“HIGH WATERS” AND BURLAP SUITS
June 16, 2010 § 6 Comments
Philip Thomas, a lawyer in Jackson who publishes the MS Litigation Review & Commentary blog, has a clever piece about effective attire for the trial lawyer. You can read it here.
What interested me was the emphasis that jury-trial lawyers place on image and the subtle appearance clues that can influence jurors. Jurors have certain expectations bred from experience, years of watching dubious tv dramas about the law, and John Grisham novels. I remember years ago an expert at a seminar telling his audience in all sincerity that a lawyer should never wear green in the court room because it is an insincere color. If you want that billion-dollar verdict, you need to dress like a billion dollars. With so much at stake, who can blame a lawyer for striving to attend to even the smallest detail that could conceivably influence the outcome of a case?
Still, I almost laughed out loud at Mr. Thomas’ references to “high waters” and a burlap suit. My trial experience has been primarily in Chancery Court, where, of course, juries are empanelled as often as total solar eclipses. Chancellors are just not as susceptible as jurors to appearances, probably at least in part because Chancery Judges can’t afford to dress much better than the lawyers who appear before them. And anyway, Chancery Judges are mostly a jaded lot who have so many factors to weigh and consider in even the simplest case that we just don’t have the luxury of paying much attention to what the lawyers are wearing. Oh sure, a jacket and tie for males and “professional attire” for females in the court room are still de rigeur in Chancery. But that is required to preserve decorum, not to create a fashion show.
If it is true that “Clothes make the [man/woman],” I can say emphatically that in Chancery Court, clothes do not make the lawyer. In my many years of practicing and judging in mostly rural counties in Mississippi I have seen many a lawyer in “high waters” and burlap suits. I have worn them myself. I have seen lawyers in poplin suits, boiled white shirts with short sleeves, clip-on ties and galluses who were wizards in the court room. I have seen rumpled country lawyers in laughably poorly fitting suits send nattily dressed lawyers back to their sleek offices in the city rubbing equitable knots on their sore heads. I once tried a case in a country court room against a lawyer who had yet to remove the sewn-on tag from the sleeve of his sport coat, and I was glad to escape that trial with a squeaky victory.
Now, I am not trying to put down Mr. Thomas or other trial lawyers who navigate the rarified atmosphere of public interest and multi-district litigation, class actions, toxic torts and other legal train wrecks with billions on the line. You have to do what you have to do to make it work. I understand that. I just marvel at how sophisticated some of us have become over my nearly 40 years in bench and bar.
As I write this, I sit at my computer in my “professional golfer” attire (even though I don’t play golf). Nothing on the docket today, so I can relax and work on getting out an opinion that addresses five or six sets of those factors I mentioned above. Lawyers who pop in to open an estate are free to dress as they please as long as we remain in chambers and they don’t have a client tagging along. If we do have to head to the court room, I will be costumed in my robe, and the lawyers may feel free to wear their “high waters” or burlap suits.
And I’ll be thankful for our relaxed atmosphere where we can focus on the essentials.
ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS FOR CHILD SUPPORT AND 8.06 PROVISIONS IN ID DIVORCES
June 15, 2010 § 2 Comments
The chancery judge in an irreconcilable differences (ID) divorce is required by law to make a determination about the sufficiency of the provision for support of the minor children. Different chancellors approach the task in different ways. Some judges require a complete Rule 8.05 financial statement from each party. Some judges take the word of the attorney or litigants.
In District 12, you are required to include some specific information about income of the paying parent. The property settlement agreement must include information showing gross income and deductions for taxes, Medicare and social security for year to date for the paying party, in the form of a pay stub attached to the agreement or a recitation of the actual figures, including monthly and year-to-date figures, in the body of the agreement; in the alternative, a statement satisfactory to the court as to why such information is not available. If the pay stub is attached, the agreement itself must include a provision that both parties have seen and are satisfied with the accuracy of the document. If the required information is not included, the agreement will not be approved.
As for Rule 8.06 disclosures, all current required information for both parties must be set out in the body of the agreement or in any attached visitation schedule. So the property settlement agreement must include the current names, addresses and telephone numbers of both parents and include the standard language informing the parties of their continuing duty of disclosure.
Practice Tip: Change your property settlement agreement forms to include the required language.
JURISDICTION FOR ADOPTION
June 14, 2010 § 1 Comment
Effective July 1, 2007, Mississippi’s adoption statute was amended to change the residency requirement from 90 days to six months.
§ 93-17-3, MCA, sets out the jurisdictional requirements, which now read more like the UCCJEA than like the old, familiar adoption statutes. There are now jurisdictional requirements about availability in the state of information about the child, licensure of any adoption agency involved, and pendency of any adoption or custody proceeding in another state.
PRACTICE TIP: Get into your computers and add all of the statutory language verbatim into your adoption Complaint forms. Then, when preparing your pleadings, strip out what does not apply.
Most judges I have spoken with agree that if the jurisdictional and other statutory language is not included in your Complaint, you will have to start over, which may include obtaining a second Consent or Joinder.
At least twice a month I have to point these matters out to attorneys. Don’t embarass yourself with a client by being one of them.
HEAR YE, HEAR YE …
June 14, 2010 § 2 Comments
So much in Chancery Court practice depends on the preferences and predilections of the judge. Chancellors are vested with broad discretion. Thus the old saw that, “A good lawyer knows the law; a great lawyer knows the judge.” Translation = A good lawyer knows what the law provides; a great lawyer knows and plans for how the judge will apply it.
I hope that this blog will give you an insight into some of my preferences and predilections about practice in Chancery Court in the 12th District. Every day I have the opportunity to discuss case management and procedure with attorneys. This blog will be a means to make those kinds of communications available to all attorneys and others who have an interest in practice in the Chancery Court. I will also share thoughts about appellate decisions and points of law, insights from the judge’s perspective about effective and ineffective trial practice, handling probate matters, and even humor and philosophy.
I hope for a dialogue with the lawyers. All who are in good standing with the Mississippi Bar are welcome and encouraged to comment on and respond to posts. All comments will be moderated, and only civil, relevant posts by lawyers will be approved. There is no reward for posting your comments here, nor is there any punishment. The decision whether to participate is up to you. As we say in my church: “All may, none must, some should.”
It is my goal for practitioners to find here always a source of useful, helpful information. Enjoy.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 