How many hours have been paid for, so far? And will the rate increase when a different category of negotiations is reached?

What is the hourly rate for an arbitrator?

In the early 1980s in Denver I met John Marks, founder of Search for Common Ground, a Washington, D.C.-based international mediation firm. http://www.sfcg.org/

From its website I read today, "We began in 1982 at the height of the Cold War, and we focused on building bridges between East and West. Back then, we had two employees, a handful of supporters, and a minuscule budget. And we had the audacity to think we could change the world - from a win-lose, you-or-me environment, to a win-win, you-and-me place.

"Today, that audacity still shapes our work. "

I recall one of John's comments about establishing a relationship between parties who were never going to agree. He said that the first thing you do is to find something on which they can agree. It might be that they cannot agree. So there actually is something on which they can agree, and you build from there.

We need some of that around here!