The Divorce Papers
Page 7
From: David Greaves
To: Fiona McGregor
RE: In the Matter of Durkheim: Legal Representation
Date: March 29, 1999
Attachments:
At my request, Sophie did the intake interview because you were out of town. A few days later, Maria Durkheim wrote me, asking for Sophie to represent her in the divorce. If you’d like to read Mrs. Durkheim’s letter, ask Hannah for a copy. You couldn’t be more unhappy than Sophie, who has no interest in doing divorces, not even a Meiklejohn’s.
When a client asks for a specific lawyer, the client gets that lawyer. That’s how this firm is run.
cc: Jason Bell
William Frost
Proctor Hand
Virginia Ladder
Felix Landau
Frank O’Keefe
Joseph Salerno
Katherine Sales
John Wynch
All About Eve
* * *
From: Sophie Diehl
To: Maggie Pfeiffer
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 16:14:55
Subject: All About Eve 3/29/99 4:14 PM
Dear Mags—
That divorce I’ve been roped into doing is heating up—not between the unhappy couple, as you’d expect, but in the office. Fiona is hopping mad. She wrote a memo to DG that was bristling with indignation and sent cc’s to all the partners. Four of them went out of their way to show it to me. Joe said it was All About Eve with the gloves (white or boxing?) off. I haven’t seen him so cheerful since we won the big WMU case. Needless to say, I am an object of her wrath—though DG got a dose of it as well. I don’t know why she dislikes me so much. She made a crack about Yale and Mather lawyers, but then everyone does. We can’t pass the bar, but we know our Rawls. I need to talk to my mother. She’ll tell me it will all be all right.
Sophie
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
MEMORANDUM
Attorney Work Product
From: Sophie Diehl
To: David Greaves
RE: In the Matter of Durkheim: Legal Representation
Date: March 29, 1999
Attachments: Letter to Maria Durkheim
Attached is a draft copy of my letter to Maria Durkheim. It is perhaps not strictly correct for a legal document, but in its way it is responsive to Mrs. Durkheim’s and she will, I believe, take it in the spirit in which it is offered. Let me know what changes you think I should make.
I’ve asked all the Catholics in my family to light a candle to Saint Jude.
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
March 29, 1999
Maria M. Durkheim
404 St. Cloud Street
New Salem, NA 06556
Dear Mrs. Durkheim:
I am writing in regard to your request that I represent you in your divorce. I will be absolutely straight with you. I’m not the best person for this job. I am a criminal lawyer. I am not only ill prepared to act in a matrimonial case, I am barely on speaking terms with the rules of civil procedure. I have never litigated a civil action; I have never drafted any of the relevant documents or negotiated a separation and custody agreement.
I can understand the impulse that drove you to ask for me. You don’t want to have to tell your story over again. I think the same impulse makes therapy patients stick with a therapist no matter how useless or damaging the treatment. The operating—and pessimistic—theory seems to be that the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t. Don’t make that mistake in this instance. You have much better options. (And you won’t have to retell your story; the taped and transcripted versions of your interview are in your file at the firm.)
There are in our offices three attorneys who are knowledgeable and experienced in matrimonial law, all of whom would do an excellent job for you: Fiona McGregor is a recognized authority who has written articles for The Narragansett Lawyer and taught the state bar review sections on divorce and dissolution; Felix Landau has been practicing matrimonial law for 25 years and is an ace negotiator; David Greaves, our managing partner, is a superb litigator and one of the most respected lawyers in the state. My best legal advice to you is to choose one of them. You want a lawyer who is known in the legal community as an expert and won’t be patronized or bullied by Ray Kahn. You want a lawyer who has credibility with the judges in Family Court. I am not that lawyer. I’ve never even been in Family Court. There is also the financial aspect of my representation. I am not only the least competent divorce lawyer in our firm but also the most expensive, since you will have to pay for the services of a second lawyer, someone who actually knows what he or she is doing. Frankly, I’m not worth it.
I know you will take this letter in the spirit in which it is intended. If I was less direct, I would be derelict in my responsibility, not only to you but to my profession. I am asking you to reconsider your decision. At such a vulnerable juncture in your life, you need to have the best legal representation available.
In the event you are sued for murder instead of divorce, I am the lawyer for you. As things stand now, I am not. I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours,
Anne Sophie Diehl
cc: David Greaves
Felix Landau
Fiona McGregor
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
MEMORANDUM
Attorney Work Product
From: David Greaves
To: Sophie Diehl
RE: In the Matter of Durkheim: Legal Representation
Date: March 29, 1999
Attachments:
“Not strictly correct” is putting it mildly, but as you observe, she will take the letter in the proper spirit. You realize, of course, it won’t work; in fact, it will only confirm her decision. What she likes is your sensibility; that’s what she’s buying. The only way I see for you to get out of it is to say that you don’t want to do it, that you hate civil cases, and I would be extremely reluctant to have you say that flat out—especially in print. You can understand; we don’t want to be known as a law firm with uncivil anti-civil law lawyers.
You can let the letter go as it is—or you could rewrite it in so formal, legalistic, and stilted a style that Mrs. Durkheim would not find you so appealing, so charming. I’m not sure it would work, but it might have a better shot. I leave it to you.
II. ORDERS/DISCOVERY
MARIA M. DURKHEIM
404 ST. CLOUD STREET
NEW SALEM, NA 06556
April 2, 1999
Anne Sophie Diehl
Traynor, Hand, Wyzanski
222 Church Street
New Salem, NA 06555
Dear Ms. Diehl (Sophie?):
It used to be my mail consisted entirely of bills, catalogues, and The New Yorker. Yesterday’s post brought your letter, a letter from your colleague Ms. McGregor, and a letter from Ray Kahn of K&B, which includes a Notice of Automatic Court Orders. I enclose for your information (and edification) Ms. McGregor’s letter (a follow-up on yours) and the K&B letter. Apparently I was supposed to respond to his summons and complaint on or before March 8 (20 days after the summons). Because I didn’t do that, Daniel is closing out our joint checking account.
You will already have grasped that I want to stick with you as my attorney—so long as you are willing, or not completely unwilling. I know you’d rather do your murders, but my case shouldn’t take that much of your time. I don’t care that you’re inexperienced. I know the firm will see that I am well represented; and as I said earlier, I don’t mind paying double if that’s what it takes. (I suggest David Greaves over Ms. McGregor, but it’s your call.)
Do I need to see you next week, or can
you respond to the K&B letter without my input? (Apropos the Automatic Court Order #1, can I sell Daniel’s Audi to pay your attorney’s fees?) I am putting together the financials you asked for. Jane and I are planning to go away the week of April 11 to visit friends in Hawaii, unless you advise against it. I don’t think Dan would change the locks on us. He loves Jane, and he doesn’t want to look bad. If he locks us out, he knows my father will call the dean of the medical school and the president of the hospital and maybe even the director of the NIH. He never liked Daniel but he held his dislike in check. No longer. I’m holding him back now. I haven’t told him about this second grenade from K&B. I don’t want to bring him in unless (until?) I need to.
Dan said he didn’t tell K&B to serve the summons at Golightly’s; it was their idea. “But they’re your lawyers,” I said. He shrugged. We are barely talking to each other; instead we leave notes. My latest is in the packet. He has set himself up in a guest bedroom and put in a new phone line to that room. I think it’s for calls to Dr. Stephanie. I picked up the receiver once when he was out, and the party on the other end hung up. Where does love go?
I took your letter in the spirit you intended it.
Yours truly,
Mia Durkheim
cc: David Greaves
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
March 31, 1999
Maria M. Durkheim
404 St. Cloud Street
New Salem, NA 06556
Dear Mrs. Durkheim:
I am following up on Sophie Diehl’s letter to you on the subject of legal representation by Traynor, Hand, Wyzanski. She sent me a copy. As you know, Sophie was standing in for me at the intake interview. I was in Ireland, visiting my grandparents.
Sophie is not being falsely modest when she advises you to choose another lawyer in the firm. She is a competent criminal lawyer, but she knows nothing, as she herself admits, about civil law and civil procedure, let alone the ins and outs of matrimonial law. I join her in urging you to go with a more experienced practitioner. I’ve read Sophie’s write-up of your interview, and I anticipate problems. Your husband’s decision to retain Kahn & Boyle must be seen as a very hostile, very aggressive move; K&B regards any settlement that provides for alimony or child support for children over the age of 18 as a case of bad lawyering.
I stand ready to help in any way I can, as of course do Felix Landau and David Greaves. All three of us have extensive experience with separation, divorce, and custody actions. If you’d like to discuss the subject of your representation, I’d be happy to speak with you.
Sincerely yours,
Fiona McGregor
KAHN & BOYLE
46 BROADWAY
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-4343
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
March 30, 1999
Mrs. Maria Durkheim
404 St. Cloud Street
New Salem, NA 06556
Dear Maria:
On February 15, this law firm, on behalf of your husband, Dr. Daniel Durkheim, served you with a Summons and Complaint for Divorce with a Return Date of 20 days, calculated as March 8, 1999. It is now March 30 and we still have not heard from you or your lawyers. Would you please acknowledge receipt of the Summons and Complaint? For your information, we enclose a Notice of Automatic Court Orders and inform you that they have been in effect since the day you were served, a fact independent consultation with counsel will confirm.
We are in the process of drafting a separation and custody agreement. Your husband wishes to conclude the agreement within the statutory 90 days of the Return Date, so that the Interim Decree may issue on day 91, June 7, 1999, and the final decree, the Decree Nisi, may issue 90 days later, on September 6, 1999. Given the substantial economic resources of both you and your husband, we do not anticipate either protracted negotiations or a trial.
In the interest of promoting an early disposition of this matter, Dr. Durkheim is closing your joint checking account as of April 1. Other measures indicating a separation of property may be taken shortly.
We look forward to hearing from you or your attorney.
Sincerely yours,
Ray Kahn, Esq.
Commonwealth of Narragansett
Family Court
County: Tyler Docket No: 99-27
Notice of Automatic Court Orders
Daniel E. Durkheim Plaintiff
v.
Maria M. Durkheim Defendant
The following Automatic Orders shall apply to both parties where the plaintiff has filed a complaint of dissolution, legal separation, or annulment against the defendant. The Automatic Orders shall be effective with regard to the plaintiff upon the signing of the complaint and with regard to the defendant upon service and shall remain in place during the pendency of the action, unless terminated, modified, or amended by further order of the courts upon motion of either of the parties. The Return Date for Service in this proceeding is: March 8, 1999
1. Neither party shall sell, transfer, encumber, conceal, assign, remove, or in any way dispose of any property individually or jointly held by the parties without the consent of the other party in writing or an order of the court, except in the usual course of business or for customary and usual household expenses or for reasonable attorney fees in connection with this action.
2. Neither party shall incur unreasonable debts hereafter, including but not limited to further borrowing against any credit line secured by the family residence, further encumbrancing any assets, or unreasonably using credit cards or cash advances against credit cards.
3. The parties shall each complete and exchange sworn financial statements by: April 7, 1999 (or 30 days after the Return Date). The parties may thereafter enter and submit to the court a stipulated order allocating income and expenses, in accord with the Uniform Child Support Guidelines.
4. The Case Management Date for this case is: May 7, 1999 (no earlier than 60 days after the Return Date). If custody or visitation is contested or if any financial issues are disputed, the parties must agree to a schedule of discovery deadlines or appear with their attorney in court on the Case Management Date.
5. Neither party shall permanently remove the minor child or children from the Commonwealth of Narragansett, without written consent of the other or order of the court.
6. The parties, if they have a minor child or children, shall participate in the Parent Education Program before: May 7, 1999 (60 days of the Return Date).
7. Neither party shall cause the other party or the children of the marriage to be removed from any medical, hospital, and dental insurance coverage, and each party shall maintain the existing medical, hospital, and dental insurance coverage in full force and effect.
8. Neither party shall change the beneficiaries of any existing life insurance policies, and each party shall maintain the existing life insurance, automobile insurance, and homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policies in full force and effect.
9. If the parties are living together on the date of service of these orders, neither party may deny the other party use of the current primary residence of the parties, whether it be owned or rented property, without court order.
10. If the parents of minor children live apart during a divorce or dissolution proceeding, they shall assist their children in having contact with both parties, which is consistent with the habits of the family, personally, by telephone, and in writing.
By Order of the Court
Failure to obey these Orders may be punishable by contempt of court. If you object to or seek modification of these orders during the pendency of the action, you have the right to a hearing before a judge within a reasonable time.
Filed: February 15, 1999
MARIA DURKHEIM
404 ST. CLOUD STREET
NEW SALEM, NA 06556
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
MEMORANDUM
Attorney Work Product
From: Sophie Diehl
To: David Greaves
RE: Matter of Durkheim
Date: April 5, 1999
Attachments: Acceptance of Service (draft)
Notice of Appearance (draft)
Answer (draft)
Certificate of Service (draft)
Letter to Maria Durkheim from Ray Kahn
Notice of Automatic Orders
Note to Daniel Durkheim from Maria Durkheim
I’ve drafted the official documents (the Acceptance of Service, the Notice of Appearance, the Answer, and the Certificate of Service) using office forms. At the end of the Answer, I ask the Court to dismiss the action? Is that right? What does that mean? In a criminal case, if the case is dismissed, the prisoner goes free—until they re-indict. In a divorce, if the case is dismissed, the parties remain incarcerated. I will never get the hang of this.
Mrs. Durkheim forwarded to me a letter, dated March 30, from her husband’s shyster lawyer, Ray Kahn. It included a belated copy of the Notice of Automatic Orders, which should have gone out with the summons and complaint, and legal advice, which he shouldn’t have given to his client’s wife, on the effect of those Orders. Can I tell Mr. Kahn that his deadlines all have to be pushed back because Mrs. Durkheim didn’t receive the Orders until April 1? Can I tell him he shouldn’t give her legal advice?
On April 1, Dr. Durkheim closed out the checking account he had with his wife. By my reading of Automatic Order # 1, he shouldn’t have done that without her written consent. Do I make a fuss about it? (Mrs. Durkheim didn’t sound upset about it—though she did send her husband a saber-rattling note in return. I didn’t know American WASPs were so explosive. There might be an audience out there for her Collected Letters.)