Kramer vs. Kramer Revisited: A Comment on the Miller Commission Report and the Obligation of Divorce Lawyers for Parents to Discuss Alternative Dispute Resolution with Their Clients

The 2006 Report of New York State\u27s Matrimonial Commission to Chief Judge Kaye (commonly know as the Miller Commission Report) recommended that New York begin to incorporate alternative dispute resolution into the State\u27s fragmented and adversarial divorce system. This Comment argues that it should have more strongly recommended that divorce lawyers be mandated to discuss alternative dispute resolution, particularly mediation, with parent-clients before filing suit. The Comment begins by describing the advice given to a parent client in the movie Kramer vs. Kramer and argues that that advice constitutes zealous advocacy as famously described by Henry Lord Brougham in Queen Caroline\u27s Case. While the advice given the parent client in Kramer v. Kramer is consistent with current notions of professional responsibility for lawyers, it does not serve the best interests of children in that it did not incorporate advice about the general importance of reducing conflict between parents to the best interests of children or discuss methods for doing so. The Comment contrasts zealous advocacy as portrayed in Kramer v. Kramer with problem solving advocacy as described by Lincoln, Gandhi and the Bounds of Advocacy of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. It argues that empirical research has demonstrated that judicial and legislative mandates that lawyers discuss alternative dispute resolution with clients are in the best interests of children, promote problem solving advocacy, and are generally appreciated by divorcing parent clients. Finally, this Comment briefly explores whether divorce lawyers should have a mandatory ethical responsibility to children of parents, and concludes that for the present, that duty should be aspirational only

War and P.E.A.C.E.: A Preliminary Report and a Model Statute on an Interdisciplinary Educational Program for Divorcing and Separating Parents

This Article is a report on P.E.A.C.E. (Parent Education and Custody Effectiveness), an interdisciplinary attempt to create a parent education program in New York. P.E.A.C.E. is an educational program that provides information to parents on three topics: the legal process for determining custody and child support; the effects of divorce and separation on adults; and the effects of divorce and separation on children, and how parents can help children cope with this difficult transition. P.E.A.C.E. is education-nothing more. It is not mediation or therapy. Parents do not talk to each other directly during P.E.A.C.E. sessions and the program makes no attempt to settle individual disputes. Parents receive the information that P.E.A.C.E. provides and use it as they see fit. They can take it to heart, ignore it completely, or anything in between

Special Issue: Papers Celebrating the 25th Anniversary of The Family Court of Australia

The Family Court of Australia was born in an era of optimism in family law in the Westernized countries and at a time of great change in their political and social life. Traditional views of marriage and divorce and gender roles were in flux, and new institutions were needed to cope with the results. The resulting social upheaval sparked strong passions. The no-fault divorce legislation to which the creation of the Family Court of Australia was tied paqsed the Australian House of Representatives by a small margin on a conscience (nonparty) vote. Though a larger majority created the court itself, the controversy at the time of birth foreshadowed a challenging future for the new institution. Its early history was scarred by horrible violence. Political scrutiny and budgetary battles have resulted in continuous changes and developments in substantive law and judicial administration

The Effects of United States Antitrust Laws on the International Operations of American Firms

United States antitrust laws increasingly have affected the international activities of U.S. corporations. The business community maintains that these laws have hurt international operations. In this article, Messrs. Schwechter and Schepard consider five major areas of concern to American businessmen: potential antitrust attacks upon licensing agreements, use of the foreign sovereign compulsion doctrine as an antitrust defense, subject matter jurisdiction and discovery, application of the rule of reason to international joint ventures, and the multifaceted nature of antitrust enforcement. They then discuss the Justice Department\u27s response to the business community and propose several recommendations that should help United States firms reduce the antitrust uncertainty they face in exporting and other international operations

The Effects of United States Antitrust Laws on the International Operations of American Firms

United States antitrust laws increasingly have affected the international activities of U.S. corporations. The business community maintains that these laws have hurt international operations. In this article, Messrs. Schwechter and Schepard consider five major areas of concern to American businessmen: potential antitrust attacks upon licensing agreements, use of the foreign sovereign compulsion doctrine as an antitrust defense, subject matter jurisdiction and discovery, application of the rule of reason to international joint ventures, and the multifaceted nature of antitrust enforcement. They then discuss the Justice Department\u27s response to the business community and propose several recommendations that should help United States firms reduce the antitrust uncertainty they face in exporting and other international operations

Five Guidelines for Answering Hard Questions at Oral Argument on Motions

Do you know the name of the physician doing a procedure and the assistant? Please email Library Services ([email protected]) if you can answer the mystery.https://scholarlyworks.lvhn.org/lvhn-image-archives/1599/thumbnail.jp

An Introduction to the Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation

The Model Standards redefine the nature of family and divorce mediation practice and result from a Symposium on Standards of Practice convened by the American Bar Association\u27s Family Law and Dispute Resolution Section, AFCC, the ABA\u27s Commission on Domestic Violence and other major family law and family mediation groups. The Symposium developed the Model Standards over a five year period. They were approved by the American Bar Association in February, 2001. I served as reporter for the Model Standards. The article describes the process of drafting the Model Standards and key issues they address. It also contains the text of the Standards

Parental Conflict Prevention Programs and the Unified Family Court: A Public Health Perspective

The thesis of this article is that every unified family court should develop a prevention plan to help parents reduce conflict arising out of divorce and separation. A coherent prevention strategy should become a fundamental criteria for distinguishing high-quality family courts from those that do not serve their publics as well. Models of useful pro-grams already exist and can be incorporated into a court\u27s prevention plan. Judges, legislators, lawyers, mental health professionals, and child advocates should insist that they are. Section Two of this article describes the problems facing courts, parents, and children resulting from divorce and separation in terms of a public health rather than a caseload model. Then, this article details the epidemic-like crisis facing family courts because of increased case-loads and troubled parents and children. The fourth section describes already existing preventive education programs that family courts can draw on and briefly summarizes the available research on their effectiveness. The fifth section describes the comprehensive prevention approach designed by Oregon\u27s interdisciplinary Task Force on Family Law. Finally, this article discusses how a unified family court can incorporate a prevention strategy into its mission

Taking Children Seriously: Promoting Cooperative Custody After Divorce

A divorce-related custody dispute often causes more damage to the affected child than if lawyers and judges had never become involved. Contested custody disputes often drag on for years without resolution, leaving the child trapped between battling parents, adversarial lawyers, and overburdened courts applying uncertain substantive standards through procedures that increase parental conflict and expense. This Article tries to resolve this identity crisis by describing and defending a new model for the custody dispute resolution system-one whose overriding aim is to better serve the needs of the child affected by divorce by promoting cooperation between divorced parents. The Article has four themes