NJ Family Legal Blog : New Jersey Divorce and Family Lawyer & Attorney : Fox Rothschild Law Firm : Domestic Violence, Prenuptial Agreements, Child Custody

A common misconception in New Jersey is that both spouses can use the same attorney for their divorce.  My local paper recently had an article about divorces in the current economy.  One attorney was quoted as intimating that this was true; the attorney was speaking of uncontested divorces in which the parties agree on issues and the seek the dissolution of their marriage. While I am certain that the attorney’s comments were taken out of context, as one of the points in the article was a concern about legal fees, this is a question that comes to me often.  A client will ask me if I can represent both spouses, even if they have an agreement.  The answer is a resounding, no.

The ethics rules in our state are very clear that one attorney cannot represent both spouses in a divorce.   Simply, it is a conflict of interest.  The New Jersey Supreme Court has said on many occasions, that “one of the most basic responsibilities incumbent on a lawyer is the duty of loyalty to his or her clients. From that duty issues the prohibition against representing clients with conflicting interests."( In re Opinion No. 653 of the Advisory Comm. on Prof'l Ethics, 132 N.J. 124, 129 (1993)).  Our state has a very strong policy in which there should not be even an “appearance” of a possible conflict of interest.  This is to protect the clients.

Imagine a scenario in which one spouse has been home raising children, and the other has been working throughout a twenty year marriage.  This is a situation in which alimony will be an issue.  Certainly, the non working spouse and the working spouse may have differing positions about the amount and term of alimony. Most people agree that in these circumstances, the parties will want to have their own attorneys.  But what about the situations where both parties are working, and they have a house and a couple of retirement accounts.  Many people believe that in this situation, they do not need two attorneys and both use the same lawyer.  Well, they can’t. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Appellate Division recently issued a reminder in Ort v. Ort, A-3535-06T1 (App. Div. June 17, 2008) that, unlike a parenting time coordinator, a custody and visitation mediator may only “assist the parties in resolving disputes as to major decisions regarding the children,” and “may not make any recommendation to the court respecting custody or visitation.” 

At issue was a father’s post-judgment motion for a change in the method of delivery of letters, cards and gifts to his eight unemancipated children. During the initial divorce litigation in 2003, the Court had appointed a custody and visitation mediator. After the school attended by one of the children indicated in 2006 that it would longer accept items sent by the father to the child at the child’s school, the father consulted with the previously appointed mediator who, without discussing the matter with either the former wife or children, recommended a neutral site for distribution of the items for all of the unemancipated children. The father filed a motion requesting same, which was denied by the Court. The father than submitted a more detailed letter from the mediator explaining why he recommended the use of a neutral site. After the Trial Court reaffirmed the motion denial on reconsideration, the father filed an appeal based, in part, on the judge’s alleged failure to consider the mediator’s letter.

Affirming the Trial Court’s ruling, the Appellate Division added as a potent afterthought that the Trial Court mistakenly referred to the mediator in rendering its decision as a “parenting coordinator.” The Appellate Division then cogently distinguished a coordinator from a mediator, indicating that the mediator, unlike the coordinator, may not make custody or visitation recommendations to the court. It also made clear that, even if the mediator there was actually a coordinator, that he had not engaged in best practices by making recommendations without having previously consulting with both parents and the attorney for the children.

Ort serves as a refresher on the core principle that a custody and parenting time mediator must try to resolve outstanding issues between the parties by maintaining neutral throughout the course of the mediation process. This is accomplished by ensuring complete confidentiality and instilling in the process a sense of what the Appellate Division has previously referred to as “trust and confidence.” For a mediator to make recommendations as that seen in Ort not only poses an “inherent conflict” by going beyond the bounds of the mediator’s essential role, but it also demonstrates a tainted bias in favor of one party over the other – in other words, exactly what a mediator should not be doing.    

As the Appellate Division said in Isaacson v. Isaacson, 348 N.J. Super. 560, 578 (App. Div. 2002), mediators are “critical to the administration of justice in the Family Part.” The same can obviously be said of parenting coordinators upon whose recommendations judges greatly rely. It is therefore vital that these roles remain separate so that each may perform its own role unclouded by the other’s obligations towards facilitating an effective resolution for the parties involved.

To read the Ort case, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

While statistically, 99% of all cases settle, some cases take longer than others to get there.  Moreover, some cases require the assistance of a third party to help one or both party or attorney get past whatever it is that is holding the case up from resolving itself.

I, for one, have been skeptical of mediation in a number settings.  The first is at the onset of a complex matter where one party is pushing for mediation and there hasn't even been the most basic exchange of information at that time, much less formal discovery.  I have even seen cases where the party with the documents will not provide them in advance of mediation and will only bring them to mediation and take them with him at the end.  The second setting that gives me cause for pause is when parties attend mediation without counsel and there is a great imbalance of power between the parties (consistent with the imbalance of power that permeated the parties' relationship).  In these instances, unless there is a strong mediator that will protect the disadvantaged spouse, I have often seen such mediations result in a "settlement", but one where the disadvantaged spouse got a "deal" that was neither fair nor reasonable, if not unconscionable.  The problem in these cases is that often, once there is an "agreement", the person that got the great deal refuses to concede anything.  Thus, a method meant to avoid litigation can often create litigation. 

However, in this day and age in New Jersey, the court mandates mediation at two junctures of the case (unless there is a domestic violence restraining order.)  The first is early on in the case when the parties go to custody and parenting time mediation conducted by court staff.  This is meant to ferret out the true custody dispute.  That said, I make sure that my client is prepared before they attend this mediation because it often results in a resolution of the issues and I want that resolution to be one that my client actually has considered in advance and is comfortable with.  As such, we often prepare a parenting plan, in advance, which deals with the regular parenting time, legal custody, holidays, vacations, etc.

The second mandatory mediation is economic mediation which takes place after an Early Settlement Panel.  Attorneys usually are required to attend with clients.  This is often the time when a case that is more than your run of the mill case will settle.  By this time, it is expected that most, if not all of your discovery will be done. Unlike the Early Settlement Panel where the panelists have a short time to consider the issues, the mediator can spend more time to flesh them out and more importantly, facilitate a dialogue and negotiation. 

In some cases, the impartial voice of the mediator helps one or both parties get past an issue that they are stuck on.  Put another way, when either the client's attorney has told the client time an again of a probable result, or if the attorney is presenting the strongest position regarding an issue as an advocate, the mediator, who has no axe to grind, may be just what is necessary to put the issue to bed.  In other cases that I have seen, sometimes one of the attorneys doesn't handle exclusively family law matters and/or is otherwise less confident.  In these cases, the mediator essentially can let the attorney know that the deal is fair.

I have been involved in cases where the parties were more than $20 million apart and seemed headed for a trial that would have lasted several months.  However, after 8 to 10 days of hard work at mediation, the case settled, saving both parties tens if not hundreds of thousands in legal and expert fees that would have been incurred at a trial.

The bottom line is that most people truly want to settle their cases in a fair way.  We always hear anecdotally that cases that settle come back to court far less often than cases that are tried.  We also hear that people that settle their cases are far more satisfied with the result than if they tried the case.  In a trial, the litigant gives up control of their life to a judge that doesn't know them and will only hear bits and pieces of their story - along with the hundreds of other cases they have.  Mediation with a skilled mediator, where the playing field is level, the parties both have all necessary information and the imbalance of power is kept in check, is excellent way to keep control of your life and resolve your matter in a fair and beneficial way.

Check back for future entries regarding arbitration and trial practice.  While most cases do settle, if litigation is required, we are skilled at handling matters that require a trial, as well.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks