I don't see why
unnecessarily aggressive family law litigators should feel threatened by those of us who are
assertive and yet psychologically-minded and child-centered in our approach, especially considering the power that "fear"
and "anger" hold on us (if we allow such a hold).
For example, last week, someone contact my office for a consultation on
a matter because she was seeking
an approach such as mine. After she described the bad faith involved, I opined that the matter
unfortunately needed to be resolved in a courtroom.
She still wanted to come into my office for a consultation, but said she
was on disability and couldn't afford anyone who didn't work on
a sliding scale basis and at a low hourly rate. Since I don't operate
in such a manner, I referred her elsewhere.
Interestingly enough, she left me a message this morning, requesting a
referral to an a "shark" and said that money was no object.
In her message, she said that she will do everything in her power to come
up with any fees needed to retain an attorney she considered a "shark."
It kind of reminds me of the way in which criminal defendants manage to
come up with fees to retain private defense counsel. The difference, of
course, is that people tend to achieve BETTER outcomes from private criminal
defense counsel than through the Public Defender's office and
the opposite is typically true when they retain aggressive family law attorneys.
While I will be the first to admit that this client needs an assertive
family law litigator, I will be the last to suggest that she needs an
aggressive one. The VERY serious problem lies in the value attached to
the type of lawyering involved. Unnecessarily destructive lawyers are
worth mortgaging your house and going into debt for and yet people can't
seem to come up with the funds to retain constructive lawyers and/or mediators.