Page 11 - Phoenix Vol 11 No 5

MITCHELL REICHMAN | Family Law
Game on – Higher Professionalism in 2020
Ajudge assigned to a family law calendar in Maricopa County recently remarked that he and his judicial brethren notice that the lawyers practicing family law be- have badly towards each other, much worse than what the judges have ex- perienced in civil and criminal as- signments. Unfortunately, most of us have litigated against lawyers in family law cases who are consistently abrasive, discourteous and combative. Particularly in the early years of my practice, I had occasions where it was challenging not to be hijacked by a cli- ent’s need for retribution, or to proj- ect their anger. But now, a er thirty- seven years of practice, I have learned that behaving in a way that contrib- utes to a more adversarial process and relationship with opposing counsel is not just personally debilitating, more importantly it does not serve my cli- ent’s best interests, or their children’s.
All of us in the family law com- munity, including judges, lawyers, and the people we serve, should insist upon, and be committed to, a higher standard of professionalism.
is year I have the privilege and honor of serving as Chair of the Ex- ecutive Council of the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Arizona. One of our goals this year is to lead the charge towards a higher standard of professionalism in the practice. We are hoping to generate broad sup- port for this e ort and this article is the rst step towards moving in the right direction. ere are a variety of actions we can take to move towards that goal.
We should avoid engaging in be- havior that is o ensive and demean- ing. is is particularly challenging when applied to our communica- tions. We should recognize that all our communications should be thoughtfully designed to achieve some result. For example, years ago, in a case where I was representing the stay-at-home spouse of a physician, I wrote a letter that pointedly criti- cized the physician for his parenting skills, or lack thereof. Shortly a er I sent the letter, the physician’s law- yer called me to talk about some of the issues in the case, including our request for a signi cant amount of temporary spousal maintenance. In our call, he re ected that I had asked his client to agree to pay quite a bit of money to mine and to also be re- sponsible for certain other nancial obligations, and he asked if I thought that my harsh letter would make it more likely that his client would be willing to make those commitments voluntarily. Of course, the answer is obvious. By sending the harsh letter, not only did I make it more likely that his client would be uncooperative, I had also made his lawyer’s job of con- vincing him to volunteer a reason- able amount of temporary spousal maintenance more di cult. Upon re ection, while my client may have been pleased to read the letter that projected her feelings, it was coun- terproductive to the result that I was trying to achieve. I would have been much better o to explain to my cli- ent that it would serve her interests better to stay focused on the goal.
Negotiating reasonable, if not gener- ous, temporary orders was less likely to be achieved by sending communi- cations that personally attacked her soon-to-beex-spouse.
We should not engage in activity that facilitates a more volatile, hostile and emotional atmosphere. A lawyer I greatly respect once re ected that the adversarial process in a contested divorce can resemble a war. But at the end of our family law “wars”, with blood on the battle eld and losses of people and treasure, we expect the combatants to walk o together, holding hands, to e ectively co-par- ent. We should re ect on that senti- ment and recognize the negative, long-term impact protracted litiga- tion has on all the family members, especially the children.
We are planning a state bar spon- sored program focused on guiding lawyers to more e ectively represent and advocate for their clients while maintaining the highest standards of professionalism. When you receive the information about the program, I hope you will be compelled to partic- ipate and encourage others to do so.
Let’s work on building a culture that steers us all towards a higher level of professionalism. When we change the culture, all of us in fam- ily law community, and especially our clients, will experi-
ence less su ering and we will have more satisfaction in the practice of fam- ily law.
Mitchell Reichman is an Arizona state bar board certi ed family law specialist and attorney at the phoenix law rm of Jaburg Wilk. He is rated av preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell. Mitch is the Chair of the Executive Council of the Family Law Section of the state bar, named a best lawyer in America by Best Lawyers, Arizona top 10 Family Law Lawyer by Arizona Business Magazine and a Southwest Super Lawyer. Mitch is experienced in representing a variety of high net worth clients, often in high con ict cases. For more information, visit www.jaburgwilk.com.
11