Navigation Bar
< Home Page[About Us]


Why?
Subsription Access to some research documents (those we license from independent legal research companies) are restricted to subscribers. To gain access to ALL of these documents, you must subscribe. If you are already a subscriber, you may sign in before you begin your research. (Why Subscribe?)

Cases of Interest: Attorneys
National Legal Research Group, Inc.

ALASKA: LaParle v. State, 957 P.2d 330 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998).
A lawyer who conspired with his client to conceal and appropriate marital funds during divorce proceedings could be convicted of theft and perjury.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

FLORIDA: McAliley v. McAliley, 704 So. 2d 611 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).
The wife would be awarded attorney's fees on appeal as a punitive measure for the lawyer/husband's abuse of the judicial system in filing continuous, baseless, and vexatious litigation.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW YORK: Block v. Block, ___ A.D.2d ___, 685 N.Y.S.2d 443 (1999).
Contingency fee cases that the husband had commenced before the parties' divorce action were marital property, but the fees should be divided in proportion to the amount of time expended on the cases during the marriage and after the marriage rather than awarding the wife an arbitrary percentage of the fees.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW YORK: Granade-Bastuck v. Bastuck, ___ A.D.2d ___, 671 N.Y.S.2d 512 (1998).
Given the wife's relatively minimal role in the husband's law career, her distributive share of his practice should be reduced from 40% to 25%.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

OKLAHOMA: Musser v. Musser, 909 P.2d 37 (Okla. 1995).
Pending contingent fee cases are future income rather than marital property for purposes of equitable distribution.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

SOUTH CAROLINA: Calhoun v. Calhoun, ___ S.C. ___, 501 S.E.2d 735 (Ct. App. 1998).
A lawyer who represents himself or herself may not be awarded attorney's fees for the pro se representation.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

TENNESSEE: Quillen v. Quillen, 909 S.W.2d 804 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).
The trial court acted properly when it prohibited the husband/attorney from continuing to represent himself and when it imposed Rule 11 sanctions against him for filing repetitive and frivolous motions.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

VERMONT: Mills v. Mills, ___ Vt. ___, 702 A.2d 79 (1997).
Where the wife worked on a contract basis for other attorneys, her future work as a lawyer had no value subject to equitable distribution.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

WEST VIRGINIA: White v. Williamson, ___ W. Va. ___, 453 S.E.2d 666 (1994).
After classifying the husband's share of a contingent fee, the trial court was required to value the fee and then actually divide it.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

Go to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page


State Home Archives Bulletin Menu Chat Rooms Family Law Links Publications Menu Dictionary


About Us | Monthly Newsletter | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Statement | Contact Us | Advertising

The information contained on this page is not to be considered legal advice. A lawyer should always be consulted in regards to any legal matters. Divorce Source, Inc. is also not a referral service and does not endorse or recommend any third party individuals, companies, and/or services. Divorce Source, Inc. has made no judgment as to the qualifications, expertise or credentials of any participating professionals. Read our Terms & Conditions.

© 1996 - 2012 Divorce Source, Inc. All Rights Reserved.