Plans by the managing partner of a Pennsylvania law firm to wind down his career have become the subject of a precedential family law opinion in the state Superior Court.

The court ruled last week that Peter Speaker, managing partner of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, would not be allowed to decrease his alimony payments to his ex-wife leading up to his retirement from the law firm.

“Without an imminent retirement date … and absent any evidence of an unfavorable change in
[Speaker's] current financial circumstance, [his] request for alimony modification is, at best, premature,” Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge Alice Beck Dubow wrote in an 11-page opinion.

According to the opinion, Speaker, 59, earned approximately $450,000 as chief managing partner of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer in 2016, working 60 to 80 hours a week. That firm requires that managing partners may not serve an additional three-year term after reaching age 60, the opinion said, and Speaker told the court he planned to retire at age 65 for health reasons.

Speaker “testified that when he is no longer managing partner, his salary will decrease, there was 'no formula' for his compensation, and his pay is dependent on 'how hard you work, how many hours you put in, and how much money comes in because of your work,'” Dubow wrote.

According to the opinion, Speaker has paid his ex-wife $4,500 per month since they divorced in 2008, but a trial court had more recently ordered that he could pay $3,000 per month in 2018 and $1,500 per month in 2019. His ex-wife, Michelle Speaker, appealed.

Since 2005, shortly before her husband moved out of their home, Michelle Speaker has been self-employed as a real estate agent making between $31,000 and $35,000 in recent years, the opinion said. She has also held seasonal jobs at department stores. According to Dubow, Michelle Speaker testified that she did not think she would ever be able to retire herself.

Michelle Speaker argued that her ex-husband should not be allowed to decrease his alimony payments simply because of the desire to retire. The Superior Court agreed.

“Because [Speaker] has yet to retire or set an imminent date for retirement, he is unable to show any changed financial circumstances to serve as a basis for a substantial and continuing change necessary to modify his alimony award downward,” Dubow wrote. “In fact, [his] income has increased significantly since the entry of the original alimony order.”

Michelle Speaker had also filed a counterclaim requesting an increase in alimony. But the Superior Court said she had failed to develop the case for that increase, so it denied review of that issue.

Teresa Reifsnyder of JSDC Law Offices, who represented Michelle Speaker, noted that during the marriage, Michelle Speaker was “a homemaker,” which had a continuing effect on her ability to earn money after the divorce.

“The Superior Court opinion really showed us the importance of the woman's role in the home as homemaker,” Reifsnyder said. “The court noted that not only had Mr. Speaker's circumstances significantly improved, [but Michelle Speaker's] circumstances are not going to.”

Sandra Meilton of Daley Zucker Meilton & Miner, who represented Peter Speaker, did not return a call seeking comment Monday.