When I began as a young lawyer, ten years ago, it was with much excitement and, at times, misplaced aggression. However, I was lucky to have good mentors who preached pragmatism over saber-rattling type behavior. Although I don't practice "collaborative" law, every good matrimonial lawyer tries to settle cases with the best possible result for their client and with the least amount of animosity. This equation results in less money being spent on attorneys. From the initial consultation, I explain to my client the virtues of pragmatism over 'going to the mattresses'. However, some cases simply cannot be settled no matter how pragmatic your approach may be. As a result, I approach every case with the notion that it may be tried. I have found that often the best way for a case to settle is to be prepared to try it.

Because a divorce has its ups and downs, one of my primary goals is to relieve my client of the stress that comes attendant with the process. I'm proud of the fact that my clients often thank me for 'taking care of them'. My philosophy has a lot to do with having a family of my own, and two small children. It gives you a different perspective that can only help a matrimonial attorney.

Clients, especially those dealing with custody issues, are always curious if I have kids. Naturally, when children are involved emotions are heightened. Often, it doesn't matter the age of the children. I had one client come in for a consultation demanding that she get custody of her seventeen and twenty-one year old 'children'. I knew immediately that I had some explaining to do.

When children are younger, and thus more relevant to the divorce, I have noticed a trend toward shared custody agreements, meaning that the parties attempt to achieve an equal, or near equal division of time with the children, rather than the typical alternating weekend schedule. I attribute this to many households having two working parents. This is a perfect example of something a court would never order after a trial and the power of litigants seizing control of their divorce. Neither the Court nor I want to stand in the way of parents being parents. After all, they know what is best for their children, not us. However, I am quick to let my clients know, if their case goes to trial they are transferring control of their case and fate to the judge. At that point, it's a whole different ballgame.

My clients know that the length of their case depends on many factors, including their reasonableness, the complexity of the issues, the reasonableness of their spouse, and the reasonableness of my adversary. However, the reality is that not every case can be settled no matter how pragmatic (or generous) the approach is. I remember a client of mine who was willing to waive nearly $200,000 in support arrears in an effort to settle her divorce. Her husband refused. The result after trial - an arrears award in excess of $300,000, the husband being responsible for $60,000 of my fees, my client's relocation out-of-state with the parties' children and a monthly child support award in excess of $4,000. His emotions got the best of him. It's like I tell my clients, your goals have to be realistic. I am not in the business of chasing windmills and wasting my client's money. When we have to, we litigate. However, my focus is to achieve my clients' goals as painlessly and as effectively as possible. In divorce, reducing the hurt and turmoil is my mantra.