Lesson No. 1, Avoid Cross-Examination by Divorce Lawyer Jeff Fisher
Most Effective Lawyers: Family/probate — Fisher says it comes down to preparation, but he has a knack for catching divorcing parties in lies and with fake documents.
December 10, 2018 at 05:00 AM
2 minute read
Jeff Fisher
Fisher Potter Hodas
Jeff Fisher has carved out a niche for himself in divorces of the rich, famous or not.
in a divorce trial last June, Fisher represented the husband when the wife, a trust fund heiress, sought an unequal division of property. She claimed she didn't know she had changed many assets to joint property with the husband. The West Palm Beach attorney considered his cross-examination of her the crucial part of the case.
The court denied the wife's claim for unequal distribution and found her “testimony consisted of a litany of self-serving and contradictory excuses that lack any degree of credibility (particularly in the face of cross examination).”
The issue of post-judgment enforcement came up in May when Fisher represented the wife against her ex-husband, who owned half of an insurance company worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Their settlement agreement included provisions for equitable distribution to the wife, but the husband skipped the payments and argued they were contingent on events that didn't occur.
Through discovery, depositions and motions, Fisher built a case that was resolved on the eve of trial. The ex-husband withdrew all of his “defenses that he asserted to excuse his failure to timely pay the wife the amounts owed to her.”
In November 2017, Fisher represented third parties with the largest financial interest in a well-publicized divorce in South Florida. Fisher dug through thousands of documents at locations controlled by the husband to unearth material proving the husband wasn't candid with the court.
Again, cross-examination was crucial in a seven-day injunction hearing. The court concluded the husband offered a falsified document as evidence and “concocted a false story about its recent 'discovery' with [his lawyer] for the purpose of defrauding the court about the key, disputed issues in the case.” The husband's pleading were struck.
Fisher is willing to share his wealth of particularized legal knowledge. He teaches a short course called Advanced Topics in Family Law at the University of Miami School of Law.
This content has been archived.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 AllRogge Dunn Represents Florida Trucking Firm in Civil RICO Suit Against Worldwide Express
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250