The law firms that advertise as "Divorce for Men" or "Helping Men", is women's business unwelcome?

[CreekDog]

I have seen a law firm with the name "Divorce for Men" and I've heard many commercials on the radio for divorce lawyers that work for men.

Are they actually saying they only want to help or do business with men?

Isn't that a lot like saying, "Divorce for white people"?

Secondly, how can this be legally ethical, not to mention legal, to say that the work is just for one gender?

[LexVegas]

1. Men need someone to look out for them. Its hard to be a man in our society. nt.

[CreekDog]

2. Oh, I see what you did there

[FrodosPet]

10. It's hard to be a HUMAN in our society

Regardless of chromosomes.

[el_bryanto]

3. It's logical but problematic

It is true that Men and Women face different legal challenges going into a divorce, so specializing in one set of challenges makes sense I guess. Each court venue has a different attitude on this issue as well; all judges claim to be impartial, but many will support one side or the other.

On the other hand specializing in supporting Men exclusively does imply a certain attitude about who the victim is in most divorce proceedings. A sign like that indicates that if you want to blame the end of your marriage on your wife the lawyers in this firm won't question you.

Bryant

[onenote]

4. There also are firms that specialize in divorce for women

http://www.dawnforwomen.com/

Rightly or wrongly, the issues can be different from the male or female perspective so its not surprising that specialties have arisen.

[Sarcastica]

5. There is a law firm in my area that specializes in cases related to motorcycles. Specialization is

often a good idea, and allows practitioners to build on experience. Many men have gone into court with lawyers who aren't fully aware of the prejudices and hurdles a man faces in family court. This is a good idea.

[CreekDog]

7. A motorcycle is not a gender or ethnic group

[Sarcastica]

13. Good catch, "a motorcycle is not a gender or ethnic group".

A woman entering into a legal matter in which gender will be an issue will be best served by a practitioner with experience specific to that task. A man equally served. The fact that there are firms or attorneys that specialize in this way is an acknowledgement that gender is a real issue in family court.

Old saying, "It's a man's world. Until you go to family court."

[CreekDog]

14. so you're saying that after going to family court, men are more likely to be impoverished than women

which is nonsense.

women and their custodial children are far more likely to end up in poverty after a divorce than men.

but maybe you base your thoughts not on statistics but on the nice little commercials i'm talking about.

[Sarcastica]

17. Your assumption that the issue involves "women and their custodial children" is the problem.

Why assume that women should automatically get the children? That is one of the prejudices that men are up against.

Three cheers for anyone who battles stereotypes and prejudice, wherever it is found.

And ps- I said nothing about impoverishment, nor anything financial.

[closeupready]

23. See my post #22.

Welcome to DU.

[HappyMe]

20. Not everyone that gets divorced has children,

or has children where money and custody are involved.

[jollyreaper2112]

16. yes

But it can be a sexual orientation.

[CreekDog]

21. Que?

[AngryAmish]

25. I identify as a motorcycle-kin.

Your post is offensive.

[Sparhawk60]

38. I Self Identify

I self identify as bi(ke)-curious my self.

[randome]

15. Not my experience. Being forthright and honest did the trick for me.

It was my ex-wife who came off looking bad. If you start off a divorce hearing trying to see what you can get away with, you'll more often than not get less than you wanted. Not that my opinion should be representative of everyone, it's just my experience.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

28. The laws are gender neutral at this point

The challenges are not different. they only seem to be to sexist men who are angry that the law doesn't confirm their suspicion they should be in control of it all. Family Court takes over, the law is in control, and they don't like that any more than they liked the idea their wife should ever have a say.

[onenote]

31. Yet there are law firms that specialize in representing women

in divorce matters. So its not just "sexist men" that seek out and find lawyers that specialize in handling such matters from their perspective. Its both men and women.

[treestar]

36. The laws are gender neutral at this point

So there is no use in being for one sex or the other than to be sexist assholes using that as a marketing tool

[onenote]

37. The law may be gender neutral, but people's experiences are not

It's not all that surprising that people would seek out someone to represent them who they feel they have more in common with. There are law firms in our area that specialize and reach out to various ethnic communities (Asian, Hispanic), for example. (For the record, when I went through a divorce many years ago, my attorney was a woman -- I'm male -- and I have no regrets with that decision).

[treestar]

40. That's their choice

The sexes are equal under the law - "experiences" are how you choose to interpret it.

[Sparhawk60]

39. Racism is Also Outlawed

Laws are also race neutral.....so I guess you think there is no longer a need for civil right lawyers?

Let me know when men get custody of their children 50% of the time and when men get 50% of the alimony. Until then, their will be a niche market for lawyers who specialize in the issues men face in divorce.

/I made sure my divorce lawyer had experience in military divorces.
//she actually wrote the book on military issues in divorce.
///well, a book at least lol

[treestar]

41. I did not say there was no need for domestic lawyers

so your comment is uncalled for.

Men usually make more money and thus have advantage in divorce.

Plus they usually don't want the kids as much as they just want control over how the money is spent and thus resent the child support. Or they stupidly think that having the kids means they won't pay child support - well they do, as the formula accounts for both parties' incomes. But having the kids means they have control.

Oh the poor things. I remember one guy deciding not to pay the mortgage any longer and to let the house go to foreclosure. Or the ones who would not pay child support and quit working so as to not have money to pay it. Even being willing to go to jail first, which the state would not bother to do as the jails were full enough. And the self employed ones who never seem to make any money and refuse to provide business records to the court.

[Sparhawk60]

42. Get Back to Me

Get back to me when men get custody 50% and 50% of the alimony goes to men. So where is this mythical advantage you speak of ??? Until then, there will be a market for lawyers who specialize in limiting the damage a man suffers in a divorce.

[treestar]

44. It's the best interests of the child

and the factors defining that, not a percentage.

[msanthrope]

6. My ex got one of those firms for our divorce. They suckered him--which is what they do.

They make men feel comfortable and vindicated, so they don't feel so bad about parting with a retainer that is double the going rate.

They then put out a swath of boilerplate paper that makes the male client feel like something is being done. It's not.

These firms specialize in delay and denial tactics...they advocate the withholding of child support and turn a blind eye to the antics of their clients.

I got a lawyer who specialized in defeating this type of firm.

[HappyMe]

8. I have only seen an ad on late, late night tv.

They seemed like the equivalent of ambulance chaser lawyers.

I looked in my local phone book and there were 2 that represented women only in divorce, none for men, and a zillion personal injury lawyers.

I would go with a word of mouth type recommendation if I wanted an attorney.

[FrodosPet]

9. "Fred" and "Victoria"

There is at least one law firm doing the same for women as well.

http://www.victorialawfirm.com/

The Law Firm of VICTORIA is a firm dedicated to representing women only in Divorce and other family law matters.

[MineralMan]

11. There's one of those that advertises in my area.

The barely concealed message in their ad is: We'll keep your soon-to-be ex from getting your money. They couch in in terms of "maximizing your role in your children's lives," followed by "and that means protecting your financial means to do so."

It's that "financial means" that they sell hard.

The company is Cordell & Cordell, which has affiliates all over the country. They have a formula for attracting clients, and that formula is promising men they can keep as much of their money as possible.

Beyond that, I don't know much about them. They sure advertise heavily, though, especially on radio stations with a predominantly male demographic among listeners.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. All's fair in love and war --

and when love goes to war, doubly so.

[Gothmog]

32. I have seen these ads also

Two of my law partners are board certified family law attorneys and they are both female but represent both sexes. The firms mentioned in the OP seem to be targeting men in the mens right groups who think that the system is unfair to men. It is my understanding that the system tends to favor the group with the most money which are often the men. I keep away from this area of the law but the family law section has some great stories to tell.

Through my partners I have met several of the top family law attorneys in the city and these attorneys do not limit their practices. I am very uncomfortable with some of these firms and their claims in that they tend to promise results that may not be obtainable ethically.

[MineralMan]

33. About 24 years ago, I went through a divorce.

It was pretty amicable. My then wife and I figured out an equitable division of assets. We had no children, but did own a paid for home. Anyhow we had discussed all that and decided how to handle it. So we called an attorney to handle things. At the initial meeting, the attorney told us he would only represent one of us and that divorce was an adversarial process. We walked out. It took us one day to find another attorney who specialized in amicable divorces.

We told him what we wanted and he handled the whole thing for us, even setting up a trust deed to deal with the house. The whole thing cost just $900, and we didn't even have to go to court. Both of us had found other partners, and there were no issues.

My ex and I remained friends, and I and my new partner and my ex and her partner got together for dinner a few times after that in the next few years. Not every divorce is a knock down battle. Sensible people can end a relationship without rancor, even after 17 years, as in my case. I've been with my current wife for 23 years now. We still exchange Christmas cards with my ex and her partner. Life is simpler without conflict.

[Gothmog]

34. What you are describing is a form of collabarative representation

There are a number of family law lawyers who specialize in collabarative type representations where they represent both sides to get to an agreed to result. The lawyer has to explain the costs and detriments of a collabarative approach and make sure that each side knows that the attorney is not representing one side or the other. This is a welcome development in my opinion. Most cities have lawyers who specialize in this field

[MineralMan]

35. It worked very well in our case.

It simplified things and sped the process up. I suppose it wouldn't work for everyone, but it was good that it was an option for us.

[NCTraveler]

18. Divorce for men is its own beast.

I really don't see any part that is out of ethical bounds. I have seen many advertise to women. It is specific. Many things in society cater to men and womens needs separately. It doesn't automatically mean a lack of ethics. To claim that divorce for men and women is the same thing would not be honest on face value.

[Xithras]

19. They don't refuse to do business with women.

They just make it very, very clear that their specialization is in other areas. One of my wife's friends is a lawyer who specializes in legal services for Hispanics. Her advertising is all in Spanish, and she markets herself as a lawyer for first generation immigrant Hispanics who might otherwise feel excluded from the legal system. They're something like 99% of her client base.

If a non-Hispanic walked into her office and requested her legal assistance, she wouldn't turn them down on the basis of their race. She'd point out to them that they can probably get better counsel from someone else because they are outside of her specialization, and offer them a referral. She'd still take them on as a client if they declined the referral and insisted, but she chooses to market to a specific demographic.


Legally, there's a big difference between marketing and practice. To use your example, it would not be illegal for a lawyer to advertise himself as offering "Divorce for white people". It would not be illegal for that lawyer to offer referrals to non-whites who walked into his office. It WOULD be illegal for that lawyer to actually refuse to offer services to non-whites. In all states I'm aware of, refusing to take on clients due to their race or gender is also grounds for disbarment. You can advertise to a particular race or gender, you just can't refuse to take on business from other races or genders.

That's really true of any business. McDonalds could advertise themselves as "The best burgers for white people!", and they wouldn't actually be breaking any laws unless they refused to sell burgers to non-whites.

[treestar]

29. The laws are the same

attracting a hispanic clientele is all very well, but limiting yourself that way is not even good for the lawyer, lack of experience in other areas will be a bad thing. Also it is far safer for a lawyer these days to specialize in a type of law, not a type of client. You might be able to do personal injury or immigration and end up with mostly hispanics. Still, the experience gained handling their cases means clients of other ethnicities would be equally well served by your knowledge, and it's a rare attorney who does not want to expand client base to people who need their specialty.

[Xithras]

43. She's specializing in a type of law.

Most of her work focuses on discrimination claims and people/companies preying on first generation immigrants (exploiting their poor understanding of American law/language/culture to take advantage of them). I'm sure she could apply her skills to just about everybody, but she has personal reasons for focusing her work on hispanics.

[closeupready]

22. Family courts are so biased against men, I'm not sure it's worth even venturing in here

insofar as assuming that people are here in good faith, wanting a real discussion, is a joke.

[LeftyMom]

24. I'm not saying those are the most annoying thing on KNBR

But it's a horse race between those, Kars 4 Kids and Ratto.

[CreekDog]

27. How did you figure out where I heard them?

[madville]

26. They probably mainly care about the color green

I seriously doubt they will turn anyone away that shows up with the cash.

It's primarily just a marketing tactic.

My question would be, why would a woman WANT to hire them?

[treestar]

30. When it comes to family law

Probably because now the lawyer can say he knows all the tricks men get up to and that knowledge will help the female client. I bet they get female clients, too.

People will get upset and how tough the other attorney was, and then recommend them because they were so mean and tough. "He made me cry on the stand." That meant he was a great lawyer.

Divorce brings out the worst in people.