Securing Attorney Fees for the Disadvantaged Spouse
With proper preparation, statutory authority, and sufficient evidence, you can successfully obtain an award for fees needed to represent your client and ensure that he or she is on equal footing in court.
December 07, 2022 at 11:25 AM
6 minute read
There is a saying in Roger L'Estrange's Aesop's Fables noting that "he that has the Longer Sword, shall never want, either Lawyers, or Divines to Defend his Claim." Roger L'Estrange, Fables of Aesop and Other Eminent Mythologists, with Morals and Reflections and Fables and Stories Moralized: Being a Second Part of the Fables of Aesop. Put another way, money talks, and those parties that maintain the vast control of it in a divorce oftentimes attempt to wield power and influence at the courthouse. Every family lawyer has encountered those potential clients who cannot pay or replenish a retainer in a divorce or custody dispute, because they have little or often no access to the community estate and the other spouse controls the purse strings. Lawyers should not be dissuaded from representing these clients, however. With diligence and preparation, practitioners can often successfully obtain interim fees as well as a fee award at final trial in family law matters, which helps level the playing field. In order to accomplish this, counsel must first identify statutory grounds that will support a claim for attorney fees. Courts cannot award fees without the proper legal basis to do so. Below are several bases for recovery in various types of family law proceedings as well as requirements which must be met in order to obtain a vital fee award for your client.
Divorce
In a suit for divorce, the Texas Family Code provides that a party may seek and obtain interim fees from the other spouse in a temporary orders hearing, and/or legal fees at final trial as part of the division of the community estate.
Temporary Orders
Texas courts have broad discretion to award fees during temporary orders for the protection of a financially disadvantaged party as well as the preservation of property. To be successful in obtaining interim fees in a temporary hearing, there must be satisfactory proof that the client does not have access to or control of sufficient community funds to pay his or her counsel. The court must weigh the needs of the non-monied spouse against the other party's ability to pay fees from the community estate. When presenting evidence, make sure to identify certain assets or funds on account that the court can order payment from for interim fees. If cash is not readily locatable or available, the court can order community property to be leveraged or sold for interim fees. When balancing the needs of the parties and awarding interim fees, put on proof that there are sufficient assets available to pay fees for the disadvantaged spouse. While the court has broad discretion, the court cannot make an award that would otherwise render the paying spouse destitute. Also, make sure to request interim fees for future work anticipated to be conducted in the case as opposed to fees incurred which are owing or past due. The court does not have the authority to award past due fees in a temporary hearing; only anticipated, interim fees. To make it easy for the court, prepare an exhibit which lays out all estimated fees, itemizing out what work is expected to be done during each stage in the case. This includes breaking out your hours for anticipated discovery, depositions, hearings, mediation and final trial.
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
© 2025 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 AllNondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech
6 minute readThe Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
8 minute readDoes Videotaping a Supervised CPS Visitation Violate Privacy Rights?
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Public Notices/Calendars
- 2Wednesday Newspaper
- 3Decision of the Day: Qui Tam Relators Do Not Plausibly Claim Firm Avoided Tax Obligations Through Visa Applications, Circuit Finds
- 4Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-116
- 5Big Law Firms Sheppard Mullin, Morgan Lewis and Baker Botts Add Partners in Houston
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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