Lawyers often develop long-term professional relationships with their clients, especially when the attorney is only one of a handful of attorneys in the local area (as is often the case in rural parts of the state). The same attorney a young couple consults for advice during their first home purchase is likely to be the same attorney the couple goes to when looking to start a new business or when they need to establish and amend their estate plan. The trust and feelings of comfort that such a professional relationship engenders are not easily replaced. When the couple determines that their marriage is not salvageable and a divorce is needed, both spouses may run to the same attorney they have known and turned to for years. Not only may this attorney not be the best choice to handle their divorce, but ethical rules governing conflicts of interest may also prevent the attorney from representing either of the spouses during the divorce.

What Is a Conflict of Interest?

Professional rules that govern the conduct of attorneys are clear: an attorney owes an obligation to his or her client to advocate forcefully on their behalf and to remain loyal to that client’s best interests. Even after a lawyer has ceased actively representing a client – for example, the lawyer had drawn up a will years ago at the request of a client and the client made no further requests for service or assistance – the lawyer owes a duty of loyalty to that client. For example, that lawyer may not use information he or she learned about the client during the course of representation (i.e., lists of assets or other financial information discovered during the course of representation) to sue the client or take an adverse action against the client on behalf of a new client. When a lawyer cannot give a present client his or her independent judgment and loyalty because of ethical obligations to previous clients, a conflict of interest exists and the lawyer must excuse him- or herself from representing the new client.

The holiday season can sometimes be an especially stressful for children of divorced parents. Between holiday dinners and get-togethers, completing schoolwork that may be assigned over the winter break, and finding time to spend with friends, it is no wonder that some children may be reluctant to spend a weekend or longer with the nonresidential parent – especially if that parent lives hours away from the child’s home or if the child does not have a good relationship with the nonresidential parent. If your child refuses to spend time with the nonresidential parent when it is that parent’s scheduled parenting time, what options do you have as the residential parent?

Option 1: Negotiate with the Other Parent

You may negotiate with the other parent to alter a parenting time schedule so long as you both agree to the modification and (preferably) you both sign a written document indicating the agreed-upon change. Perhaps in speaking with the other parent he or she would be willing to allow the child to remain with you and rest and visit with the child on another occasion. Do not be surprised, however, if the other parent does not wish to agree to a modification of the parenting time schedule around the holidays, as he or she may have already made plans that are difficult or impossible to undo. Nevertheless, speaking with the other parent may result in a quick and effortless solution.

In certain divorce cases, mediation can be a powerfully effective way for spouses to quickly and inexpensively resolve their differences in a divorce proceeding. Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution in which the divorcing parties sit down face-to-face with a mediator. The mediator is supposed to be a neutral third party who encourages the divorcing parties to dialogue about their differences in an attempt to find a mutually-agreeable resolution. Mediation can be used to resolve disputes concerning:

• Valuation of disputed marital assets;
• Property division and/or division of debt;
• Child custody and parenting time arrangements; and/or
• Other disputed issues.

Despite its cost-saving benefits, mediation comes with its drawbacks as well. The usefulness of a mediation session depends in large part on the mediator him- or herself. This is why it is important to choose your mediator wisely.

What Are Some of the Potential Drawbacks of Mediation with Certain Mediators?

Courtroom dramas on television and in the cinema often have as the climax of their stories the testimony from an experienced witness. This testimony “seals the deal” for one of the parties and makes a judgment in their favor inevitable. Whether it is the ballistics expert from the crime lab or the seasoned psychologist who provides the crucial insight into the killer’s mind, these courtroom shows can leave someone with the impression that the litigant who can present testimony from an expert has a distinct advantage over the other litigant in the courtroom. But is this assumption true?

Experts Help Judges and Juries Understand Specialized Information

It may surprise some people to learn that expert witnesses are not always permitted in every case. In most cases, an expert witness is only permitted to testify where there is some scientific or other complicated evidence that a normal individual with no specialized background or education would understand. The court will ultimately decide whether an expert witness is necessary in a given case.

News outlets from across the country reported on the recent child custody decision in which the judge found a mother to be an abusive and neglectful parent and refused to allow her three children to be returned to her custody. The mother was convicted of child endangerment after she and her ex-boyfriend allegedly carried out a plot in 2003 that resulted in the deaths of the woman's three children that she had at the time. Attorneys for the woman had attempted to argue that the three children taken from the mother in the present case had not been the victims of abuse. The judge, however, did not accept that explanation and found that he did not have to wait for the children to be injured before removing them from her custody.

How Long Will My Past Follow Me in a Child Custody Case?

The problems plaguing the mother are tied to her past, and some Illinois residents fighting for custody of their children or additional parenting time may be able to relate to her situation. Most parents know that in deciding on issues related to child custody, the court looks to what is in the “best interest of the child.” When a parent has been convicted of a criminal act toward a child (not necessarily the parent’s own child) or has had a child seriously injured on his or her watch, it may be difficult to convince a court that awarding him or her more parenting time – or even any parenting time at all – is in the child’s best interest. In some cases, a parent may never be able to escape his or her past but will have it follow him or her around for the entirety of the child’s minority.