April 2024

Over the past month, I have been focusing on more independent decision making for litigation strategies. One of the most difficult aspects of transitioning into an attorney position (as opposed to past positions as paralegals and legal interns) is the decision making about all aspects of the case and determining the best way to advocate for a client. When I first started, I wanted to check every piece of work, whether it was something I wrote or advice I offered to a client, with a supervising attorney. While I still regularly check in with a supervisor, I feel the need to check in less frequently and I can push back against advice from other attorneys if I think a different route would be better. 

As an example, I recently got a default granted in a divorce case because the adverse party stopped showing up to court. When a divorce goes into default, the present party is the only party advocating to the judge for the final judgment on dissolution of marriage. In this case, my supervisor encouraged me to take a more conservative approach and only ask for what we would reasonably expect to get if the divorce had not gone through default. Among other options, this could have looked like imputing a minimum wage full time job against our client in determining maintenance (formerly known as alimony) and splitting any proceeds of the house 50/50. However, based on the abuse that my client had gone through, I wanted to advocate for a stronger resolution in her favor. My reasoning was that in certain stages of litigation, it can make sense to ask for the moon and see what we can get. I recognized that it might be too much to ask for my client to get 100% of the proceeds from the sale of the marital house. But, the benefit of getting a case in default is that we get to have more control over the case. Ultimately, I asked for my client to get 60% of the proceeds from the sale of the house and for the court to accept that she had zero income for the purposes of calculating maintenance. The judge did not push back against these requests and granted them. 

While I recognize that every judge is different, and some judges might be less amenable to these kinds of requests, I was glad that I decided to take a riskier approach to requesting relief. This decision encouraged me to push back against conflicting advice, to make independent decisions, and to think creatively about how I would argue for a less conservative request.

———————

March 2024

So far, my job often consists of a series of hearings that I prepare for, which are then settled at the last minute.

This month, I prepared for a hearing for an order of protection case that I knew I was going to win because all of the factors were in my favor: I had a client who could effectively describe the abuse that she experienced, solid evidence that heavily corroborated her claims for abuse, an adverse party that didn’t know what he was talking about, who was represented by an attorney who sent a substitute for himself on the day of the hearing, and a judge who is notoriously reasonable (supportive, even) when it comes to listening to survivors and recognizing abuse. I had prepared for hearing extensively, both on my own and with the witnesses, and I had every intention of winning the case (in part, because the facts spoke for themselves). However, instead of starting the hearing at 10:30am, as scheduled, we were in the hallway at 10:40am negotiating with opposing counsel.

We ultimately came to an agreement and did not go to hearing that day. Settling this case was the right decision because we still got everything that we wanted and the parties, who had shared children, did not have to go through a hearing that would drive the wedge even further between them. However, I had two main takeaways from this day. First, the more hearings that I prepare for, the better I feel about doing a contested hearing. Thus, even though the preparation process may seem futile by the time of settlement, my time spent preparing is valuable for honing my lawyering skills.

Second, I need to work on my negotiation skills for opposing counsels. Generally, my professional communication style is to keep things straightforward and minimal. However, I am finding that I need to practice my negotiation skills to “sell” my offer to get an agreement. To address this, I signed up for a negotiation workshop that Legal Aid Chicago has access to and scheduled mock negotiations with my supervisor. In the same way that I have had lots of practice interacting with judges through simple court dates, I need to increase my exposure to negotiations.

———————

February 2024

After a series of cases that either had bad facts or a client who was difficult to work with, I was relieved to work on a few cases this past month where the facts were strong and the clients were both helpful and easy to work with. For one case, we had really strong evidence in the form of timestamped screenshots that showed conduct that was clearly abusive and endangering. While I was preparing for the hearing, the client was responsive to all of my queries, prepared well for her testimony, and provided any documentation we requested. However, because of the strong evidence that we had outside of her testimony, preparing for the hearing felt lower stakes because the main task at hand was to get the screenshot entered as an exhibit. I felt more in control while preparing for this case than I have for other cases, in part because it was such a strong case, but also because I felt I had the time and patience to prepare for direct and cross examinations without the pressure that my client’s ability to testify sympathetically would make or break the case. This case was an exceedingly helpful case to practice hearing prep for a new attorney, such as myself. For another case that I worked on this month, we once again had solid facts and did not need to spend copious amounts of time finessing facts and client testimony. While we did not have evidence beyond my client’s testimony, the allegations were so egregious and specific that we were certain the client would be successful in persuading the court. Ultimately, the adverse party never showed up to the court dates, despite receiving personal service, and the court entered a default order. This case was another example of a time when I could let the facts carry the case and instead focus my efforts on procedural issues, such as preparing motions to get a firearms seizure warrant or other complex issues. The first cases that I worked on were not this straightforward in the facts and I have appreciated the relief that “good facts” offer in allowing me to slow down, understand the nuances and procedural issues at hand, and focus on my advocacy, rather than spending hours and hours wrangling clients.

———————

January 2024

This past month, I have focused on incorporating more nuanced understandings of domestic violence and I have been learning how to navigate relationships with opposing counsels.

As part of the domestic violence team requirements with Legal Aid Chicago, I completed a 40-hour domestic violence training. This training covered a broad range of topics, including general dynamics of domestic violence, intersectional issues in domestic violence including disability and racial justice, as well as religion in domestic violence. Many of these training sessions took a sociological approach to understanding the issues and pushed participants to think more critically about domestic violence and the ways that people provided care to survivors. While I have been working in/adjacent to the domestic violence field for several years now, it always feels helpful to get a refresher on different issues affecting survivors and to understand more critically what each survivor is navigating to get the help they need. Not only will this encourage me to be more empathetic and understanding of what my clients are going through, but these trainings also revealed different things to issue-spot for with clients of all different backgrounds.

In addition to focusing training sessions on how to recognize and assess intersectional issues in domestic violence, training sessions also focused on addressing technical issues, including legal remedies, mandatory reporting, and specific counseling resources. These sessions were more relevant to my role as they directly related to the service work that I do.

I have also recently started working more with opposing counsel. There are many moments in family law (and litigation, generally) when it is easy to default to an adversarial relationship with opposing counsel. However, I have found that the most adversarial interactions are often the most unproductive ones. For example, one opposing counsel responded to my questions and requests in an argumentative manner and often subverted my ability to appropriately advocate for my client. As a result, while he may have gotten what he wanted for a specific issue, he demonstrated that both he and his client are not trustworthy and I will severely limit if and how I negotiate with him in the future. Alternatively, with other opposing counsel, both of us were able to clearly and calmly state our positions and then we proceeded with a casual conversation about how to find a middle ground. These types of interactions help clarify what disposition I want to strive for as an attorney.

———————

December 2023

This month, as I have been building up my docket, has felt more and more like a regular attorney job. With each new case that I take on, I am learning to navigate various issues that my clients have, such as procedural tangles and general advice about how clients can best comport themselves to get the outcomes they want in domestic relations cases. As my docket builds up, I am also figuring out how to navigate deadlines and balance priorities in cases to make the best use of my time.

One of the most difficult and seemingly nuanced parts of my job is learning how to set a tone for my clients. As I am learning, litigation sets an inherently contentious tone for parties involved in a case, which is often heightened when the content is emotionally triggering, such as a divorce between parties who have a long history of abuse. In these cases, parties are angry and want justice, and they are often looking for any opportunity to call out the opponent and show that they can and should prevail. However, I am learning that my preferred style is to let the other party say something emotional, and do what I can to keep my client level-headed. While this tactic may seem counterintuitive as a domestic violence lawyer, I want the judge to see that I and my client are less disruptive and easy to work with when viewed in comparison to an argumentative party. Additionally, I want the judge to see that we are not hyper-focused on minor issues, and instead are looking for solutions to the broader issue at hand.

This past month, I have also started doing more intakes with potential clients. This was challenging for many reasons, including learning to distinguish between what is a case that brings to light extreme domestic violence and procedural injustice, and what case is a tenable use of Legal Aid Chicago’s resources. As I tell clients at the beginning of every intake call, because our representation is free, we are not able to take all cases. While many cases can be weeded out, there are some cases where, despite the merits and severity of abuse, we cannot accept. Calling these clients after deciding to reject their case is one of the harder parts of this job. I am learning how to handle these calls professionally and to respond to crying clients, begging me to reconsider. However, I still have work to do in terms of figuring out how to keep the call focused on limited legal advice and understand that the legal aid system is also inherently unjust.

———————

November 2023

I spent most of the past month preparing for my first hearing, which is a trial for an order of protection. This case had many ups and downs and seemed to test many of my lawyering skills over the course of a few weeks.

At the beginning of my time working on this case, my supervisor was skeptical that our evidence and testimony would be strong enough to prevail in court. This skepticism launched me into intense research about the case, focusing on the Illinois Domestic Violence Act and the facts and evidence provided by the client. This process also involved many informal interviews with the client about the incidents in question and interviews with potential witnesses. Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that, despite the doubts, this case was strong and we had a good chance at prevailing.

However, this initial hurdle turned out to be the least of many of my worries. As I continued preparing for this hearing and working with the client, it became clear that this client had many priorities that contrasted with my priorities as her legal counsel. This was difficult to manage because it brought to light many of the issues at the crux of working with survivors of domestic violence: our client experienced severe trauma, and was living with the aftermath of that trauma, but not all of those incidents were things that would help her legal case. In fact, the information that the client wanted to testify about were things that could have hurt her case by risking both her credibility in court and the judge’s patience by sharing extraneous information. Additionally, my client wanted both the order of protection and justice; she did not want to negotiate or settle because she wanted to tell her story in court and win with what she considered to be an overwhelmingly meritorious argument.

This case tested an abundance of lawyering skills. First, I prepared for my first hearing, which involved witness interviews, witness preparation, amending an underlying petition, drafting motions, and preparing a detailed hearing script for the direct and cross examinations of five witnesses that complied with the Illinois Rules of Evidence. I also learned to navigate the procedural issues in this case, towing a delicate line between the judge and an appointed guardian ad litem, and towing an even more precarious line between what the client wanted and how we can address her legal concerns as they pertained to her domestic violence. The case ultimately prevailed through a settlement agreement at a last-minute pre-trial conference, just minutes before the case was set for hearing. However, this settlement did not diminish the backend work, which prepared me to go to hearing .

———————

October 2023

This month I started working with Legal Aid Chicago in their Children and Families Practice Group. Within this practice group, I am focusing on family law for survivors of domestic violence. The first few weeks have focused on internal training, community engagement, and building up my docket of domestic violence cases.

I attended many training sessions to learn about services that Legal Aid Chicago provides across the different practice groups. These training sessions have included general information about how to effectively engage with our clients, including how to navigate language barriers, how to do trauma-informed interviewing, and how to evaluate immigration status and client eligibility.

In addition to getting acquainted with Legal Aid Chicago’s internal practices, I also started community engagement. This community engagement is an important step for understanding the issues faced by my clients and getting to know the community that I am to serve as a domestic violence attorney. I attended a panel that Legal Aid Chicago co-sponsored at Northwestern Law about Counterman, a recent stalking case opined by the Supreme Court, attended a Legal Aid Committee meeting with the Chicago Bar Association, and accompanied my supervisor to the Bridgeview Courthouse to provide legal assistance to survivors of domestic violence at a legal helpdesk. I also accompanied my supervisor to a domestic violence shelter to speak with survivors about their legal questions.

Finally, I started taking domestic violence cases. Thus far, my docket consists of cases involving Orders of Protection for victims of stalking, and divorce cases for clients who had a history of domestic violence and now wish to formally separate from their abusers and obtain an award for their share of marital property. All of these cases are in early stages of gathering information, interviewing parties, and preparing initial court documents.

This first month has been a whirlwind and is laying the groundwork for what is to come.