Showing posts sorted by date for query pet. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query pet. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Dealing with Divorce Transition Issues

Ohio Family Law Blog published Did Your Ex-Spouse Take the Easter Baskets? Resurrection After the Crucifixion of Divorce for Easter but I think its advice goes beyond merely Easter (or any other holiday):

1. See a psychologist/therapist to help you with divorce transition issues;
2. Join a divorce support group in your area;
3. Become involved with a church;
4. Join a volunteer organization to help others;
5. Perhaps adopt a pet to love and nurture;
6. Try to smile, laugh and be more pleasant;
7. Simply be kinder to others and less self-absorbed;
8. Do something nice for yourself;
9. Risk sharing your feelings with others; and
10. Commit to a new attitude and starting a new chapter in your life.

While these suggestions aren’t novel or intended for everyone, the objective of this article is to encourage some self-reflection and, hopefully, motivate people paralyzed after divorce to make progress towards personal happiness. It all comes down to making a commitment to yourself to move forward and adopt a new mindset. Dayton Psychologist, Gregory Ramey, describes this as changing the way that you feel by changing the way that you think. Isn’t it about time? May this Easter season be that time in your life-your emotional re-birth! Don’t you deserve it?"


Remember, if you want more information about retaining me for a case, please give me a call at 765-641-7906.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Dogs and Divorces

I like dogs but I have not had a dog for years. last night, the kids and the wife and I had another discussion about why we will not have a dog so long as we live in town. I mention all this to counterbalance my lawyer's opinion where I disagree with the premise of The Legal Week's Why you shouldn't let your divorce come between you and your dog:
"Here, Shelley Hesford from SAS Daniels, says distressed dogs are increasingly becoming factors in how a divorce is conducted - and many couples are underestimating the impact the build-up to divorce and the consequent split can have upon their hound. Her comments are followed by the views of pet care professional Sarah Walmsley.

Ms Hesford told LDPLegal.co.uk: 'This may well sound frivolous, but a dog has rights and its wellbeing can put huge demands on its owners, and actually cause intense complications when a couple splits up.

Ms Hesford continued: 'When there are children involved, they
take priority. However, some couples are childless but have a very
parent/child-like relationship with their pets - particularly dogs - and
completely misjudge the impact a divorce can have."
Yes, I have a problem with dogs having rights. Except for one, now senior judge, I expect most of the judges in my area will agree with that dogs do not have rights the same as human beings.

That pets affect humans and that needs addressing by lawyers and courts, is something I can agree upon.

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Cohabitation and Pet Custody

While not a new subject (I have posts here and here and here and here), I could not resist The London Times' Forget the kids – now custody battles are switching to Fido. I think this is the first article discussing pets and cohabitation agreements.

"Couples who lived together but never married are drawing up more informal agreements.

Rachel Worley, 32, a magazine production assistant, shares custody of BJ, her jack russell. Every six months the dog is shuttled between her home in Chertsey, Surrey, and her former boyfriend’s home in the south of France. “It is quite amicable, although if it wasn’t for the dog we wouldn’t have any need to stay in touch any more,” Worley said."

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Pet Stories

Following up on earlier articles about pets and divorces, I thought that I might indulge in some wordplay about the sounds of pets or boys and pet shops. It is a gloomy day here in Anderson - rainy, sleeting, and just when I some enthusiasm for life was returning to me. Humor probably is out of place.

Florida Divorce Blog published New Yorker Appeals Ruling Permitting Ex to Move Out of State With Pet of the Marriage:

"A millionaire and his wife are pitted against each other in an ongoing custody battle … over their dog."

The “father”, who has no children, has spent over $60,000 to win custody of the pooch.

At first, the couple engaged in roughly equal timesharing, by agreement.

Then the “mother” accused the “father” of abuse.

The judge didn’t buy it, and the “father”’s timesharing resumed …

Until the “mother” moved to Connecticut.

Then, again, maybe humor is needed here. Something about this case almost requires it.

More seriously is Michigan State University College of Law: Animal Legal & Historical Web Center. Here is the site's description:
"This site is approaching its sixth year since creation and we are pleased with our growth. There are over 800 full text cases (US, Historical and UK) and over 1000 U.S. statutes fully available on the site, with Michigan and California being very comprehensive. More importantly, we have over 46 topics that give the viewer directions and comprehensive explanations on some of the more interesting issues of the animal area. We also have a number of legal articles addressing a wide variety of animal topics. This is the best way for non-lawyers to access the information. The international collection continues to expand...."
More than family law cases but with the rise in pet issues in divorce cases, this may be a very useful site.

Friday, January 4, 2008

Where I Want to go with Flat Fees

Credit a potential client with inspiring this post. For two months changing my fee structure has been under consideration. I had a mix of flat and hourly fees and I wanted to move towards flat fees. I wrote about the background to all this under the article Flat Fees. I think if you have not read that article, then you should to get the reason why I am making this change.

So this client calls last week but this was but one in a short line of the past few weeks. Each asked the same question: what is your hourly rate? None asked what I consider to be the important question: what will the case cost me? Clients shopping about for attorneys asking only about hourly rate are not getting the information they need to make a good decision about cost. At this time,I am evenly divided about the cause for this failure. The fault could lie with how my profession explains fees and it could lie with the naivete of the clients, or both.

The theory lying behind flat fees is giving the clients an idea of the total cost of a case. Hard to make the case that clients benefit from flat fees when they show no interest in the total cost of their case.

Then, too, I must follow what the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct direct regarding fees.


Finally, the more a lawyer computerizes their practice then hourly billing becomes ever less profitable. For several years now I have worked on automating my document production. Why do this? First, I can make documents a fixed cost instead of a flexible, hourly cost. Second, I spend time with clients or on the unique aspects of their case instead of drafting routine documents. I am not sure that clients without experience with other lawyers understand the benefits they get.


With these premises in mind, I decided both to announce changing my fee structure for new cases and explain how fees gets set. Understand please I think there is only one thing more troublesome than setting a fee and that is the time spent in keeping time sheets.


During the years I had a bankruptcy practice, I used a flat fee system. I know of no other fee used by consumer bankruptcy attorneys, Locally, criminal defense attorneys use flat fees. I admit to finding the wider discussion about flat fee versus hourly billing a bit odd because for this area it is so common. What is needed an idea of what effort will be needed on a particular case.


I wrote a particular case and not a type of case. I need to know a good deal of facts about the case, about the type of person I will be working for and what I am working against. I mention the last two because of my pet theory about family law is that the law is generally straightforward and complications generally come from the people in the case. I can estimate the work generally needed for a particular type of case, but the people involved may increase the work and therefore the cost.


Here is an example: out of county case but with an out of state opposing party; the opposing party lacks the wherewithal to make an appearance in court; client is a sensible sort; and the fee quoted for this case is less than my usual fee. Why? On the facts given me, I see this: good facts supporting my client, a non-appearing opposing party requires no discovery (see more about this below), and about a quarter of the usual court time for this type of case. The fee reflects the effort I need to reach my client's goal and enough profit for paying my bills. I call that a fair fee.


Every case can be broken into the following parts: starting, pretrial, and trial. What needs done within these parts depends on the case. During the start, work differs between petitioners or respondents. Pretrial costs increase if there is discovery. Discovery means using certain tools to get information from the other side (and they from you). Discovery increases the cost of each case but outweighing that cost is having the information needed for adequate preparation for trial. However, family law cases make themselves amenable to less expansive discovery than an ordinary civil trial. I think I use the same Motion to Produce used by everyone in Madison County since Indiana adopted the Child Support Guidelines. I think trial is self-explanatory. Here too, I think the average time for family law cases where custody is not at issue can be easily estimated with confidence.


I wrote about documents above, and the most document intensive part of a case comes during discovery. The second most intensive comes with the initiating party filing the petition or affidavit that starts the case. With computers these documents can be standardized and turned out with no modification by the lawyer. I use a program, HotDocs, to automate my documents – common documents get automated. I know other offices use search and replace in preparing their documents. A close reading will show the difference, I am writing my contracts now to show a flat fee for each document in a case. How then will the client know what to pay? Ah, the wonders of word processors being able to create check boxes. This also means I am overhauling contracts I have worked with for over a decade.


I part ways with some advocates of flat fees when it comes to trial. Determining court time for cases other than cases involving custody can be done with a fair amount of ease but I am sticking with a hourly rate for trial preparation and court appearances. Since courts set hearings ahead of time for a determinate time, I think this works out the same as a flat fee. My exception to this will be where I am dealing with a child support enforcement prosecutor.


Please do not think that I am doing away the hourly rate altogether. I suppose there will be clients who prefer an hourly rate just as there may be clients who I prefer having on an hourly basis.


What I have not seen mentioned by anyone else writing about flat fees is payment by credit cards. I have been looking for the past month for a company to handle my taking of credit cards. I see a good fit between credit cards and flat fees.


I think this is the first time I ever expressly detailed how I set my fees. I suggest the next time you are seeking a lawyer, calling up and asking about fees that you remember this article of mine. Ask them how they bill for their services – hourly or flat fee. Ask how they determine their fees. Ask for their estimate of the total amount of fees for the case. Ask how they reached their estimate. Do not be put off with lawyers who say it depends on the facts. You will find the more complex a case the less concrete will be the estimate.

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Another article on pets and divorce

This time from the California Divorce Blawg, Power To The Pets:

"On September 11, 2007 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law SB 353 amending Family Code §6320 to provide that a Court, upon a showing a good cause, may grant exclusive care of any animal to a party, and may further restrain the other party from taking, attacking or harming the animal. The legislation was introduced by Senator Kuehl. The entirety of the bill, including modified Family Code Section 6320, can be read by clicking here."
I published two earlier articles about pets and divorces: Pet custody and Fighting for custody of pets

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Pet custody

I wrote about this subject under the title Fighting for custody of pets and this weekend I found THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON at Judith's Divorce Blog:

"Following on from my blog about Man’s Best Friend, I confirm that it is not unusual for animal-loving clients to enquire about the procedure for seeking custody of their favourite pet at the time of separation. This generally gives rise to an explanation that these days we don’t even apply for custody of children for whom the law prescribes a number of other applications, particularly for parental responsibility, residence and contact orders, none of which are available for pets. I had assumed that the lack of such a remedy for pet-lovers would be commonplace around the globe but have come across this video (directed by Eva Saks a graduate from Yale Law School) on You Tube which could suggest the contrary."

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Fighting for custody of pets

This came to me via lexisONE(R). I believe Going To The Dogs appeared orginally in The Boston Globe. Maybe I am too far from the East Coast or from the cutting edge of divorce law, or maybe I do not attract clients who want to pay the money for a fight over their pets. (Actually, I am trying to think of the last client I had who had any pets and am coming up empty. Maybe the difference between Boston and Indiana is the client's attitudes towards their pets.)

"A decade ago, the idea that a divorce would involve 'custody' of a pet, much less that the decision would factor in the pet's own predilections, would have been dismissed by most lawyers as absurd. Pets were property, and not very valuable property at that, to be balanced against all of the other stuff that is split up in a divorce - nobody, after all, talks about joint custody of an armoire."

An interesting story, nonetheless.