The Durst Firm

I am a NJ divorce lawyer. I work day in and day out to help individuals and there children through the divorce process.  I often get blamed for causing divorce.  The collective integrity of my colleagues is constantly under attack.  I am accused of making divorce a nasty fight simply to line my own pockets. I can deal with these misplaced assaults because I am assured of the positive impact my colleagues and I can have on our fellow New Jerseyeans as they face one of life’s biggest challenges.

 I write this letter to in order to address a growing movement with respect to alimony that if allowed to gain traction will hurt women and children, strip the courts of their equitable authority, and eviscerate our fundamental notion of fairness.  The call for alimony guidelines is growing louder and louder each day.  If that call goes unchecked, the consequences could be catastrophic.  Couched in terms of consistency, efficiency and guidance, alimony guidelines would apply a cookie cutter approach to a deeply personalized analysis that is unique from family to family. 

 Alimony guidelines represent an overly broad solution to a “problem” identified by an agenda driven constituency.  Let’s be clear:  despite the rhetoric, the proposed alimony reforms benefit the moneyed spouse.  Proponents of alimony guidelines cannot argue otherwise.  The imposition of guidelines are strict time limits on how long one can receive alimony will create economic havoc.

 There is some merit to the arguments that we, attorneys and litigants, could benefit from a higher degree of consistency in alimony decisions.  I am not opposed to this notion.  However, I am opposed to the implementation of any method that creates an inequitable result, ignores our statutes and case law, and frankly, rewards lazy lawyering.  Rather than impose blanket guidelines which ignore the individuality of each family facing divorce, refine the statute, return cases to the court room where our time honored tradition of stare decisis can develop the existing body of case law. Mediation and arbitration are denying the public the benefit learning from prior cases. Lawyers who fail to develop, analyze and present the facts do a disservice to the client.

 Judges should hold lawyers accountable for articulating facts that pertain to the statutory factors. Attorneys need to hold judges accountable for making findings of fact that support the alimony award.

 Formulas are easy to implement and allow for lazy lawyering. Reducing the living, breathing clients to a plot on a graph denies them the individualized attention they deserve.

 Justice should remain blind by not imposing preconceived notions of equity on litigants. Blindness does not require a refusal to examine the particular facts and intentions of the parties.

 If we as family law practitioners turn a blind eye to this growing threat to justice our clients will be left in the dark.