Tuesday, March 31, 2009

The Untimely Death of the Divorce Lawyer. Taking Sides

Deciding Who is More Wrong. As a general practitioner, my practice includes work in family court. More specifically, I help the wife who feels she simply can no longer live with her husband because he purposefully hangs the toilet paper the wrong way on the roller as well as the husband who finds that his wife's once endearing laugh now stabs repeatedly at the very depths of his soul with every snort. Yes, I partake in the dark arts. I am a divorce lawyer. After reading a recent article in GQ, I have now learned my very existence may be in jeopardy. OK, perhaps I am exaggerating just a bit. The article discussed the growing popularity of a website called sidetaker.com The premise is simple. Have an argument? Settle it on the web. You add your argument anonymously to the site and invite your bickering spouse to do the same. Think of it as America Idol for fighting couples. People visiting the site vote and weigh in on your argument. Recent topics include is twittering a reason to break up, not flushing the toilet to save money, and spending too much time blogging. That last one sounds familiar......


Anonymous said...

Why are CT Legislators who are Attorneys allowed to practice Law in CT Family Courts as they have too much political influence over the court proceedings and the Judges rulings and decisions?

Tim said...

Interesting question. In Connecticut, Superior Court judges are voted on by legislators on whether to confirm them after the governor nominates them. They also vote on pay raises.

I know that state reps can remain employed at their law firms as long as they don't appear before particular commissioners, etc. The Connecticut Office of State Ethics (OSE) is an independent regulatory agency that would monitor such behavior.

I would imagine that there might be a possible conflict of interest if you were an attorney / legislator appearing before a judge that you were voting or had voted on his job. I would think most judges would probably recuse themselves from such a case.