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
© 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 AllThe 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
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