Lawlady's Divorce Blog

Business Hall of Fame

My personal band of heroes at the moment are:  Seth Godin  (for marketing), Keith Ferrazi  (for networking),  Julie Morgenstern  (for organizing), and  Dan Pink  (for  business trends).  It's hard to find them presenting. They are not frequently scheduled to speak at events open to the public.  I wish they were. I'd like to see each one in person. 

But you are lucky if you live on the East Coast.  Seth Godin has just announced that he will be presenting in November  in New Jersey for $99.00. Here are more details about the half-day event.     I'm sure the event will be worth it.  Go if you can. 

Dan Pink has his own spectacular offer.  He is in the process of  supplementing his book A Whole New Mind and is soliciting input for examples to include in his revised edition.  If you do something wise and right-brained in your work, you might want to share your techniques with Dan for inclusion in the next issue.  His book is already in its 7th printing and there is every indication that his trajectory will continue straight up, so this is an excellent opportunity for some free PR.  He's taking new ideas through October 31st.  Check out his site for details about submitting an idea. 

(Are you enjoying my frequent usage of links?  I do believe that providing them has doubled the time of doing a blog entry!  I hope I can shorte my linkage time.  And for those of you following my tech-dilemma-- I JUST figured out how to do trackback. I had to sign up for PLUS service, to use it.) 

Is Divorce Bad for Children?

Elizabeth Marquardt's book, Between Two Worlds:  The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce,  has stuck with me.  She's the author who, traumatized by her parents own divorce, has grown up to write a detailed book, based on reams of study, that says children of divorce do poorly in life.  She's affliated with the Institute for American Values, a think-tank and champion for traditional living (the best I can tell).  It funded the research. 

It's a heavy burden to place on unhappy parents the idea that a divorce will scar your children for life.  Ouch.  If you already felt shitty about your divorce, read Marquard's book and feel worse.  I'm glad to see that there is another book out with a different point of view:  We're Still Family:  What Grown Children Have to Say About Their Parents' Divorce, by Constance Ahrons, Ph.D.   Constance followed 178  children through life and draws conclusions about divorce from their reports.  Her pool of subjects may be smaller than Marquardt's, but Ms. Ahrons is a Ph.D. and working therapist.  Marquardt has a wounded inner child from what I observed from meeting her in person and works for a non-profit that spends $1 million a year to contribute "intellectually to the renewal of marriage and family life and the sources of competence, character, and citizenship," according to its website. 

Who is right?

Ms. Ahrons believes that divorce doesn't have to ruin a child's life.  Marquardt is convinced that divorce does harm and can't offer much guidance as to how to make it better.  My personal survey from local Seattle therapists is this: If the parents can unify their parenting efforts and develop cohesive parenting strategies that integrate the differences between the parent, the child will not suffer the skism that Marquardt reports.  If the parents can learn to attend joint functions, the child can grow up to feel a sense of being loved simultaneously by two parents and doesn't necessarily have to feel a sense of being divided into two lives, two personalities.   The better the  parents are at putting their differences aside to give the child the best life after divorce, the better the child's development.  They don't doom kids of divorce. 

It seems intact marriages can do as much damage to kids as divorce.   Ever met a wacked person who grew up with two parents?  I certainly have. 

 

Poor Lawyer Image

I ran across this quote on Lexblog. (lexblog.com)

In 2002, the American Bar Association bravely asked people to say to our faces what they've been saying behind our backs (and in the occasional strongly worded letter) for years: what is the public's true perception of lawyers? As you might expect, the results revealed that our image is in trouble.

Based on a number of survey questions, the ABA concludes that the legal profession is one of the least reputed in American society and that many people believe lawyers actually work to exacerbate conflict or are only interested in making money regardless of whether justice is done. And not surprisingly, lawyers didn't score terribly high in the warm-and-fuzzy category -- somewhere between "avoid at all costs" and "necessary evil."

Even worse, the study found that lawyers' traditional methods of advertising actually tend to make matters worse: The ABA report says people feel lawyers' advertising is unprofessional, over-promising, overly dramatic and targeted to vulnerable people.

As a result, consumers are riddled with fear and doubt about hiring a lawyer, even when they are pretty sure they need help. Respondents said they didn't know how to distinguish a good lawyer from a bad one, didn't understand what they'd be charged and weren't sure the lawyer could help. Less than half of those who had a real need for legal assistance in 2001 ended up obtaining a lawyer because of their concerns and intimidation.

It's very strange to be a member of a profession that is free game for jokes at cocktail parties.  The only group I think gets worse jokes are used car salespeople and politicians.  I think the public admires the guys that get featured on Dirty Jobs-- have you seen that show?!

From my years in practice, I've known so many hard working, earnest attorneys.  But then, you hear a horror story and it makes the profession seem particularly slimy.  I know someone who paid an immigration attorney $8,000. The attorney never gave the client any paperwork and told him that his paperwork was filed.  Four years later, he realizes (now that he can speak the language and can call immigrations himself) that his application for citizenship was never filed. 

But on the good side. I do think the profession attracts people who legitimately want to help, and enjoy solving problem.  The trick to finding a good one is word of mouth.  It's too hard to tell otherwise.  Some of the best lawyers (a few tax attorneys come to mind) present particularly terribly, but man... can they find a right answer fast.

Have a nice weekend.  I'll be talking with you soon.   

 

Bringing Alternative Law to Washington

The Washington State Bar Association created a group devoted to looking into alternative forms of practicing law.  (I wasn't invited.)  Here is my list of suggestions for changing how law is practiced so that lawyers can remain relevent, useful and employed.

Dear Comittee: 

I got the form letter calling for innovative forms of law practice for discussion at your 11/9 meeting. If I was in charge of the bringing innovation to the Washington State Bar Association, here is what I would do:

 

1) I think J. Kim Wright’s group, the Renaissance Lawyers.com, is the best stop for updates on what is new in the industry. I’d regularly mine that source for inspiration. I would promote the WSBA in that magazine. Just as I would send a delegate to the annual IACP forum, possibly support a class submission at that event, as well as develop and promote a local area person to become actively involved with that group at the national leadership level.

 

2) At one of your annual award ceremonies, I would create and honor “innovative attorney of the year,” with runners up. I would allow self-nomination and recommendations from sources other than lawyers. Often times innovation comes from outside the mainstream legal community and requiring awards to be decided by the insider attorneys doesn’t accurately reflect who is doing the most brilliant new work.

 

3) I would devote a page or two pages of the WSBA Bar Journal Magazine to innovations in the practice. I would have the look and feel of this section be different from the rest of the paper and left to the creative inspiration of the editor/writer assigned to this job.  The purpose of this section would be to inspire alternative thinking about the practice of law, promoting and educating about other ways of practicing.  I might call it “Practicing at the Edge.”

 

4) I would include a 20 minute segment at all, or many, of the WSBA sponsored CLES, facilitated by a feisty spokesperson stirring up a dialog about what isn’t working in that particular area, where are the lawyers getting left out of business because of encroachment from non-lawyers, and what crazy ideas might be able to generate public attention for the good, new, different and better legal work in that area. This CLE segment would be a reiteration of the Bar Magazine message. Maybe call it the “Reinvention of Law for the 21^st Century.”

 

5) Sponsor a “Law Firm Innovation” competition among the Young Lawyer Division to find out how/what the next generation of lawyers (25 to 32) would do differently if suddenly and immediately made managing partner. This could be promoted at the Magazine page, and also at the introductory CLES most likely attended by youthful lawyers of the next generation.

 

6) Establish a law school liason between the bar and law schools. The liason’s job would be to speak to the law schools and promote to educators the message: “The psychics of lawyers cannot be destroyed before law practice even begins.” This would be to encourage the understanding that tough Socratic method can lead to post traumatic stress disorder for some students and begins the slow process of shutting down the intuitive and emotionally intelligent skills of the law school student body. This liason could also promote the Bar’s commitment to being at the forefront of legal change.

 

7) Stop that bill/legislation/Bar Rule that is being considered to allow legal helpers or form filler-outers. I forget the term you are using. The paralegal bill is what I mentally think of it.  Lawyers need to protect their domain and this legislation/rule (to me seems) to further erode the practice of law. The industry is flooded and this new legislation will be taking the work from the newly admitted lawyers and the lawyers who are trying to break into a new area of law. We don’t need more competition and I thought the goal of these new areas of practice was to preserve law work for lawyers.

 

8) Create a CLE called “opportunities for work in the legal industry”. This CLE be aimed at showing underemployed attorneys where there are opportunities to make money in the law. This could focus on solving the access to justice problem by showing lawyers how they could make money serving client needs that are not already being served, or are being served in other ways by non-lawyers. I might call this curriculum, “Making Lemonade, Turning Something Sour into Something Sweetly Profitable and Refreshing”.

 

9) Open up what education/training  will be approved by the WSBA. I would include personal growth, relationship, motivational, marketing and other types of classes in addition to the standard fare ( which must have a direct relationship to law, as I understand the current approval rule requires). Human creativity is aroused by being exposed to new and different ideas. It would be nice if the Bar Association supported lawyers learning about subjects a bit farther removed from our core legal curriculum. You show this support by allowing other professionals to promote their trainings for CLE credit for lawyers. The subjects approved by CLE credit decreases the chance these helpful, and mind-expanding subjects will be learned by lawyers.

 

10) Do a cross-pollonization CLE with leaders from other areas—the bright new minds of marketing and business and personal development- for a day of CLE called “Radical Departures—A forum for exploring the New and Possible Ways of Practicing Law.”  Encourage other leaders in other industries to tell us lawyers how to do law better. 

 

11.)  Promote legislation that would allow lawyers to share profits with non-lawyers to promote multi-faceted law firms with multiple types of services.  It’s time. This will allow lawyers to benefit from the business and other skills of non-lawyers. This is hard to articulate. Basically, allow lawyers to become business partners with non-lawyers. There must be a way to protect the lawyer’s sovereign decision making ability in legal matters.

 

12) Put a Change Agent on paid staff at the Bar. This would be a lawyer who naturally gravitates to the front edge of the legal revolution, enjoys speaking and writing, is well received by students, and is naturally-outspoken and people-oriented. This person will likely have a bit of a rebel streak, probably doesn’t have core friends at the Board of Governance or law professor level, and comes with a non-traditional background. The right person has probably not been invited enough to the table to share ideas.

 
Thank you for inquiring about my ideas.  These are my comments about what could be done to bring alternative practice to Washington.  I'm posting it at my blog.  Best of luck with your committee. 

Sincerely, Stefani Quane, www.lawlady.com, lawlady.typepad.com,  206/932-9699,

Bringing Light to the Dark Industry of Divorce

853 NE 68^th Street, Seattle  WA  98115

Bellevue Blog Business Summit

I am computer dsylexic.  I cannot master new computer tricks by reading the help folder. I need someone to put my hands on the keyboard and practice with me about 10 times before I get something.  Take Tracker.  I've written questions to typepad.  I've had my friend show me how, and someone else explain it over coffee.  Still not getting the mechanics of it. I get the gist, but not the way to make it happen.

But there is hope.

(Oh dear, maybe not..... if you click on the next question that asks if you would like to read more, you are going to be lead astray.  The link is incorrect.  So I advise against clicking that button.  I'll tell you the relevent information here.  -- See, I tried using the "quick post" option.... before I digress further, I've give you the bottom line.)

Bottom line:  On October 29, 2005 all day in Bellevue the Blog Business Summit  will be hosting a  big training event for $199 on business blogging.  It sounds relevant and useful for any skill level and taught by experts in the field.  Here is a LINK!!!!  (If I get it right.)  Blog Business Summit 

I hope to meet you there.   

The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce, book review

Elizabeth Marquardt was in Bellevue last night promoting her new book: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce. I heard her speak. She's done a large study on grown children of divorced parents (their parents divorced before they were 14) and comes to the conclusion that divorced children suffer hardship and share a particular set of setbacks in life as a result of leading two lives after the divorce. She weaves her story about her family's divorce into the narrative. She writes from the "we" perspective, speaking on behalf of divorced kids everywhere.

Her book was written for those wounded kids, now grown, so that their story is told. She writes secondly for married couples with children to show the harm they will cause to their children with divorce, and to advocate staying in "good enough marriages" weathering the bad times for the benefit of the children who will pay a high emotional price at divorce. She lastly writes for already divorced parents, but doesn't have much to offer them. They've already harmed the children and she doesn't see a better way to structure divorce for kids, except to provide what's best for your particular children, not a cookie cutter parenting plan. She feels we need a cultural shift away from the "happy divorce" mentality because it only makes people feel more comfortable about divorce and there is no showing a happy divorce is any better than a bad divorce from the children's perspective.

The book is sad reading with dozens of vignettes from children's lives. Her bottom line: divorce is bad for kids so stay in mediocre marriages because to your children a mediocre marriage with unhappy parents is better than a divorce.

The book is very well written. You will find Elizabeth articulate and entertaining as she describes the stories of divorced children. Her summaries of the harm we share as children of divorce (growing up too fast, having to struggle with moral issues our parents refuse to struggle with each other, the loss of a sense of home, growing up lonely, and others) are well thought out and provocative. Her research methods are detailed so you can verify the sources of her insights.

My guess is that we will see this book on the talk show circuit. She is a young and competent speaker with national level speaking credentials, mostly flowing from her prior work on teen dating (called “Hooking Up” - remember the publicity from those studies that were big last year?).

An Amazing Education

I ran across a person with an interesting idea a few years back. He was creating an educational institution that ran on this premise:  the students show up and the teacher teaches something that is  interesting to the students in attendance.  There is no pre-fabbed course agenda. The teacher remains in the "now" and teaches what he or she knows to teach, as shaped by the questions and needs of the students who attend.  The idea is that a really good teacher will help any student learn whatever it is that that student needs to learn. A willing student can learn from an eager teacher. 

I liked the idea a lot.  I liked the idea of teaching a class, without much preparation.  As an instructor, I appreciate that you can never know exactly what to teach until you are actually facing the room full of students. Students come with different agendas, even if the teacher has provided course details in advance. 

I think of how often I have sat in a class where the teacher is obviously talking to someone else, not me.  I wondered if the other students came away with the same impression, as if the teacher was somehow missing the needs of the group. How refreshing to have an instructor attentive enough to teach to the particular needs of the group in attendance. 

I'd like to experience  (either as a student, or as an instructor) this socratic, responsive form of education where content and style is modified to suit the audience.  I love to learn, but rarely do I come across a fabulous instructor. Often times, the subjects I'm interested are taught by average instructors. What if we could reverse that trend and put adult learning into the hands of people who are really good at teaching.  What impact would that have on adult education? 

I'm tired of adult education formats where professionals seeking work in their area of  expertise teach classes.  I've been suspicious that teaching isn't their strong suit.  I tried poking around the internet to find that Bellevue guy with his experimental adult education school. I wonder if it ever took off.  It provoked me. 

S.    

In Life, We Must Make a Choice

I attended a workshop this week that presented the lesson:   You can author your life.  Are you willing to choose the life you are going to lead? 

My mind wanted to fight with the concept. 

• But really- after so many career choices, a person can't successfully transition into new work if there isn't a nest egg to fund such a transition.
• The old life is just about ready to bear fruit. Why give up the old life when the payoff is about to occur- just for the vision that there could be something much better.
• Yeah, you say all that about having anything you want, but then actually go try to have it all. Having it all takes as much energy as trying to have something pretty OK. You'll be working just about as hard.

I'm curious to meet someone who walked away from a life that was pretty good to author a life that is fabulous.  Were they able to do that without a gigantic nest egg saved up for a two-year career transition?  I know a passion search coach. She recommends a transition job that that pays your basic living expenses and leaves you time and energy to pursue your passion.  From what I can tell, the people who go on a life/career/passion adventure face very real issues:  worry about money; conflicts with unsupportive spouses;  depression or other hidden psychological issues formerly covered by work stress; and fear of failure or fear of success as they head into more authentic work.

All in all, the path seems hard and unlikely to pay off.  I'm curious to hear from people who have gone from alright to fabulous. I can appreciate the life path of people who go from miserable to good.  That one seems obvious:  why stay in the same place in life if it sucks? The other one is not so clear. Why give up something good for something great, if the journey to get there sucks?  Does the journey from good to great have to suck?

I'd like to hear from readers on the subject.  Now here is the funny joke... all four of you out there consistently reading my blog are hardly a crowd of readers...  It's sort of amusing to strike up a feisty conversation when you are an unheard-of blogger... I guess that is what my personal good to great story would be about.  For me, being a well-respected speaker/teacher/blogger/writer/book author would be to make the jump from good to great.   But the law is good. That's my dilemma.  How could things get any better than they are now?  I genuinely enjoy my work.  It's good.  Please readers, help me out.

Would you be willing to leave good to get to great, if that meant giving up something good?

Generational Difference in Divorce

I've noticed a pattern in my divorce practice about how older people view divorce, as opposed to my younger clients.  It is typical that my clients over 45 will report feeling some sense of failure or shame about their divorce. They feel they have let others down, or that they are a failure in society's eyes.  This sense of social remorse is not present to the same extent with my younger clients. In fact, often they have no "extra baggage" about the divorce (their words).  I laughed as I was talking with one young client. I was all serious in asking about how she was  being treated as a result of choosing to divorce at 28 and become a single mom.  Her response:  "Oh who cares? Everyone divorces.  Everyone around me is divorced."

I guess we are not the same culture as we were when I was seven years old with divorced parents. Back then, I lied to my classmates in the second grade about my parents' divorced status.  I thought I wouldn't be as popular if people knew I was from a damaged home. Back then, I understood, at some level, that others would not think favorably about my parent's break up. No one else had divorced parents. 

The fact nowadays so many people are divorced shifts our communal impression about the shamefulness of the action, but I think there is another force at play.  I believe that the younger people have found something that the older couples haven't.  The younger people more quickly find the meaning and a healthy explanation for why the divorce is happening.  It takes older couples much longer, and some never arrive at a greater understanding. 

In order to have a successful and productive divorce experience, both parties need to find their own meaning for the divorce, and to embark on a new adventure or journey.  The old way of living is ending, what is the new way? 

I was deeply touched when I heard Reynolds Price (or is it Price Reynolds) speak about his experience becoming paraplegic due to cancer. For those of you who don't recognize his name, he's a southern writer and professor.  He reported, at his speech in Seattle, that his life is fuller and richer due to the paraplegia, and he is grateful for the change in his physical abilities.  He counseled others as to how they too could turn a bad life circumstance around into a positive. "People  must be willing to search for new meaning when something is lost, and not dwell too long in the self-pity/misery stage of change.  I advise you to come to the realization quickly that your former life is over, so that you can begin searching and finding the good things to be found in your new life."

This comment has stayed with me and I see its relevance to divorcing couples.  You need to get (and I mean really get) at a deep and physical level that your old life is over.  The quicker you make peace with that truth, the sooner you will be able to ask the next (and more interesting) questions:  What does my life hold for me now? What will I make of my life?  What do I want to do  next?

We can be the authors of our own life, if we choose.  What is the story you intend to write for yourself?   Are you willing to rewrite  the script? 

Diplomatic Language

I must confess. I am, and have always been, a head-to-mouth kind of person.  If I have a thought I generally say it.  It's rare for me to select my words carefully.  I like the gestalt of speaking, and generally am trying to paint a picture with words, rather than speak with specificity and delicacy. 

My work as a mediator and collaborative attorney has changed that spontaneity habit.  I actually have come to appreciate the art of diplomatic dialogue.  In fact, one of my favorite modern images is of the Jedi Council meetings the in Star War series.  Many different-looking characters sitting down to discuss common concerns.  The Jedi Council, in my mind, is much like the United Nations where participants agree to speak in a universal language (mostly through the aid of technology). 

Your divorce can be a time to learn the art of diplomatic speaking.  It may be one of the first times in your life where you are faced with the cold reality that if you inflame the other side with imprudent speech, you may not get what you want.  Tempers are easy to flare in divorce, and the other side no longer has patience with your verbal idiosyncrasies.  Your spouse knows your speech habits and his or her blood pressure is rising before you get to your main point. They see it coming. 

You are better off changing your speech, if you hope to catch your spouse's genuine attention. Clean, fair, diplomatically-phrased conversation  is the key.  Here is an introduction to how to speak diplomatically.

Speaking Diplomatically

1.  Describe things as they are, not in dramatic, artistic, or critical ways.   Thus, it is better to say, "you speak quickly when something comes to mind," rather than saying, "with you, it's head to mouth, head to mouth, head to mouth."  Can you appreciate the difference this might have on the listener?

2.  Seek to understand and clarify your understanding before you speak.  Slow the conversation down with more time spent on clarifying your understanding of what was said, rather than adding your own new thoughts to the soup.  You do this by saying, "What I heard you say is XYZ, am I right?"  Or addressing what you think you heard underneath the surface.  "I heard you say XYZ, but what struck me was that you are feeling ABC.  Is that true?"

3.  Politely rephrase words that you find difficult or unflattering.  Don't agree to certain concepts that are postured in terms you find  unacceptable.  For example, your spouse may have described your "cheapness," during a conversation about budgets and property division.   It won't be helpful in discussing these money issues,  if every time the conversation centers around your behavior, it is described as "cheap," something you find offensive.  Rephrase the comment instead into something that you can live with.  Let your spouse, or whoever else is present, know that you prefer your behavior to be described as fiscal responsibility or financially conservative.  As your role in the financial drama is discussed, it can be in a neutral and objective manner, not in a potentially provocative way.

___

These three ideas can get you going. The transformation into a diplomatic and skillful spokesperson is a slow process.  It begins with a intention to speak with courtesy and neutrality.  It is a form of politeness, and as I read in today's newspaper, courtesy and politeness are falling by the wayside in our ramped-up, super-fast society.  You may be striving to be an anachronism.  But in my mind, in this age of world conflict, it's best if we learn a neutral vocabulary early before we conflict with someone able to pull us deep into the heart of a very nasty fight-- one that will only be aided and abetted with imprudent, sloppy, damaging language.