California Divorce Blawg

What Clients Should Expect

I got fired by a client recently because I told that person what she needed to hear rather than what she wanted to hear.  Because she had more money than her husband I had to break the news to her that her expectations in her case were not realistic.  She did not like what I had to say, so she fired me.

Am I upset?  No way.  First and foremost, a client can fire her lawyer at any time, and for no reason.  The client exercised that prerogative as she is entitled to.  Second, I did my job! A good family law lawyer does not tell a client what she wants to hear, just so he can fail to deliver.  A good family lawyer lawyer tells the client what she needs to hear so that the client can have realistic expectations, and plan accordingly.

As a consumer of legal services the client should not be shopping for a yes man.  Legal consumers need to understand that in every case there is going to be an outcome.  It may be what you want.  It may not be what you want.  If your lawyer is able to anticipate a certain outcome, then that lawyer is providing a valuable service to you, even if that anticipated outcome is not what you want.

If you don't like what you hear, and you want to fire your lawyer because of it, go for it.  Just be careful what you ask for!

Please visit Hardinglaw.com for more family law information.

Calculating Spousal Support When There Is Severance Pay

It is not uncommon to have spousal support and child support set based on the paying spouse's base or guaranteed income.  Additional support can then be ordered from any additional income, such as bonus income or commissions (usually in the form of a % of the additional income).  The case creating this additional support mechanism is Ostler & Smith (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 33.  But what happens when the support paying spouse gets laid off, and receives a severance package?

In a published opinion out of Los Angeles County, Marriage of Tong & Samson, we get the answer.  Richard and Elaine got divorced.  Richard had to pay $9,059 per month in spousal support, plus 35% of "all compensation in excess of $25,000 for each month."  Subsequently he got laid off.  The lay-off included a $309,700.81 severance payment to Richard.  Richard went to court not to have the severance pay spread out over time.  Elaine, of course, wanted her 35% cut immediately, in one lump sum.  The appellate court said no to Elaine.  The appellate court focused its attention on the word "compensation."  It found that severance pay did not fit the definition of compensation, and therefore did not come within the straight 35% lump sum formula.  The court writes:

The bulk of Richard’s severance pay was apparently designed to compensate him for 12 months of lost salary and six months of lost commissions. It did not represent a single month of compensation and should not have been treated as such for purposes of the Ostler & Smith percentage.

Please click here to read the original opinion.

Please be sure to visit www.hardinglaw.com, the website for the law firm of Harding & Associates, for more information on California family law.