 |
| Ken Hill |
Similarly in the area of family law, dependent spouses (almost always the wife) used to expect alimony for life upon dissolution of a marriage. In the late ’70s and early ’80s, the prevailing legal theory of spousal support evolved to one of “economic rehabilitation” rather than a “meal ticket for life.” That change can be fairly seen as progressive, but I had a case where, you might agree with me, the new paradigm could have worked an injustice.
My client, Judy, was a pleasant modest lady who had led a traditional life, staying at home and raising the couple’s six children while the husband advanced his career with a major international corporation. He was frequently transferred and Judy and the kids moved many times in his wake, as he climbed the corporate ladder. When she came to me, she and her brood were stranded on a rural property, where the corporate titan had left her — cue drumroll — for a younger woman. He was providing very little support and times were truly tough for his family.
In those days, even more than now, it was challenging for a middle-aged woman with no work experience outside the home to develop a career. We felt it was important to try to get indefinite spousal support. It looked like we were facing an uphill battle, given the new theory of support but also because our judge at trial had recently gone through a divorce of his own. However, the facts were on our side and I thoroughly enjoyed going through his credit card statements when cross-examining our “father of the year” candidate. It seems that while Judy and the kids were stuck in the countryside with no working washing machine or motor vehicle, the titan of industry had been doing a fair bit of golfing and dining at expensive restaurants. I’m happy to report that Judy was awarded support that was not time limited.
Have you ever noticed how clients often choose lawyers that resemble themselves? Judy’s husband initially had counsel from a prominent Toronto firm, but at his girlfriend’s suggestion he switched to a young sole practitioner before trial. The new counsel, Bob, was a very self-assured fellow with an interesting take on the practice of law. In one of our chats during the course of the trial he proudly told me that, in order to effectively limit his exposure to liability for professional negligence, he had arranged to be sued by friends and relatives and allowed them to get judgments against him. His theory was that if anyone with a real claim should ever get a judgment against him, any recovery by the sheriff would mostly be distributed among his non-arm’s length “creditors” Pretty sharp, eh?
He also bridled against what he saw as the over-regulation of the profession here in Canada and soon after our trial, he headed off for the bright lights and big contingency fees of New York City. I thought I had heard the last of him but he called me up a couple of years later. It seems that he had tired of the Big Apple and was applying to be readmitted to the bar in Ontario. He apparently had some black marks on his record here and had the chutzpah to ask me to vouch for his integrity to the law society. I deduced that he must not have had many others to turn to for such an endorsement, but nevertheless, I politely and cheerfully declined.
Ken Hill is happily retired from just about 40 years of litigation practice in Newmarket, Ont.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to The Lawyer’s Daily, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.