Let's make one thing clear.  Law school does not prepare you to be a working lawyer.  Law school is not trade school.  Law school education is an invaluable part of becoming a good lawyer, but theory can never replace hand-on experience.  For this reason, a law school graduate is not worth nearly as much as they would like to believe.  Law school graduates still require a significant amount of real world training.  Salaries for law school graduates must take this into account.

In this environment, job prospects for law school graduates are terrible.  Indepent of a poor economy, there are too many law schools pumping out too many graduates.  The profession itself is changing, leaving less room for new entrants.  Established attorneys seem to be weathering the storm rather well, but there are precious few new hires.  

The most recent statistics show that only 12.2% of law school graduates are employed by big firms within six months of graduation.  However, this includes graduates employed as paralegals and other such positions.  Only 25.5% of law schools could place more than 10% of their graduates in these jobs.  Only 56% of law school graduates are employed full time in the legal field within six months of graduation.   Who knows how many of those people are not working in support positions?  The statistics show that job prospects for new graduates are terrible.  

Statistics like this make one thing quite clear.  It is an absurd gamble to leave law school with significant debt.  Yet the average graduate has about $125,000 in student loan debt.  In Vermont, that is completely absurd.  There are almost no entry level jobs that justify this amount of debt.  It is an absurd amount of debt even in a better economy.

The huge advantage of Drexel's two year program is that it will reduce the overall cost of a law school education.  If law schools aren't willing to reduce their tuition rates, this is the next best thing.  I would still think twice before enrolling, but this is a step in the right direction.

I graduated law school in a near-recession economy.  I scratched and clawed, and got my foot in the door.  Once that happened, my work spoke for itself and I was able to meet my career goals.  The environment seems much worse now.  Sadly, I don't know if I would encourage my children to attend law school.  It's that bad out there.

In most types of cases, you do not need a perfect argument.  You only need an argument that is slightly more compelling than your opponent.  Too many lawyers are afraid to concede anything at all.  This gives the appearance that they are (a) insecure as to the merits of their claim; and (b) potentially less than truthful about other aspects of their claim.

People are human.  Humans are never 100% perfect.  Rather than denying this reality, it is much better to embrace it.  It humanizes the client, and shows sincerity.  Many things that clients assume are harmful to their case can be turned into a positive.  People often do things they regret because of passion.  That passion can be used show just how much the person believes in their cause.  Liars and cheats don't have that passion.  People telling the truth do.  People who have been genuinely harmed do.  This should not be forgotten when presenting a case.

One of the more interesting components in the case stemmed from a post-divorce custodial change.  When custody changed, so did child support.  By the time the case reached the Vermont court, both parents argued that they were owed back child support.  The Superior Court awarded back child support to the father, but declined to entertain the mother's claim for back support based on jurisdictional reasons.

The Supreme Court did not agree with this procedure.  The Supreme Court determined that it was not equitable to address arrears to the father without factoring in father's deliquent child support payments.  This is a good ruling.  It prevents one party from taking advantage of the court system when they come to the court with less than clean hands.  

Another interesting component to this case is that the children are now in their thirties.  This should serve as a warning to those who feel that child support arrears will just "go away" when the children are well into adulthood.  

The case was a criminal case, involving a felony DWI charge.  The central issue was whether or not the police officer had a legal basis to arrest my client.  The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that there was no legal basis for the arrest.  All five justices joined in the ruling.

The ruling was not just a win for my client.  It will serve as precedent for law enforcement in the future.  It is nice to know that I obtained this result for my client, and also nice to know that the impact will be felt for some time to come.

The best decisions are based on logic and reason - even if they are about emotional matters.  Lawyers often should assist their clients in utilizing logic and reason when making a decision.  That is one advantage of having a lawyer.  A lawyer is able to approach the matter from a different perspective.  That different perspective is often quite crucial.  Just as a doctor helps patients with serious illnesses make informed decisions, a lawyer helps a client make informed decisions about important life matters.

Should emotion play absolutely no role in decision making?  I believe it should play a role.  A lawyer should listen to a client to determine what would make them the most satisfied.  One person's wants may be quite different than another's.  That is where personality and emotion become important.  Even though individual decisions should not be based entirely on emotion, an overall strategy should take into account the emotional needs of the client.  Each plays a unique role - and a good lawyer recognizes those roles.

I am annoyed when I see lawyers telling clients what their goals should be.  A client should determine the goals, and the lawyer should use their skills to assist the client in achieving those goals.  A one size fits all approach fails to recognize that every person is different.

I still very much enjoy the courtroom, but I enjoy my collaborative cases as well.  Both types of cases require advocacy skills, just in a completely different manner.

It's nice to see that lawyers are now providing options for divorce cases in the Northeast Kingdom.  

When you hire an attorney, think of it as a partnership.  The client always has a certain level of expertise because they have first-hand knowledge of their situation.  The attorney has to piece this information together.  The more the client is willing to work alongside their attorney, the better the result.  As a client, if you are able to do some of this administrative work on your own, you are not only helping your case, you are saving money in legal fees.  That's a win-win situation for the client.

For the purpose of this discussion, I will simply the facts somewhat.  

The divorce court awarded Wife one-half of Husband's pension with survivorship benefits awarded to Husband.  The parties executed a QDRO (Qualified Domestic Relations Order).  This is a document that is used to effectuate the court ordered division of pension assets.  The QDRO mistakenly awarded survivorship benefits to Wife.  This mistake slipped past the parties and the court.

Some time later, after the mistake became known, Husband asked the court to compel Wife to execute a corrected QDRO.  Wife argued that the QDRO mistake should not be corrected.

While the case was more convoluted than description, the pertinent lesson is that the Supreme Court ruled that the QDRO was not a court order.  Court orders are very hard to change after they have been issued.  The court ruled that the QDRO was merely a document that executed the order of the court.  It did not create an order of the court.  It merely served to advance an existing order.  Therefore, the error in the original QDRO did not become an order of the court - even though the court approved the QDRO.

This was a just result.  While the mistake was best avoided, it should not have trumped the intent of the court.  The court's division of property was based on evidence and not inadvertent mistake.  I am happy to see that the proper outcome was restored.

The "collaborative" in Collaborative Divorce means that the parties agree on the process to use.  The parties, however, may have substantial disagreement as to property division, child custody, and other such matters.  Collaborative divorce stems from the reality that the court system is often a very ineffective place to deal with these important issues.  

The collaborative process often shines in disputed matters.  The parties get to decide what the important issues are - rather than hoping that a judge will agree.  The parties are not tied to the court's schedule.  They can proceed as quickly or as slowly as they are comfortable with.  They are not tied to antiquated rules of court procedure.  They are able to speak freely in an enviroment that they understand.

I'm always happy to talk with clients about the option of collaborative divorce.  Sometimes it is a good fit, and sometimes it is not.  If your case involves conflict, however, do not assume that collaborative divorce is a poor option.  You may be surprised at just how good an option it is.