One Westport split cost the divorcing couple an estimated $13 million. It differed in degree, but not really in kind, from many lesser domestic catastrophes: “Divorcing couples in Connecticut regularly rack up bank-busting legal bills that can put the lesser earning party — and there often is an economic imbalance between warring couples — into bankruptcy. … the most expensive and sought-after divorce attorneys are commonly referred to as ‘junkyard dogs.’” Then there are the hefty sums you may be forced to hand over to lawyers who get themselves appointed guardians ad litem, to represent your kids against, well, you and your ex (Daniel D’Ambrosio, Hartford Advocate, Jul. 24).

• Nothing new about lawyers stealing money from estates, but embarrassing when they used to head the bar association [Eagle-Tribune; Lawrence, Mass., Arthur Khoury]
• Unusual “reverse quota” case: black job applicant wins $30K after showing beauty supply company turned her down because it had a quota of whites to hire [SE Texas Record]
• Who knew? Per class action allegations, pet food contains ingredients “unfit for human consumption” [Daily Business Review]
• U.K.: “A divorcee who won a £1.4million payout from her multi-millionaire husband is suing her lawyers because she claims she should have got twice that amount.” [Telegraph]
• UW freshman falls from fourth-floor dorm window after drinking at “Trashed Tuesday”, now wants $ from Delta Upsilon International as well as construction firm that put in windows [Seattle P-I, KOMO]
• After giant $103 million payday, current and former partners at Minneapolis law firm are torn by feuds and dissension — wasn’t there a John Steinbeck novella about that? [ABA Journal and again, Heins Mills]
• Small firm that used to make Wal-Mart in-house videos sets up shop at AAJ/ATLA convention hawking those videos for use in suits against the retailer [Arkansas Democrat Gazette, earlier]
• When the judge’s kid gets busted [Eric Berlin; Alabama]

In 2001, a Florida court awarded Marlene Forand a $240,000 divorce settlement, plus $6,000 per month in permanent alimony and attorney’s fees, from ex-husband Bob in 2001, 6 years after their marriage ended. So why is she living with her mother and taking public support? The St. Petersburg Times reports that the lawyers who botched enforcement of the claim in Alabama, Bob’s new home state, somehow ended up with only a $162,000 judgment from her ex and took more than half that in legal fees, leaving Forand, after paying off some marriage debts, with nothing at all.

But wasn’t the ex supposed to pick up the bill?

No, her lawyers said. She signed contracts with them. She owed them. If she wanted Bob to pay her legal fees, she would have to sue him. Of course, that would mean more legal fees.

Marlene was famous for her fiery e-mails. She sent one to Haas:

“Why should I suffer and have to pay attorney’s fees to make him pay for what was already ordained in the Florida court? I’m still left holding the debt from the marriage judgments for 20 years and he walks free. This I will not tolerate. What’s the next move?”

In Alabama, there didn’t seem to be a next move, at least one she could afford.

Marlene e-mailed Haas: “That idiot you hired in Alabama got himself and you paid a substantial amount of money to leave me destitute.”

Haas e-mailed Marlene: “Frankly, both Paul [his man in Birmingham] and I are tired of your abuse.”

Forand kicked Haas off the case (for the second time) in 2006 and is now representing herself. “This is not the end,” she told the Times. “If I’ve learned anything about the law, I’ve learned you can always file another motion. You can always object.”

But after 13 years of litigation, the Florida judiciary has a less rosy view of Forand’s prospects. Responding to Forand’s motion to compel Bob to swear that he had no documentation of any of his assets, a Tampa judge despaired, “Even if I rule 100 percent in your favor, I’m just going to add another piece of paper [to your casefile] — the next page of Volume 13.” (”A Divorce, Unsettled,” St. Petersburg Times, Jun. 22).

The father wouldn’t let her go on a school trip because he said she’d been acting up, including using a friend’s account to post inappropriate pictures on a dating site. “But [Quebec Superior Court] Justice Suzanne Tessier, who was presiding over the case, found the punishment too severe.” The mother, who is divorced from the father, was supporting the girl; the school’s policy was that both parents’ permission was required for such trips. According to a lawyer involved in the case, the father has legal custody but the girl has been living with her mother for the past month. (AFP/FoxNews.com, Globe and Mail, Eugene Volokh). Plus: Token Conservative suggests a new writ of “habeas bratus”.

And so the divorce case winds up generating massive demands for hard drive contents and other electronic discovery. Draconian spoliation sanctions, as exemplified in the Morgan Stanley-Perelman and Zubulake-UBS Warburg cases, make a potentially fatal trap for the unwary:

Defense lawyers complain that their clients often are forced to supply voluminous information at great cost with little benefit. And because there is so much more information potentially subject to a discovery order, the chances are greater that a client might violate the order by inadvertently deleting data.

“Does this enhance justice? Not usually,” said Tess Blair, a partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius L.L.P., who heads the 1,350-lawyer firm’s electronic-data-discovery unit. “It becomes a weapon in many cases.”

(Chris Mondics, “Ediscovery profoundly changing lawyering”, Philadelphia Inquirer, Jun. 8).

A Health Affairs paper by Suffolk University Law Professor Marc Rodwin et al. has been generating a lot of press and blog attention for its claim that there is no medical malpractice crisis in Massachusetts.  He and I have been debating the paper at Point of Law (Frank; Rodwin; Frank); as I show, that conclusion is highly suspect and seems divorced from the underlying data.

We’ve had a lot of Montgomery Blair Sibley coverage over the years:

• His meritless suit against the DC Circuit (followed by a self-defeating appeal to the Supreme Court, where there was no quorum because he had sued seven of the justices)
• his follies in the Palfrey case and in an earlier 2006 Florida prostitution case; and
• his vexatious pro se work in family court.

And we didn’t even mention his work representing Larry Sinclair (the fellow who unsuccessfully sued Barack Obama for denying Sinclair’s implausible claim that he had engaged in a homosexual tryst with him) in a lawsuit against three anonymous bloggers. (DBKP blog, Mar. 14.)

After years of over-the-top abusive litigation, the state bar finally took action, and he has been suspended by the Florida bar for three years. No doubt, this will result in a new round of frivolous pro se collateral litigation. It took a contempt-of-court citation for failure to pay child support before the Florida bar took action, so this can hardly be considered a rousing success of the bar in policing its own, even for someone as over-the-top as Sibley. (Florida Bar v. Sibley; ABA Journal, Apr. 25; MPGS blog, May 14; h/t S.G.).

Update: Two commenters (who never appeared on Overlawyered before) implausibly defend Sibley, both posting from BellSouth accounts in Atlanta, GA. Nothing about a divorce requires one to sue seven Supreme Court justices for “judicial treason” for denying a (frivolous) certiorari petition from a frivolous lawsuit. He should have been disbarred a long time ago; that he is only being suspended, and then only because of failure to obey court orders, is appalling. He’s been a hazard to his clients and to taxpayers; so, no, I don’t think he’s a “damn good lawyer.”

Update, May 16, 2:45 AM: We originally repeated a second-hand report sent to us that Sibley had also been suspended in DC as part of reciprocal discipline. It is possible that our correspondent confused a Rule 8.1 report, made by the DC Bar counsel recommending reciprocal suspension, with an actual suspension. If a Rule 8.1 report was filed, Sibley is entitled to file a response; no oral argument is scheduled at this time (though none is required to be scheduled) and no DC Board on Professional Responsibility report is listed as having issued with respect to Sibley. Rule 8.4 of the DC Board on Professional Responsibility Rules of Procedure is titled “Conclusive Effect of Adjudication in Other Jurisdiction,” which would appear to give Sibley nothing to argue in DC, and would likely make discipline inevitable, but the District of Columbia, in its typical competence, has posted the wrong text for 8.4 on its website, so I cannot say that for certain. Montgomery Sibley is, as of May 16, still listed on the DC Bar’s website as a member in good standing. If the error is ours, rather than that of the DC Bar website, we regret the error. Without written confirmation of the suspension, we retract the original statement that the DC Bar has suspended Sibley in response to the Florida bar’s three-year suspension of Sibley.

Update, May 20: We were right the first time.

Airline mechanic Arnim Ramdass, 52, allegedly “disconnected the phone line at home and forbade his stay-at-home wife, Donna Campbell, 48, to watch television, Campbell claims in a lawsuit. Eventually, however, she learned the truth: Ramdass, along with 16 other mechanics at Miami International Airport, had won a $19 million lottery jackpot.” (Martha Neil, “Wife Sues Husband for Share of Secret $600K Lottery Win”, ABA Journal, May 13). See Nov. 20-21, 1999 (similar case from California).

An Italian pornographic movie star/politician who was formerly married to wealthy American artist Jeff Koons is back in court with a child support demand, a decade after the two carried out an extraordinarily acrimonious and hard-fought custody battle over their son, now 15. In the course of losing that battle Koons spent $4 million on legal fees, “some of which he later challenged unsuccessfully. Among Koons’ complaints was his lawyers charged him for time they spent watching his ex’s porn films, one of which famously includes” a scene rather too raw for description on this blog involving a reptilian co-star. (Dareh Gregorian, “Porn Star Sues Papa To Pay Up”, New York Post, Mar. 27).

Indicating perhaps that divorcing Paul McCartney is an only slightly less remunerative affair than being Bear Stearns, even if she didn’t get the claimed £125 million. (David Byers, Times Online, Mar. 17). Reader Jim T. sends along this video of Mills’s press statement and describes as “hilarious” the “references of how it is ‘very, very sad’ that her daughter was only awarded enough travel expenses to travel ‘B class’ even though Heather Mills was just awarded $50 million dollars.” (& welcome Above the Law readers).

A family court judge who was shot in his chambers by a man whose bitter divorce he was handling has sued the gunman, seeking damages totaling more than $100,000.

Mack, a former pawn shop owner who shot the judge through a window at the courthouse in a sniper-style attack, was sentenced this month to life in prison for fatally stabbing his estranged wife, Charla Mack, in June 2006. He was also sentenced to a concurrent 40 years for shooting the judge the same day.

Also addressed in the suit are unnamed “Doe” conspirators who “aided, counseled, encouraged and assisted and participated” with Mack in carrying out the attacks.

Mack’s civil lawyer, Mark Wray, said the suit “mystified” him. Mack has long since lost the fortune he earned from the pawn shop, and his client’s 9-year-old daughter is getting the last of it, Wray said.

Mystified, is he? Maybe it has something to do with the conspirators.
(News Observer Feb. 23)

As a Valentine’s Day promotion, Charleston, W.V. radio station WKLC-FM is offering a drawing for a free divorce. “Charleston attorney Rusty Webb will handle the actual filing” and says winners should not expect anything complicated in the line of contested proceedings. (Charleston Gazette, USA Today).

Updates:

• The Canadian Transportation Agency (as part of its regulation of airline ticket prices) has ruled that obese passengers are entitled to have two airline seats for the price of one, which will no doubt encourage further suits against the American practice. (h/t Rohan) One looks forward to the Canadian lawsuits complaining that an obese passenger wasn’t adjudged obese enough to get a free second seat. [Australian; Toronto Star; Gunter @ National Post; earlier on Overlawyered]
• Also in Canada, Ezra Levant defends his free speech rights against a misnamed Alberta “Human Rights Commission” over his republication of the Danish Muhammed cartoons. [Frum; National Post; Steyn @ Corner; Wise Law Blog; Youtube; related on Overlawyered]
• Alleged car-keying attorney “Grodner is now under investigation by the state’s Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, sources said. Commission officials declined to comment Thursday.” [Chicago Tribune; Jan. 4]
• “Life is short—get a divorce” attorney Corri Fetman parlays her tasteless billboard (May 10; May 8) into tasteless Playboy topless-modeling and advice-column gig. In the words of Alfred E. Neuman, “Blech.” On multiple and independent grounds. Surprisingly, Above the Law avoids the snark of noting that the lead paragraph of Fetman’s law firm web site bio includes a prestigious 23-year-old quote from a college professor’s recommendation for law school. [Above the Law; Chicago Sun-Times; Elefant]
• Wesley Snipes (Jun. 11; Nov. 2006) appears to be going for a Cheek defense in his tax-evasion trial—which is hard to do when you’re a multimillionaire whose well-paid accountants explicitly tell you you’re violating the law. (Remember what I said about magical incantations and taxes?) [Tampa Tribune; Quatloos]
• Accountant Mark Maughan loses his search-engines-make-me-look-bad lawsuit (Mar. 2004) against Google, which even got Rule 11 sanctions. (That happened in 2006. Sorry for the delay.) More on Google and privacy: Jan. 16. [Searchenginewatch]
• Bribed Mississippi judges in Paul Minor case (Sep. 8 and much more coverage) report to prison. [AP]

…say some divorce lawyers. (Dareh Gregorian, “Splitting Time”, New York Post, Jan. 9)(via Jones/WSJ law blog).

Prompted by our post of yesterday about Virginia lawyer-legislators, commenter Hans Bader at his own blog nominates New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey as examples of how bad matrimonial law can get: “the more lawyers are in a state legislature, the more unfair a state’s divorce laws tend to be”. (OpenMarket.org., Jan. 2). Plus: our family law archives are here.

The action was “in protest at a possible reform that could cut them out of many divorce cases.” Notaries public would be authorized to handle many divorces involving mutual consent, at a large likely savings to divorcing couples. (AP/IHT, Dec. 19).

A Nassau County, N.Y. judge rebukes two parents “engaged in a ‘vitriolic and venomous’ dispute over child custody and visitation.” Note that it’s not a case of divorce or its aftermath: “The couple never married.” (Vesselin Mitev, “Judge Blasts Parents for Using Court to Attack, Demean Each Other”, New York Law Journal, Oct. 24).

Another object lesson in how your rights to privacy stop when litigation begins:

High-tech surveillance tactics are now commonplace in divorce cases, changing the nature of matrimonial law practice.

Soon-to-be-divorced spouses routinely steal each other’s BlackBerries and install snooping software on each other’s computers. This not only enables them to read each other’s e-mail but to monitor, in 15-second increments, what a perhaps-erring marital partner is doing on the Internet, reports the New York Times. What they can’t find out, their divorce lawyers perhaps can by hiring even more technologically sophisticated private detectives.

“In just about every case now, to some extent, there is some electronic evidence,” says Gaetano Ferro, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. “It has completely changed our field.”

Amusingly or not, the one area where the law is ferocious in responding to adversaries’ invasions of each others’ privacy is that of clients’ communications with their lawyers — mustn’t infringe on the lawyer-client privilege, after all. (Martha Neil, “Divorce Practice Now a Surveillance War”, ABA Journal, Sept. 18).