Randall Kessler (Photo: John Disney/ALM)Destroy the Other Side? Resist That Impulse
What happens when we "destroy" the other side? When we embarrass and humiliate them? Does it make us look good? Does it help people like the system?
October 28, 2019 at 10:22 AM
3 minute read
What are we as family law attorneys paid to do? To help our clients, right? However, a lot of us often see or are given a simultaneous directive to destroy the other side, and that is 100% wrong. As family law attorneys, we are so lucky to represent people who are by and large innocent and decent people who just have family issues that are common to many people, even to those who do not divorce. Do attorneys often feel a need to vindicate our clients by destroying the other side? Some may. My suggestion? Resist, resist, resist.
What happens when we "destroy" the other side? When we embarrass and humiliate them? Does it make us look good? Does it help people like the system? Does it benefit our client? Does it benefit the children? Does it benefit our reputation? I suggest the answer to all of these questions is no.
Perhaps a way to look at it would be as follows: Let's say you are on high-rise building elevator which gets stuck. You start to panic and are concerned that you may never get out. There is one other person on the elevator. This person reassures you and keeps you calm. You strike up a conversation, and it makes the short delay tolerable. Then you realize that the person is the opposing party from a case years ago to whom you were very ugly in depositions or in trial. How would you feel?
That little example and thousands of others (you meet at a concert, or in line at a restaurant or anywhere else) should make us realize that our clients' opponents are often decent people. Wouldn't you like that person on the elevator to say to you, "I remember you; thank you for how you handled the situation, our family is doing well."? That's my hope for me and for all of us.
And it does not mean you cannot provide very zealous representation. To the contrary, there is power in courtesy. We are not the ones going through the divorce—they are. Both sides deserve our compassion. We should advocate for our client, but let's not leave shrapnel for the family.
Randy Kessler founded Kessler & Solomiany. He has chaired the family law sections of the American Bar Association, the State Bar of Georgia and the Atlanta Bar Association.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
How My Legal Career Unexpectedly Led Me to Become an Advocate for Domestic Violence Victims and Survivors
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
