by Susan Rieger
I need to go to bed. I just left Harry’s. I’ve slept maybe 4 hours in the last two nights.
I feel like we haven’t talked in ages.
Love,
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: Maria Meiklejohn
Date: April 12, 1999
Attachments: Letter from Helen Fincher to Maria Meiklejohn
On her way to the airport, Mia Meiklejohn dropped off a letter she’d received from Helen Fincher, Daniel Durkheim’s first wife and the mother of Thomas (Tom) Maxwell Durkheim. She declared it “a complete surprise.” They’d always gotten along, but 3M didn’t know HF was paying any attention. “I always thought of her as belonging to the Mehitabel school of mothering,” she said. “Perhaps I’ve been unfair.” She wondered if she might call HF as a character witness should the case go to trial. “Can you imagine her credibility with the judge? I was, after all, the ‘other woman.’ ”
HELEN MAXWELL FINCHER | 1010 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY 10028
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
MINUTES OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Confidential
From: Hannah Smith, Secretary, Management Committee
To: Partnership Files
RE: Hearing on Fiona McGregor
Date: April 16, 1999
Attachments:
The Management Committee of Traynor, Hand, Wyzanski convened at 11 a.m., Thursday, April 15, 1999, in Special Session with David Greaves, Chair, Proctor Hand, Virginia Ladder, and William Frost in attendance. Joseph Salerno was unable to attend. The Committee met to discuss the conduct of a partner, Fiona McGregor, in conjunction with the representation of Maria Meiklejohn in her divorce action. For the purposes of the Special Session, Proctor Hand acted as Chair.
David Greaves presented the grievance against Ms. McGregor. On learning that Anne Sophie Diehl had been assigned to represent Ms. Meiklejohn in her divorce proceedings, Ms. McGregor directly contacted Ms. Meiklejohn by letter, questioning Ms. Diehl’s suitability as her lawyer and offering instead her services or those of the other divorce lawyers in the firm. Ms. Diehl and David Greaves had been assigned to the case at the express request of Ms. Meiklejohn. Ms. Diehl, a criminal lawyer with the firm, had been reluctant to represent Ms. Meiklejohn but had agreed after consultation with Mr. Greaves. On learning of Ms. McGregor’s letter, Mr. Greaves told Ms. McGregor that she had not sufficiently recognized the professional considerations that had prompted the assignment and that, in writing her letter, she had challenged his authority and undermined the firm’s values and reputation. He requested assurances from her that she would not repeat this kind of behavior. Ms. McGregor did not provide those assurances but requested a hearing before the Management Committee. Mr. Greaves stated that he believed personal animus against Ms. Diehl played a part in Ms. McGregor’s conduct.
At 11:30, Ms. McGregor met with the Committee. She outlined the considerations that prompted her letter and that have continued to inform her judgment of what she characterized as an unfortunate and unprofessional decision. She expressed her belief that the use of Ms. Diehl compromised the professional standards and reputation of the firm, and she took the position that the double-billing arrangement that Ms. Diehl and Ms. Meiklejohn had agreed upon to assure the quality and professionalism of Ms. Diehl’s representation would work to the economic disadvantage of the firm. She maintained there was no way the firm could recover the full cost of using a second lawyer and pointed to correspondence in the Durkheim file indicating that Mr. Greaves would write off some of his hours rather than bill Ms. Meiklejohn for the education of Ms. Diehl. After presenting her arguments, Ms. McGregor withdrew. Over the objections of the other members of the Committee, Mr. Greaves also withdrew in order to allow the other Committee members to discuss the matter fully and freely.
After reviewing the letters and other documents in the Durkheim file and the presentations of Mr. Greaves and Ms. McGregor, the Committee voted to approve Mr. Greaves’s decision to assign Ms. Diehl and to reprimand Ms. McGregor for her conduct.
The Committee members instructed Mr. Hand to write a letter to Ms. McGregor explaining in detail the deliberations and conclusions of the Committee.
The Committee adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
April 16, 1999
Fiona McGregor, Esq.
Traynor, Hand, Wyzanski
222 Church Street
New Salem, Narragansett 06555
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
Dear Fiona:
I am writing in my official capacity as Acting Chair of the Management Committee to inform you of the Committee’s findings and conclusions following the meeting convened on April 15, 1999, to review your conduct in relation to the firm’s representation of Ms. Maria Meiklejohn. You should know that after making his presentation and hearing your response, David Greaves recused himself from the Committee. He was not a party to its deliberations or final disposition.
While recognizing the legitimacy of your concerns about the use of an associate attorney who had never before handled a divorce and the possible loss of income that would flow from the double-billing arrangement that had been entered into with Ms. Meiklejohn, the members of the Committee support Mr. Greaves’s decision to assign Ms. Diehl to the case and to issue a private reprimand. Further, we find your conduct in this matter falling short of the standard we expect of our lawyers, to wit: (1) your letter to Ms. Meiklejohn, which publicly aired a private matter of firm management and which, if more widely circulated, could damage the standing and reputation of the firm, opening it to ridicule and gossip; (2) your shortsighted assessment of a situation that could put at risk the firm’s important relationship with Ms. Meiklejohn’s father, Bruce Meiklejohn; (3) your animus against a younger colleague in the firm who had done nothing in this matter to deserve the accusations leveled against her; (4) your disregard of the traditions, values, practices, and procedures of the firm; and (5) your lack of judgment in refusing to accept Mr. Greaves’s private reprimand and in bringing the matter before the Management Committee. A lawyer’s judgment is the most important tool in her professional arsenal.
I hope we will all be able to put it behind us.
Yours,
Proctor Hand, Esq.
cc: Files of the Management Committee
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
MEMORANDUM
Attorney Work Product
From: Joe Salerno
To: Sophie Diehl
RE: Fiona
Date: April 16, 1999
Attachments: Letter from Proctor Hand to Fiona
Sophie—
FYI. I thought you’d want to see the letter Hand wrote Fiona. Confidential, of course. Did David show it to you? I would guess not. I couldn’t make the meeting. I don’t agree with the Committee. Her behavior to you has been uncivil and unprofessional, but (no offense meant) she is right. You are not a divorce lawyer.
Stick with us cowfolks. We miss you upstairs. How in hell did you get caught in this anyway?
Love,
P.S. It was great to see your mom again. She dropped by when she was in town the other day to say hello to the gang—and to ask me about habeas corpus. Was that for a new book? Did you know she sent me a signed copy of her last one? She’s a class act.
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
; NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
MEMORANDUM
Attorney Work Product
From: Sophie Diehl
To: Joe Salerno
RE: Fiona McGregor
Date: April 16, 1999
Attachments:
Joe—
Do you really believe there are any confidential documents in this firm? I’ve already seen three copies—though you are the only partner to show it to me. My goose is cooked, stuffed, and dressed. Fiona won’t forget. She’s never liked me—which is okay; the feeling has become mutual—but I have never been able to figure out why. Up to now, she’s pretty much ignored me unless she absolutely had to speak to me, at which point she would address me in the third person, calling me a “Yalie,” as in “What would a Yalie do in this situation? Move to dismiss?” I have resisted sarcasm because Maman absolutely forbad it. She said it was worse than cursing.
I can understand that you wouldn’t agree with Proctor’s letter. He must have been very angry. “We find your conduct in this matter falling short of the standard we expect of our lawyers.” There’s a stomach churner for you. Do they want her to leave? I don’t know that I could come to work the next day.
It’s a short story how I got caught up in this. I miss you too. Everything’s so much more straightforward upstairs—maybe because there’s no property at stake, only life or liberty. There’s endless to-ing and fro-ing with a civil suit. And not much fun.
Love,
P.S. My mother said you called her “a real dame—and still a looker.”
She was thrilled.
You
* * *
From: Harry Mortensen
To: Sophie Diehl
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1999 14:14:27
Subject: You 4/18/99 2:14 PM
Sweet Sophie—
Do you remember the lines from The Real Thing, words of advice from father to daughter:
“Happiness is equilibrium. Shift your weight.” I think of them when I think of you and practice shifting.
Harry
* * *
III. OFFER/COUNTEROFFER
KAHN & BOYLE
46 BROADWAY
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-4343
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
April 19, 1999
David Greaves, Esq.
Traynor, Hand, Wyzanski
222 Church Street
New Salem, Narragansett 06555
Dear Dave:
As you know, I am representing Dr. Daniel Durkheim in his divorce against Mrs. Maria Durkheim. Dr. Durkheim would like to see the matter settled, and I’m sure we can agree that a long, drawn-out divorce is to no one’s benefit. Your young associate Ms. Anne Sophie Diehl and I may have gotten off on the wrong foot, and I’m hoping you and I can put our heads together and resolve this matter expeditiously. Dr. Durkheim is prepared to be generous.
It is my understanding that during the marriage, Mrs. Durkheim handled the family finances. This should make massive orders of discovery superfluous. Dr. Durkheim says his wife knows what they have and where it is, and confirmation of this lies in Ms. Diehl’s letters to the various financial institutions holding accounts in their joint and separate names. Your firm’s knowledge of the Durkheims’ income, assets, and liabilities appears comprehensive.
I have attached to this letter a formal offer from Dr. Durkheim. Before presenting our proposal, I shall put forth a brief overview of the financials and the general considerations behind it.
The most substantial family asset is Mrs. Durkheim’s property on Martha’s Vineyard, which is worth at least $6 million. The family residence, in contrast, was built for $375,000 and financed with a $250,000 mortgage, virtually none of which has been paid off. The equity in the house is the original deposit they made of $125,000. There are two automobiles, an Audi, which Dr. Durkheim drives, and a Saab hatchback, which Mrs. Durkheim drives.
Other assets include Dr. Durkheim’s pension fund of approximately $600,000, Dr. Durkheim’s 401(k) plan, which has $300,000 in it, stock market investments of $700,000, and a joint savings account originally holding $80,000 but now depleted by Mrs. Durkheim’s recent withdrawal of $64,000. These accounts have been funded by savings from Dr. Durkheim’s salary and gifts from Mrs. Durkheim’s father, which total $320,000.
At this time, Dr. Durkheim is asking for joint legal and physical custody and will, of course, pay child support for Jane proportionate to the time she spends with her mother. He has expressed a desire for full physical custody, in light of Mrs. Durkheim’s state of mind, but I have persuaded him for the moment not to press it. He is also willing to pay spousal support while Mrs. Durkheim finishes her Ph.D. at Mather.
With these factors in mind, I present on behalf of Dr. Durkheim a proposal that we believe fully and fairly accommodates the needs and contributions of the parties. I look forward to hearing from you. I believe that you and I can settle this matter promptly.
Yours,
Ray Kahn, Esq.
KAHN & BOYLE
46 BROADWAY
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-4343
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SETTLEMENT OFFER
From: Ray Kahn, Esq.
To: David Greaves, Esq.
RE: Durkheim v. Durkheim
Date: April 19, 1999
REAL PROPERTY:
Dr. Daniel Durkheim resigns any interest he may have, present and future, in the Martha’s Vineyard house and property. This property is currently valued at $6 million. He will keep the St. Cloud Street house, which was purchased three (3) years ago for $375,000. He will assume the $250,000 mortgage and pay Mrs. Maria Durkheim $25,000 in recognition of her contribution to the down payment of $125,000. Dr. Durkheim will continue to pay the mortgage and maintenance costs of the house until the divorce is settled.
PERSONAL PROPERTY:
Dr. Durkheim will keep the Audi he has been using and assume the loan payments for it. Mrs. Durkheim will keep the Saab hatchback she has been using and assume the loan payments for it.
ASSETS:
Bank Accounts, Stocks, Bonds, Mutual Funds:
Stock market investments currently total approximately $700,000. Mrs. Durkheim will receive $320,000 of these funds, which totals the full amount of the annual gifts to both of them from her father over the 16 years of their marriage. Dr. Durkheim will receive the balance of $380,000.
On April 6, on instructions from her lawyer, Mrs. Durkheim withdrew $64,000 from the couple’s joint savings account, leaving $16,000 in the account. If the amount Mrs. Durkheim withdrew from the savings account is added to her share of the proposed division of stock market investments, her total share of their assets comes to $384,000. If the remaining $16,000 in the savings account is added to Dr. Durkheim’s share of the stocks, his total share of the assets comes to $396,000.
Retirement/Deferred Compensation Plans:
Dr. Durkheim will retain his retirement accounts with TIAA-CREF, which currently have a value of approximately $600,000. He will transfer the funds in his 401(k) plan, which currently holds $300,000, to Mrs. Durkheim.
CHILD CUSTODY:
Dr. Durkheim and Mrs. Durkheim will share legal and physical custody of their daughter, Jane.
CHILD SUPPORT:
Dr. Durkheim will pay child support to Mrs. Durkheim to the amount of $2,000 a month until Jane reaches the age of 18 or graduates from high school, whichever event occurs last. He will pay all her school fees and expenses, including all costs for college. He will pay her medical insurance and all medical fees.
SPOUSAL SUPPORT:
Dr. Durkheim will pay spousal support to Mrs. Durkheim to the amount of $3,000 a month for four (4) years to allow Mrs. Durkheim time to complete her degree at Mather and to secure employment.
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393
) 876-5678
MEMORANDUM
Attorney Work Product
From: Joe Salerno
To: Sophie Diehl
RE: Fiona
Date: April 19,1999
Attachments: Letter from Fiona to Proctor
Sophie—
Act II. Confidential, of course. Fiona has a point. Wynch is still here, making money hand over fist. I am going to formally dissent in a minority absentee opinion. I wish I’d been at the meeting.
Love,
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
April 19, 1999
Proctor Hand
Traynor, Hand, Wyzanski
222 Church Street
New Salem, NA 06555
Dear Proctor:
I write to protest the Committee’s findings regarding my letter to Mrs. Durkheim. I persist in thinking that the decision to use Sophie Diehl was wrong and that I acted properly and professionally. If a client asked to hire Sophie to help them underwrite corporate bonds or arrange a construction loan for Mather University or advise the board of Octopus Enterprises, I cannot believe David would agree.