Child Custody, Child Support, Divorce, General Legal, Modifications, Visitation

A Fool for a Client…and Lawyer

04/04/2013 BowTieLawyer 1 Comment

“He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”

– Abraham Lincoln

Oh, I have heard the stories that so-and-so did it and “won,” but that is the exception and not the rule. Family law cases are hard to manage anyway, much more so if you don’t know what you are doing and if your judgment is clouded by high emotions. I have seen many a Pro Se client just do awful.

Pro Se is the term the Courts use. It is Latin, meaning “for oneself.”

Lawyers have specific training and education regarding Court rules, rules of evidence and procedure. Legal matters require things be done in a certain fashion or they are not valid. Lawyers, usually, have experience with that particular area of the law and the Judge handling the matter.

I was involved in a case where the father, representing himself, sued the mother for interfering with his visitation, according to him. He filed the suit, had her served and got a Court date. Oops! He did it wrong. After filing, he should have gotten the Court date, had a summons issued (the correct summons by the way, a Rule 81 Summons in this instance) and then had the mother served. Because he did it wrong it, he could not get the relief he was seeking and had to do it over. In the meantime, mom met with her attorney, who asked the right questions. It turns out dad was well behind on his child support and that the child and the father had a significant altercation which prompted the visits to stop. Now, mom was armed with a lawyer, the law and filed against dad. Ultimately, dad was held in contempt for non-payment of support. He had to pay mom’s attorney fees and once the Judge heard about the altercation between the child and father, he ordered anger management counseling for dad and restricted visitation until dad re-petitioned the Court for visitation, after completing the counseling. I like to think that if I had represented dad it would have been a different outcome or perhaps dad could have tried to resolve things without Court involvement. He should have had an attorney. Click here for blogs on “Do I Need an Attorney?” & “How do I Find an Attorney?”

Representing yourself is about the worst thing you can do in a divorce and custody case!

Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney in Mississippi and thinks it wise to see an attorney before you try to represent yourself, and to not do it even after that.

Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer Visit the website: Thompson Law Firm

You may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@wmtlawfirm.com.

Divorce, General Legal, Irreconcilable differences

Attorney Fee$ in Divorce

04/03/2013 BowTieLawyer 2 Comments

Attorney fees are always a big topic in family law. Nobody wants to pay ’em, but everyone wants to get ’em, including attorneys!

In Mississippi, the standard to recover attorney fees is based upon the client’s ability to pay. If the client has the ability to pay attorney fees they will NOT recover attorney fees in the typical divorce. Upon a showing of inability to pay a client may recover reasonable attorney fees. This holds true even if they are the client “at fault.” What? Yes. It’s about the ability to pay, nothing else, usually.

If a client can demonstrate an inability to pay, the Court conducts an analysis of the “McKee Factors” to determine the reasonableness of the attorney fees. McKee v. McKee, 418 So.2d 764, 767 (Miss. 1982), lists the following factors that the Court considers before an award of attorney fees is made.

Parties’ relative financial ability
Skill and standing of the attorney
Novelty and difficulty of the issues
Degree of responsibility involved in management of the case
Time and labor
Usual and customary charge in the community
Preclusion of other employment as a result of accepting the case

The client and client’s attorney would both testify regarding these factors, the attorney more so. This is one of the few instances where an attorney is allowed to represent a party and be a “witness” in the same matter. After the Court has determined inability to pay, the Court looks as the above factors and the evidence/testimony offered regarding McKee and makes a determination regarding attorney fees. The Court has broad discretion in awarding attorney fees and the award is routinely less than the actual amount paid or owed.

Additionally, the standard is different for contempt, fraud instances and if a party’s actions caused the fees to be higher unreasonably. In contempt the Court may award fees upon a finding of contempt and the Court can sanction a party for misconduct, including an award of attorney fees against the wrongdoer.

So will you recover your attorney fees? You might, but then again you might not and if you do you may not get what you actually paid, or what you actually owe. Also, most attorneys will have already have been paid, so then, how do you show inability to pay? Promissory notes and loans. Document it if you borrowed the monies and have the lender prepared to testify it’s a legitimate loan, even if it’s your parents.

Lastly, just because you have the present inability to pay does not mean you are guaranteed recovery of fees. If the Court awards you enough assets through your case, you may not recover attorney fees because the Court figures you have enough to pay them now.

Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney in Mississippi and is upfront with his clients about attorney fees, expenses and the likelihood of recovering those fees.

Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer Visit the website: Thompson Law Firm

You may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@wmtlawfirm.com.

General Legal, Opinion

Churchill Wisdom; On Guns

04/01/2013 BowTieLawyer 1 Comment

Winston Churchill, who appears not infrequently as a part of this blog, was known to carry a firearm on his person.

The above, a 1896 Broomhandle Mauser, was his military issued firearm.

According to British firearms author and historian Richard Law, knowing Churchill had been targeted by Hitler’s agents for assassination, Churchill always went armed, his bodyguards notwithstanding. He kept a Thompson sub-machine gun, loaded in a rack within easy reach in his official limousine. Discovering that his chief bodyguard carried a little .32 Webley, Churchill ordered a new Colt Government Model .45 for his him. A short time later, Churchill asked the chief bodyguard how he liked the new pistol. The man replied that he was still carrying the .32 because the Colt was too heavy.

“Give it to me, then,” snapped Churchill, as he shoved it into his overcoat. This became the great leader’s personal carry gun until the end of the war.

Prior Churchill Wisdom includes;

Mississippi, beginning in July, will allow open carry and 2 levels of concealed carry are currently available for residents.

Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney in Mississippi. Contact TLF with your family law or firearm law related inquiry.

Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer Visit the website: Thompson Law Firm

You may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@wmtlawfirm.com.

alienation, Crime, Divorce, General Legal

Criminal Conversation (Just Sex)

03/29/2013 BowTieLawyer 1 Comment

Criminal Conversation is likely the most misleading term you will hear or read today. Criminal conversation, briefly mentioned in this prior blog on Alienation of Affection, is today’s topic.

Criminal Conversation is an act of adultery between a person and the spouse of another. This tort, meaning a civil wrong, commonly arises in Alienation of Affection situations, but differs greatly from AOA. Alienation allows a wronged spouse to sue the “significant other” of the guilty spouse for the breakdown of the marriage. It requires proof of 3 elements; 1) Wrongful Conduct, 2) loss of affections, and 3) a causal connection.

In Criminal Conversation if you have sex with a married person, who is not your spouse, you are guilty. There is no defense to the tort of criminal conversation.

Consent of the wife is no defense. The fact that the wrongdoer did not know the wife was married, but believed her to be single is not a defense. The fact that the wife represented herself as single is not a defense. The fact that the wife was the aggressor is not a defense. The fact that she has been neglected or mistreated by her husband is not a defense. The fact that she and her husband were separated through his fault is no defense.

Criminal Conversation has been hailed as “notorious for affording a fertile field for blackmail and extortion” and action may be brought “not for the purpose of preserving the marital relationship, but rather for purely mercenary or vindictive motives.”Kline v. Ansell, 287 Md. 585, 414 A.2d 929, at 931. (1980). Courts have found that this tort is “incompatible with today’s sense of fairness” because there are no defenses to a cause of action. Id.

Several arguments have been advanced for the abolition of it, including;

(1) a woman is no longer the property of her husband;
(2) the tort has no deterrent effect;
(3) a cause of action may be brought for vindictive purposes;
(4) the potential for abuse is great;
(5) the tort is devoid of any defenses; and
(6) determining damages, meaning money, is difficult.

So now that you are sweating about this, rest easy. Criminal Conversation was abolished by the MS Supreme Court in 1992 in the case of Saunders v. Alford, 607 So.2d 1214 (Miss. 1992). Alienation of Affection, however, is alive and well.

Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney in Mississippi. If you need to have a conversation with a lawyer about family law you know who to call.

Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer

You may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@bowtielawyer.ms

Crime, General Legal, Opinion

Open Carry in MS?

03/25/2013 BowTieLawyer 22 Comments

I have previously blogged on MS gun laws and recent tweaks in the law. In the paper, Sunday, there was an article that stated effective July, MS will allow open carry. (Perhaps, more accurately stated is that it appears that it is not prohibited.)

Previously, the MS Attorney General opined, in June 2012, which is only “advisory,” that it is illegal to carry a handgun without a license (concealed carry permit). The license requires that the entirety of the handgun be concealed. The above picture would be a violation of the old law. If the jacket were covering it completely, it would not be if you had a concealed carry permit. This will be changed effective July 1, 2013, and includes incidental unconcealment will not be a violation. My prior article regarded this “tweak” of the law. However, another inspection of the law change also reveals a few other things ADDED to and REMOVED from the prior law.

ADDED (paraphrasing)

97-37-1. (1) Except as otherwise provided in Section 45-9-101, any person who carries, concealed * * * on or about one’s person, any pistol, revolver… must have a concealed carry license.

(4) For the purposes of this section, “concealed” means hidden or obscured from common observation and shall not include any weapon listed in subsection (1) of this section, including, but not limited to, a loaded or unloaded pistol carried upon the person in a sheath, belt holster or shoulder holster that is wholly or partially visible, or carried upon the person in a scabbard or case for carrying the weapon that is wholly or partially visible.

This change now takes any pistol out of the definition of “concealed” if in a holster and visible or partly visible. This means the above picture is no longer a concealed handgun and no longer is subject to concealed carry license requirements.

The licensing requirements of this section do not apply to the carrying by any person of a stun gun, pistol or revolver, …that is not concealed as defined in Section 97-37-1.

So now the law change has established what the definition of “concealed” is NOT and that a pistol in a holster, on your person, that is visible is not concealed.

Now for the REMOVED section.

The prior law had a clause to the effect ‘that nothing herein may be used to authorize open carry…‘ This language has been deleted from the new law. The reason is because now this concealed carry law, which defines “concealed,” specifically excludes being applied to a pistol in a holster that is visible. It, by default, defines open carry.

There is a maxim in the law that holds that which is not prohibited is allowed. “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed” is a constitutional principle of English law — an essential freedom of the ordinary citizen. MS has no law, effective July, that prohibits open carry (and did not prior to this either, really). Or rather, MS law now defines a pistol in a holster as not concealed and therefore not subject to concealed carry license requirements.

So, what else is on the books? The MS Constitution guarantees our rights to keep and bear arms (along with the US Constitution). There is nothing else in the law regarding concealed or open carry for citizens.

You can read the bill for yourself here. While it is not black and white law allowing for open carry, there is now (July 2013) “nothing” which can be used to prohibit open carry. Interestingly, I have heard that the same restrictions to concealed carry apply to open carry, meaning limitations on locations and that if a person posted a sign that you could not carry on premises. I say “interestingly” because the prohibitions are all in the concealed carry license statute, the law which specifically authorizes concealed carry. The argument could be made that open carry is not subject to concealed carry rules because it is specifically excluded from the definition.

I predict some more law changes and litigation/law enforcement run-ins about this one.

Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney in Mississippi and supports your Second Amendment rights.

Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer Visit the website: Thompson Law Firm

You may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@bowtielawyer.ms

Bow Tie, Uncategorized

Friday Fun; When I Grow Up…

03/22/2013 BowTieLawyer 1 Comment

Today, the 1st graders got to dress up like what/who they wanted to be when they grew up and say why…

His first choice was the “Avatar, the Last Airbender.” When we discussed that he was a fictional character and his mom would not let him shave his head and tattoo an arrow on it, he chose a lawyer! I was proud. But, being the Avatar would be cool!

Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer Visit the website: Thompson Law Firm

You may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@wmtlawfirm.com.

Divorce, General Legal, Opinion

Bad Advice = Bad Lawyer?

03/20/2013 BowTieLawyer 6 Comments

As a practicing attorney you are always learning from each case, each client, each Court appearance, and dealings with opposing counsel. Through all of this, there are memorable lessons learned and some you wish you had not.

Some memorable milestones are your first Court appearance, your first argument before the Court and the first satisfied client. I recently experienced a “milestone” that I wanted to share.

I was involved in a case where I “knew” who the other attorney was before he was “hired.” I knew based solely on the conduct of his client; destroying property, taking things that did not belong to him, damaging other property, having a poor attitude and ignoring attempts to communicate amicably and to resolve the outstanding issues without things escalating. I have this theory that clients tend to seek out and hire attorneys that are similar to themselves. Now, obviously this is not always true and too broad a generalization to make, but fitting for this instance. In any event, this other party decided to do some bad things.

As soon as I heard of the destruction, I said “I know who his attorney is.” It was not a good feeling. I was not proud of myself. I was disappointed that due to this conduct that I “knew” who he hired. This conduct and this advice is exactly why people hate attorneys and think we are lower than low.

So what did I do about it? Well, I tried to do the best I could. Set it for hearing and let the Judge have a say. The client may or may not have broken the law, but that didn’t make it right.

This milestone, unfortunately memorable, of knowing who the other attorney is by offensive conduct of his client actually reminded me that I do not ever want another attorney to “know” that I am involved in a case based upon offensive conduct of my client. Want to share to some war stories? Leave a comment or send an email, maybe I’ll blog about it.

Matthew Thompson is a Family Law attorney and strives to do what is right and is now getting off of his soapbox.

Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer Visit the website: Thompson Law Firm

You may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@wmtlawfirm.com.

Divorce, General Legal, Marriage, Opinion

Churchill Wisdom; On Advice

03/14/2013 BowTieLawyer 2 Comments

“In those days he was wiser than he is now; he used to frequently take my advice.”

-Winston Churchill

Following your attorney’s advice can be one of the more difficult aspects of divorce work, but you must. I have previously blogged on How to Hire an attorney, Keeping Quiet when necessary, Annoying Client Traits, and Coping with the Stress of a family law matter. One important and common theme to all of these is to listen and take the advice you are given. It is no guaranty of a perfect case, but it increases the potential for a satisfactory result. (So long as the person giving the advice knows what they are talking about.)

Matthew Thompson is a Family Law attorney and is good at telling people what to do.

Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer Visit the website: Thompson Law Firm

You may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@wmtlawfirm.com.