I just spent the day on the phone with a friend who has ended up with a really bad financial agreement. He (Yes, this is a guy. Bad things happen to guys as well in divorce court!)
He is pretty much left having to to pay the majority of his income to his ex wife and children. He barely has enough left over to pay his own expenses, and he has a really nice job. His wife, who has a college degree from a widely respected school isn't even expected to work when she could easily pull a little weight. Plus, and this makes it worse, his wife has alienated the children from him and so he doesn't even have the comfort that he at least has his children.
When he talked about what his lawyer had done, it was the same old familiar story. The lawyer basically didn't do anything to advocate on my friend's behalf and didn't explain the implications of the the agreement that he was signing. Now this friend is locked into a ten year financial contract that will mean years of working hard and still not having much to live on, let alone start another relationship so he can get on with his life.
What bothers me is when lawyers make these kinds of life altering decisions for their clients, maintain control by limiting their clients' access to information, and then walk away with a big check for doing absolutely nothing.
This friend was asking me, "is there anything that I can do to change this agreement so it isn't such a terrible burden on me?" I had to say "no" there really isn't anything this man can do. The court will say he was represented by counsel when he signed the agreement.
That is such nonsense that phrase "represented by counsel". When a person gets screwed in family court how can that possibly mean he was represented by counsel. The point is, he wasn't, and that's why he is back in court asking for relief. Thoughts anyone!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment