BACK TO TOP
9250 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
P: 310.556.1057
F: 310.576.7474

Entries from May 2014

Posted on May 13 on 2014

I’d like to share an episode I witnessed in court recently. An experienced attorney sat with his client, waiting for his case to be called. When his case came up, the attorney stood up and told the judge, right in front of his client, “I can’t argue this case without my associate attorney. She’s been handling the case, and she’s in another courtroom.”

I cannot believe that this lawyer was not embarrassed by his clear inability to handle his own case. With his client paying $700 – $1,000 an hour to hire a named partner in the firm, is it unreasonable to expect them to learn the basic details of the suit? Not only did this attorney appear to hand the entire case over to his younger associate, he most likely charged an additional $300 – $400 for the associate’s time, as well.

But the judge let it slide, and the client kept his mouth shut, because unfortunately this practice is not uncommon in family law. I’ve seen associates spoon feed facts to their boss throughout an entire trial, and even watched an opposing attorney completely turn his case over to his younger associate before the entire courtroom.

With the media making so much about the financial burden of divorce, is it too much to ask that attorneys at least give their clients what they paid for? When you hire an experienced veteran in any legal field, you’re paying not just for their name, but also for their expertise, insight, and judgment both inside and outside the courtroom.

Associate attorneys are certainly helpful for research and preparation, and I employ them myself to ensure that they can provide the necessary backup to enable me to represent my client to the best of my ability. But I am still responsible for the case and understand that the client hired me, based on my skills and reputation, not the associate. Apparently, not all of my colleagues would agree.

CATEGORIZED IN:News

Posted on May 13 on 2014

Recently, a friend of mine, who is currently looking to purchase a home, wondered whether his house would automatically become community property if he were to marry. I was surprised at the question; however, I realized that this is something that might actually prevent an individual from purchasing property if he or she is not fully informed. There are so many misconceptions and misunderstandings about how the laws work here. I thought a little refresher on the basics of community property can be beneficial to all.

California is a community property state, where the division of assets may become a large part of divorce proceedings due to the complicated nature of characterizing the assets. Community property is defined as all property and debt that is acquired from the date of marriage until the marital cut-off date.

As I told my friend, property that is owned prior to marriage does not automatically convert from separate property to community property. In fact, assets that either spouse brings to the marriage are presumed to be separate property. Additionally, gifts and inheritances acquired during marriage are the separate property of the spouse who acquires them. The complications arise when property that was separate is combined with property acquired during the marriage or property is transferred between the spouses, changing the legal title in which it is held. If a married couple decides to separate, the law also provides that property the individual spouses acquire after separation, but before the divorce is final, is separate property.

There are many different factors that a court will look at when characterizing property at the time of dissolution. The presumption in California is that marital assets that the parties acquire during marriage are considered community property, and are to be divided 50-50 at the time of dissolution.

The community property scheme is the default arrangement; however, this can be overcome or changed. By entering into a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, spouses can agree not to have community property, or agree that only certain property will be part of the community. Spouses can also agree to transform or convert (in legalese, “transmute”) the community property into separate property. The manner in which they take title to real estate is one way to evidence an agreement that the property is not community property.

Needless to say, the issues of community and separate property may be complicated, and it is always prudent to seek advice when questions arise whether it is prior to marriage, during marriage or pending dissolution.

– Sarah Rosenblatt

CATEGORIZED IN:News