celebrity divorce

Double Duty, Quadruple Duty Family Law Day; Divorce Seminar, Child Abuse Seminar and 2 TV interviews

Double Duty, Quadruple Duty Family Law Day; Divorce Seminar, Child Abuse Seminar and 2 TV interviews (Kelly Rutherford Custody Case and Paparazzi and Divorce, and yes, it started with the Kate Middleton Story)

On Friday, September 14, 2012, in addition to working on client cases and matters, I had a full, quadruple duty family law day.  I had scheduled a day without trials so that I could present at two very important programs.  The day started out with my presenting as the lead-off speaker at our annual “Nuts & Bolts of Family Law Seminar” sponsored by the State Bar of Georgia, Family Law Section.  I presented on “How to Present Your Case When Time is Short”.  I think I was effective, and at least I finished on time, since going long would have been disastrous, given my topic.  The program agenda can be viewed at: http://www.iclega.org/programs/8025.html.

As soon as I finished speaking there, I left to go Chair and speak at maybe the most important seminar I have ever been a part of (there were well over 200 people attending the “Nuts & Bolts of Family Law Seminar”, so I had to try my best to leave discreetly, but that was impossible). The program I then went to was called “Stewards of Children” and it was a training session to teach people how to prevent or help prevent, child sexual abuse.  The numbers of sexually abused children astounded me.  I thought I knew something about children and the issues they face.  I had no idea.

The seminar was a success and everyone who attended was moved by it and motivated to do more.  For information and full brochure: http://www.iclega.org/programs/8030.html

That was the “Double Duty”.  Then came part two.  As we went to break during the second seminar, I received a call from CNN/Headline News.  They invited me to come comment on the Kelly Rutherford Custody case, where her former husband who now lives in France was just awarded custody of their two very young children.  I agreed, studied up, and went over as soon as the “Stewards” seminar ended.  As I walked over, the telephone rang again and it was CNN/Headline News.  I thought perhaps my segment was getting cancelled. Instead it was another department asking if I could appear on the Jane Velez Mitchell Show to discuss paparazzi and celebrities, including Kate Middleton.  I agreed, especially since I was on my way to their studios anyway.  Without getting into much detail, it was a whirlwind of an afternoon.  The bodies of the Americans who had perished in Libya at the Consulate attack had just arrived in the U.S. and Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama each gave speeches right when my segment was scheduled.  Needless to say my segment was delayed for a while.  But I can’t tell you how interesting it is to be there and to watch the news unfold.  This happened once before as I was at CNN to discuss a custody case and right between my two segments, the news broke that Michael Jackson had died.  I tell you, reputable news organizations like CNN/HLN work so hard.  You should see the experts and professionals scrambling to ensure the news is accurate and that it is delivered quickly and professionally.  They have to learn the story and then explain it to the world, all in a matter of moments, and they do and they do it well.  AND IT IS A LOT HARDER THAN IT LOOKS!  Imagine trying to learn all about ten stories you will cover in just one hour.  Stories about the far east, the middle east, medical stories, celebrity stories, politics, weather, sports and other topics.  No one can be an expert in every area, but they become experts in all of it.  But I digress.  I eventually made it from one interview to the next and enjoyed every second of it, including the last second changes, personnel changes and time changes.  The first interview can be seen by clicking here.

So why do I feel good about all of this?  I guess part of it is to be able to accomplish a lot of different things within a day.  But as I think about it, I know I had a chance to help.  On a day to day basis I hope I help my clients (and yes, I spent about four hours in the office on client matters to on Friday).  But on this day, I hope I helped family law attorneys learn to present their cases more efficiently, other lawyers to be able to better help protect children from sexual abuse, and viewers across the country to better understand the custody laws and concepts as well as how travel and international diversity can affect court rulings.  I didn’t do anything complex or change anything or anyone, but I did my little part, using the knowledge I have, to try to improve lives.  And that made the day wholly worthwhile.


Tom Cruise and why we should care

I was interviewed a lot in the last few weeks about the Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes Divorce. People Magazine, CNN (CNN International, Headline News, etc.) and others asked me about it. Maybe I am biased because I know and respect Katie Holmes’ lawyers Jon Wolfe and Michael Mosberg, but I consistently suggested it would be worked out privately and quickly (see my blog posted June 30, 2012). Not only because there were good lawyers involved, but because frequently, when there is a lot of money combined with potential for a lot of negative public publicity, cases resolve quickly. They make news when they don’t. This one reached resolution quickly, and that is of course, beneficial to their daughter. Bravo to the parties and the lawyers. That’s how cases should get resolved and hopefully this divorce will be a good example of why it is good to get it done quickly.


Tom Cruise Divorce?

Tom Cruise is getting a divorce?  Why is this news? Why is it interesting?  Because he, superhero extra ordinaire, is going through what so many others have gone through, yet again.  No one is immune.  Perhaps that’s the appeal of the story?  I learned about it Friday when CNN called and asked if I could comment on the “breaking news” that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes were getting divorced.  I didn’t have too much to add, except to say that rich or poor, famous or not, everyone should try to reach settlement of their own issues, and I am sure they will do their best to do that.  And the path should be open to them.  Jonathan Wolfe, one of the finest lawyers in the New York area is representing Ms. Holmes and I know he will do his utmost to resolve the matter amicably, while simultaneously representing his client zealously.  And that, is the test of a true lawyer.  To be professional and to obtain good results for his client.  I am hopeful that the next public statements, or at least a future public statement from either party, will reference the efforts each has taken to resolve the matter out of court.  I know good lawyers are crucial to the process and that may be the lesson.  If you can afford one, get a good lawyer.  Their job is to bring peace and resolution.  Yes they are able to do battle when needed, but for good lawyers, that is always the last option.


High Profile Clients Programs

I have been very fortunate to have been invited to speak at a few seminars recently on high profile and high asset divorce. This month (November, 2011) I have already spoken in Mexico to Sports and Entertainment Lawyers, to Asset Recovery Specialists in Las Vegas, and on November 21, 2011, I am on a panel with David Boies and others to speak on High Profile representation (for program information, click here). Over 2,100 lawyers have signed up for this one. While it is always flattering to be asked to speak, being asked to speak alongside one of, if not the best lawyer in the country, David Boies is one of the highlights of my career. Just preparing with him and the other panelists has been a thrill. The real challenge will be to not say too much during our presentation so that I may learn as much as I can from him and our other panelists.

While we have been honored to represent our share of public figures, David Boies has been hired for the biggest cases by the highest profile clients (Al Gore, Mrs. McCourt, the NFLPA and the NBPA among others). This program will be educational for all, and I will have the best seat in the house. I am flattered and grateful to have been invited onto the panel and look forward to learning a lot from my co-panelists. If there is anything you want us to address during the program, let me know so I can see if we can work it in. If we can’t, I’ll do my best to get answers to your questions after the program.


Celeb Divorce, now J-Lo and Marc Anthony

Our country seems fascinated with the family lives, especially divorces of celebrities. Perhaps that is because we see celebrities as role models or who we often aspire to be. Thus it is interesting to see how famous people act, or react in situations that many of us non-celebrities also face.

The Lopez/Anthony divorce just happens to be the most current celebritiy divorce. What is interesting to me is only that it is so interesting to everyone else. All major news organizations reported on it immediately, even though there was really nothing to report. Perhaps it is that we romanticize our celebrities. We want their marriages to work since they are who we aspire to be?

Celebrities have many issues the average person will never have to face (crazy visitation schedules, nanny issues and significant asset division and/or support payments). But ultimately, celebrities are like anyone else. They get their feelings hurt, they have pride and they sometimes feel a need to “win” almost as if that is an achievement. But most often, they ultimately realize that it is best to put the legal process behind them and to resolve matters. Using lawyers to do their communicating often has its limits and almost always, celebrities figure out what they want to do and then tell their lawyers to “make it so”. They are used to controlling their own destiny and often more confident than the average person in their own decisions. After all, their own decisions got them where they are.

There are also many celebrities who meet with us (divorce lawyers) and never file anything. When they finally do make the decision to seek a divorce, they usually know what they want and are ready to make a deal. It would not surprise me if Jennifer Lopez and Mark Anthony, like many other famous couples, had already investigated the process for a very long time and had a good idea of what the outcome should and would be long before one or both of them made the decision to end the marriage.

And the way they handled it is the way it should be done. A joint statement like they have done letting the world know they are mature enough to handle it privately for the sake of their children is wonderful.

When two wealthy people fight, judges often are more upset. Every day in Family Court, judges see regular people scraping to survive and raise their children every day. It seems Ms. Lopez and Mr. Anthony recognized this and it is admirable that they have resolved matters outside of court. That is how it should always be done, in my opinion and I hope others will follow their example, if they decide to divorce.


2010, the year in family law.

As 2010 comes to a close, I can’t help but look back and realize how much “family law” was in the news (click on the stories for articles on each). There was the Goldman international custody case between U.S. and Brazilian citizens as well as gay marriage debates, laws and rulings nationwide, culminating with perhaps the most reported case of all, Proposition 8 in California (click for Associated Press Video).

There were countless celebrity divorce and family law cases in the news. Just think of Mel Gibson, Tiger Woods, Octomom, Kate Gosselin, Sandra Bullock and perhaps the biggest of all, The McCourts (Owners of the L.A. Dodgers).

There is the Tony Parker v. Eva Longoria case and the Charlie Sheen divorce.

It is time for the media to start looking back and summarizing the stories that made news. CNN has already written one on celebrities’ troubles.

Still, what continues to amaze me, is how interested the public is in other people’s lives. Have we become a voyeuristic society? Or do we simply take comfort in knowing that even those who seem to have it all are not immune from the same type of pain and emotional (and often financial and physical) agony the rest of us may endure?

As a family law attorney it is often difficult to see so much hardship. But our role as lawyers is to help reduce that pain. To counsel and to make a bad situation a little better, or at least tolerable. Often we are the only ones who can see the light at the end of the tunnel; that there will be a tomorrow. So perhaps the most important thing we can do is to reassure our clients that tomorrow does come. And look, here it is, 2011. Many people have suffered in 2010, but many have made it through to a new year. Here’s to hoping that things get better for those who had a rough 2010, and that those who didn’t, continue to be blessed in 2011 and beyond.


Is infidelity epidemic for athletes?

Is infidelity epidemic for athletes? I think not. But I do think that famous people have more opportunities for, are given more opportunities for, or are solicited more for extra marital relationships than the average person. Does that make it okay? No. Does that make it a little easier to understand, yes.

I am often asked why athletes or other famous people seem to have more extramarital relationships than the average person. First I am not convinced that is true. But second, if it is true, there must be some explanation, even if we don’t like the explanation. One such explanation is that the offer or opportunity is probably much more present for these high profile folks. Should they resist, sure. Are they human, sure. Is it human to cheat?????? Having sex is human. Seduction is human.

ESPN just wrote an article on this topic and interviewed me about it (that is what gave me the idea for this blog entry). You can see the article by clicking here. What is interesting to me is not the cheating, but America’s fascination with it. Stories of infidelity amongst the famous are always big news. Tony Parker, Tiger Woods, A-Rod, Bill Clinton and on and on. Why do we care? Perhaps it is because we expect more from our heroes. We expect that those whom we admire, those who are more athletic than the rest of us, more successful than the rest of us would also be more moral than the rest of us. After all, we are supposed to play by the rules, why shouldn’t they, especially when they already have so much. Perhaps the fascination is with the fact that the rich and famous are never satisfied, even though we would be if we had a tenth of their wealth, fame or success (but would we?).

To me the real issue is the relationship that is being hurt. If there is a family that is otherwise working well, extramarital affairs are quite an obstacle. In my experience, it seems that most such affairs start well after the marriage is on the down turn. Yes new relationships should wait until a marriage has fully ended, but we are not a patient species.

I do not have the answers, but I do enjoy asking the questions, which is a good place to start. Tell me what you thing by commenting.


Eva v. Tony, “upping the prenup”?

Just like the rumors in the Tiger Woods divorce, there are rumors that the first time Eva Longoria caught Tony Parker cheating, she asked (or told?) him that the amounts she was to receive in their prenuptial agreement, in the event of divorce, must be increased. And if true, he likely complied because he loves his wife, wanted to stay married and felt guilty.

Relationships are very interesting and are what makes the human world go around. Money as punishment? Is that right? Well it happens all the time. Personal injury awards grant a victim of a car crash money, but does money replace a loved one, or a fractured bone? Slander claims often result in money damages, but does that undo the damage to reputation? I would submit that this example of “upping the prenup” is a way to artificially incentivize people to be monogamous or faithful. Is it right? Who knows, it is not for me to judge. But just thinking about the concept is interesting, at least to me. We use money to incentivize, to punish and to reward. Shouldn’t we be able to accomplish what we want without that? If the cheated on spouse still loves the other and wants to stay together, why ask for more money? If the cheater is truly regretful, why not just give the other whatever he/she asks for? In the end it seems we are all individuals. Maybe I am jaded as a divorce lawyer, but even I believe there are many, many people who instead of discussing money would simply discuss the relationship. If they both want it to continue, it will, if not, then it’s over. But of course it’s never that easy, is it?


Closing a door, opening a window (Sandra Bullock for example)

The saying “When God closes a door, he opens a window” can sometimes be very appropriate in family law settings. Sandra Bullock’s situation is a prime example. While a door was closed for her (divorce with ugly allegations that her husband Jesse James cheated), perhaps a more important window was opened, the adoption of a baby boy (Washington Post story can be viewed by clicking here). Her love for her child is so apparent that it is clear that perhaps she was freed of a bad marriage to make time for a person who she could love even more and who could return the love equally and unequivocally.

In our experience as divorce lawyers, we are often fortunate enough to see clients after the divorce has passed. While some struggle for years, many, if not most, move on and find happiness that they may not otherwise have found. That is one of the most gratifying parts of our job. Since the future is never certain, and is almost always frightening for anyone going through a divorce, the ability to watch people go through it and survive and succeed is an awe inspiring experience. Almost everyone who goes through a divorce, never ever dreamed of the possibilty of a separation or divorce. Then, to accept the failure of their marriage, a project they worked on, planned and tried their very best to make work, is always difficult. And much more so when children are involved. Yet inevitably life moves forward. New relationships are formed, different connections are made, and life goes on.

The bottom line is that change is inevitable and when it is as significant as a divorce, everything changes. But as human beings we strive to improve our circumstances, no matter what is thrown at us. And guess what, many people succeed in that. No, not everyone moves on and is better off for divorce. Money is tighter, logistical difficulties preventing non-custodial parents from seeing their kids arise, but we learn to cope with these issues. Of course there are times when the path of divorce was too quickly chosen. But in the majority of cases we see, the die has been cast, as in Sandra Bullock’s case. When the couple has passed the proverbial “point of no return” (one party cheating with porn stars?), then the real question is how to move on respectfully and with dignity. And I suggest that Sandra Bullock, at least from what we can glean through the press, has done exactly that. It is refreshing to see and likely inspirational to many.


Michael Douglas’ ex seeks money based on post-divorce efforts

Marital property is a topic that is defined slightly differently from state to state. But in almost every state (perhaps all), money that is acquired after the date of the final divorce is not marital and is not subject to division (unless otherwise agreed). Nonetheless, actor Michael Douglas’ ex wife is seeking monies Mr. Douglas receives based on a film which may not have even been conceived, but certainly on which Mr. Douglas had not worked during the marriage (click this sentence for a link to the Associated Press story). This sounds like an attempt to obtain property earned after a divorce. Yet Ms. Douglas has made an interesting claim. Since her divorce papers entitled her to proceeds from work Mr. Douglas did during the marriage even if the monies came after the divorce (such as residuals), she now claims that a sequel to the movie “Wall Street” qualifies as related to work he did before the divorce. I don’t buy that argument. A simple analogy would be a professional athlete. If, after a divorce, an athlete receives a new contract to receive money for playing his or her sport, isn’t that related to work during the marriage? But my point is that the easiest, and most logical interpretation of the Douglas’ divorce document would seem to be something like “money that flows in, without requiring work by either party, but rather merely as a pure result of effort during the marriage, should be subject to division”.

Family law is never boring and I look forward to the result of this claim, especially if a court’s interpretation is required. My best guess is that this will be resolved out of court by the parties, but at a minimum, it does seem like Ms. Douglas has an argument, albeit in my opinion, a losing one.