Back already. I received a call last week and felt that I need to share the coversation I had with who ever may be out there.

The call came from a woman who started out bytelling me that he husband was insisting on taking some carpeting and that she wanted to know what her rights were. With some proding, I learned that she was in the midst of a divorce and that the carpeting in question was in a house that she wanted as a part of a dicorce property settlement. I asked: "Are you represented by an attorney in this divorce?" to which she said that she was and gave me the name of the attorney. I told her that this was a question that she ought to be discussing with her attorney, to which she replied that" if I ask him, he will charge me".

Some place along the line, her attorney has failed her at least in terms of their fee arrangement. Attorneys are entitled to charge for their time and advice. They really have nothing else to sell. However, there needs to be some common sense applied so that clients don't feel that they can't discuss matters that are important to them for fear that their bill will skyrocket out of control.

If you are going to hire an attorney to represent you, insist upon an open and candid discussion about fees and costs. You have a right to know how and why you will be charged.

Who was the first lawyer?

My guess is that the very first lawyer was Abraham. In the Book of Genesis, Abraham argues with God on behalf of the residence of Sodom and Gomorrah. He may have won his agrument but lost his case.

I have been a practicing lawyer for more than four decades. My practice is general in nature with a heavy emphasis on litigation. Over the forty plus years I have been involved in matters ranging from Will Contests to Federal Court defective products suits; from child custody to homicide. In the early 1960's when I started practicing, there was a publication the name of which escapes me that lawyers received free of charge. One of the first issues I received featured an article entitled "The Hyperbolic Curve of Lawyer Appreciation". A hyperbolic curve is also know as a bell curve and looks like an upside down letter "U". The narrative involved a company that was grudgingly obliged to hire a lawyer to defend it in a breach of contract suit started by a customer. As litigation progressed, and as the lawyer begins to build a strong defense, the company's appreciation rises along the left leg of the curve reaching the top as the suit is resolved in favor of the defendant due to the lawyers hard work and skill. Then, the lawyer sends the client company his bill for legal services rendered and we see the decent of appreciation along the right leg of the curve. Soon the "appreciation" is replaced by distain for the lawyer's efforts and then to anger over having been charged for services in defending a meritless lawsuit. At the bottom of the curve, the client says: "We should sue him for malpractice."

There are some litigious individuals who seem to like being involved in legal battles, but for the most part, no one wants to spend money on lawyers. In recent years I have seen this aversion to paying lawyers play itself out in the increasing number of people who represent themselves even in complwx litigation. In the County where I do most of my work, this year about 80% of divorces involve no lawyer at any stage.

My purpose is not to provide legal advice. As a matter of fact, to do so would be irresponsible. My purpose is to provide a forum in which anyone who may be so inclined, can voice their opinions or tell their story. I will, from time to time, tell true stories about cases in which I have been involved as examples of what can happen when people venture into the legal arena with inadequate training and knowledge. Following is one such story:

A while back, a woman consulted us about a problem she was having regarding title to her home. She had been divorce a number of years earlier and neither she nor her husband had been represented by a lawyer. She had remarried and wanted to refinance and put her new husband's name on the title. While trying to do so she found out that although she and her former husband intended that she would have sole title to the house as a part of the settlement agreement, something had gone wrong and the former husband's name was still on the title. To make matters worse, she had no idea as to how to find that former husband. What was she to do? What do you think?

Looking forward to hearing from you.