Attorney Christopher A. Pearsall

Many Rhode Island Divorce lawyer wants to help you to the extent they are able.  Yet one of the most difficult things for clients to grasp is the answer to one basic question.  Here's the question.

What constitutes evidence in a Rhode Island Divorce proceeding?

There is very little that is as frustrating to a spouse than to believe you have evidence and then learn that you do not.

This example should help illustrate what I mean.

Carl and Danette have been married for four years and are getting a divorce.  Temporary Orders are issued by the court ordering that

"Neither spouse may not have unrelated persons of the opposite sex overnight while they have possession of the minor child."

The minor child is a 5 year old little boy named Josh who has just started kindergarten.  Carl picks up Josh after kindergarten for his overnight visitation with his son on Monday evening.  Josh is chattering away and is all excited to tell his father about his weekend.  Josh tells his father about running and kicking the ball with mommy, painting faces on balloons, and having a camp out with Bobby.  Carl asks about Bobby and finds out that he is mommy's new friend.  Carl changes his focus and asks about the camp out.  Little Josh wants to tell every detail about how Bobby does magic tricks and stayed with him and mommy in a tent in the backyard to protect them because mommy was afraid of bears that might come out at night and eat them.  Josh said that he told mommy he was scared too and he would feel safer if Bobby was there.  Carl asked Josh what they all did the next morning.  Josh told his daddy that Bobby made them pancakes first thing in the morning with little chocolate chips in them and Josh thought they were the best. 

On Wednesday, Carl calls his lawyer and tells him he has evidence that Danette violated the court's order.  Carl meets with his Rhode Island Divorce lawyer and tells him everything that Josh said about mommy's new friend, Bobby.  Carl's lawyer begins trying to explain Carl that even though he may have information from his son, he does not have evidence.  Carl insists he has evidence .  Carl insists that he is entitled to tell the judge about the "campout" Josh had with his mother and Bobby to prove that she broke the court's order. 

Carl's lawyer explains that the information is hearsay and that since Josh can't be put on the stand to testify it is not admissible as evidence in court and therefore the court will not consider it.  Carl demands that his lawyer file a Motion to adjudge Danette in Contempt.  Carl insists because he is certain from speaking with his son that Danette has violated the Order.  Since Carl's lawyer could question Dannette about Bobby and discover based upon the information Carl has that Danette violated the court's order, Carl's lawyer does as his client demands him and files a Motion to Adjudge Danette in Contempt, believing that there is a basis that a violation is occurring and that this has the potential to endanger the child in violation of the court's order.

To make a long story short, the hearing is had three (3) weeks later.  Carl takes the stand and begins to talk about what Josh told him.  Danette's lawyer objects to the testimony as unreliable as hearsay and requests that Carl's brief testimony before even mentioning Bobby be stricken from the record.  The lawyer's objection is sustained and  Carl's testimony is stricken from the record.  Without any direct personal knowledge of the events of the campout, Carl is unable to testify further and steps down from the witness stand.  Carl asks if Josh can speak with the judge and tell the judge what happened.  Carl's lawyer instructs him that the court will not consider the statements of a 5 year old as evidence in a divorce proceeding and that he is not of sufficient age and maturity to appreciate the oath and the nature and significance of not only telling the truth but telling exactly what occurred rather than what Josh remembers at this time.  Carl's lawyer explains that even trying to call Josh as a witness is likely to upset the judge because Carl would rather risk traumatizing his child in order to prove that his wife violated an order.  Carl is frustarted but tells his lawyer to press forward and question Danette.  Carl's lawyer explains that if Carl has been wrong about this allegation and the court finds that the motion was premature, that Carl could be ordered to pay Danette's lawyer's fees for defending the motion.

Carl is adamant that he wants to go forward with the motion.  Carl's lawyer calls Danette to the stand  and asks her about  any events on that particular weekend with Josh.  Danette admits they had a campout but denies that the court's order was violated.  Danette admits that Bobby is a new friend of hers, that a "camp out" occurred in her backyard and was planned for Josh's enjoyment.  Danette admits that she is not related to Bobby and upon further questioning admits that Bobby spent the entire night of the campout. 

Carl seems satisfied that his lawyer has proven that Danette has violated the order.  He crosses his arms andcan't wait to hear the court's punishment.  Carl is unmoved and unconcerned about any questions that Danette's lawyer may have and he was sure that Josh's statements had come out just as clearly by his lawyer's questioning even if he would have rather told Josh's story himself.  Danette's attorney and asks a single question.

"Who is Bobby?"

Danette's answer is brief.

"She's a girlfriend I met at a divorce encounter group.  I had a bad session and she thought up this overnight thing to help me through this without Josh knowing.  Josh had fun.

Danette's lawyer rested her case.  Carl's lawyer did not ask any questions.  The judge denied the Motion for Contempt, found that it was baseless and ordered Carl to pay Danette's lawyer's fees for having to defend a frivolous motion that was filed prematurely without even knowing or confirming that Bobby was not even "of the opposite sex."

The point of this particular article is that you need to trust that your Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer knows what he or she is doing and that when you are told by your lawyer that you have "information" but not "evidence".   That your lawyer knows the difference and can explain it to you.  Typically "information" can be verbal or somekind of recorded material that is helpful but would not be admissible under the Rules of Evidence effective for the Rhode Island Family Court.  Evidence consists of verbal statements, documents, recordings or other things that comply with the Rules of Evidence effective for the Rhode Island Family Court and are admissible in a family court proceeding such that they may be considered by the judge in making a decision on the motion, case or controversy presented to the court.

When taking time to speak with your Rhode Island divorce lawyer about your  case or any motions that may be pending and require the production of evidence to be considered by the court, the client should always consider . . . is what I have to provide to my attorney on my behalf truly evidence or is it merely information that might lead to evidence if you or your lawyer look a little harder or do some investigation.

Knowledge is the key to a good case position both for you and your divorce lawyer.   

It's no secret that Rhode Island divorce lawyers and lawyers in general have a poor reputation with the public.  Strangely I was surprised by a very unique telephone call the other day.  The call was from a person in the midst of a divorce and his concerns seem to puzzle me even as I write this article.

I had been planning to go to what I refer to as a "Virtual Office" concept in about 8 months with my law practice which is dedicated almost exclusively to Rhode Island divorce and family law issues. 

However, as gas prices rose to new heights and Rhode Island was declared to be in an official recession it became imperative that I accelerate my plans and convert my divorce practice to a "Virtual Office" concept this month rather than waiting for my full transition to occur on the gradual basis I had planned.

I reached my decision after reviewing the needs of the Rhode Island community as a whole and balancing various financial factors relating to practice costs and expenses as against and weighing it with the and the significant adjustments I would have to make to implement this new and beneficial concept for my clients.

This Virtual Office concept is bound to raise some questions by those who have not embraced technology as a means to save them time and money.  I expected that.  After all, it is concept I have been developing for the past three (3) years by listening to other attorneys, attending seminars and researching the benefits to my clients of harnessing technology driven business solutions.  To my knowledge I am the only Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer who has taken the concept to this degree.

Though complete transposition of my Rhode Island divorce practice will still not be fully effective for another six to eight months, the benefits both for me and for my clients are more immediate and nothing short of staggering.

Yet in the same instance a call I received from a prospective client recently gave me a glimpse of the concerns clients will have despite the benefits clients receive some of which are virtually unbelievable (no pun intended) as compared to the traditional practitioners who cling tightly to typewriters, secretaries, paper files and computerless office structures!

I received a call from a gentleman who was in the midst of a divorce but was questioning whether he chose the right attorney.  This by itself is not surprising, it happens frequently especially when retainer funds appear to last a short period of time in comparison to the client's expectations.

In this case the gentleman was being charged $200 per hour which is roughly the going rate for an attorney experienced in the practice of law and particularly in the practice of divorce law.  However, this gentleman expressed that he was six (6) to eight weeks into his case and he believed that roughly $4,000 or sot had been expended on his case.  The gentleman stated that numerous petty issues had come up and his attorney was trying to deal with them through letters and phone calls but that his attorney seemed to be stonewalled (for lack of a better term) by the opposing counsel. 

The crux of this man's call was whether this was common, whether he was getting reasonably accurate advice and whether he should get another lawyer.  I explained to him that it was not necessarily common that various minor issues would become so costly early on in the case but that it could happen.  We discussed the advice that he was given, matters which are confidential and therefore will not be mentioned here, and whether he should retain another attorney because of the cost.  I explained to the gentleman that I understood his frustration and was unfamiliar with the lawyer he had chosen but that at $200 per hour it only took 5 hours of the attorney's time to go through $1,000 of his retainer and that 20 hours spent on a divorce case was not unreasonable at the going rate for experienced attorneys.

Then the man asked me what I do and what makes me different.  This was the first time a prospective client had actually asked me about my Virtual Office concept and what it entailed.  Needless to say, though I was excited about explaining my office concept the client was skeptical because the rate the client was paying would be substantially lower than what he was currently being charged. 

The explanation went something like this.  For the sake of discussion let's assume the man's name is Jared.

What I've done here Jared is nothing short of eliminating my overhead and then harnessing technology to do the work for me.  I have no secretary so my client's don't have to pay for one.  I work out of a home office where I have everything I need.  You get telephone access just like any other traditional attorney.  I have a dedicated fax line just like any other attorney.  I have email that is checked 5 to 10 times per day if not more and clients can get
hold of me.  I have high speed broadband internet access for legal research, email and soon  dedicated website tools will allow my clients so receive documents on their case literally within hours and sometimes even minutes after I receive them by mail or when I send documents to the court.  This eliminates 90% of postage costs, envelopes, toner and even paper supplies.  Clients can interact with me on the telephone and it doesn't cost them any more on an hourly basis because I absorb the costs, even if they are long distance.

Several months from now, if people don't know how to use these services, I intend to have live streaming tutorials that can take them through it step by step.  My clients can see me interact regarding their case if I send them a video message or see my picture on one of my websites while talking to me.

Jared was concerned.  He felt his matter deserved a more personal approach and he wanted to be able to come to an office and meet with his attorney.  I explained that I was in the process of finalizing arrangements with a local colleage to utilize a spare room for those clients who wanted a traditional sit down meeting and that was certainly possible because I realized that for some clients this might be too much of a shift.

Jared expressed that he wasn't really comfortable with the whole Virtual Office concept because he didn't see his attorney as a real attorney with an office and a sign on the door.  In the end Jared said, it sounds too good to be true and if it sounds that way, it usually is.  I continued to explain.

Jared, my concept isn't for everyone.  I'm an innovator and though I could take this innovation and keep my rates the same, I've chosen not to do that.  It doesn't help people if I do that.  All it would do is put money in my pocket.  Don't get me wrong.  We could all used a little more money.  Yet people are hurting right now.  They are hurting for money and if they are going to go through a divorce they are hurting both financially and emotionally.  I know plenty of attorneys who have told me I'll fail at this.  Why?  Here I am
using the best of technology, cutting my rates to such an extent that you tell me it looks too good to be true.  Well, people can't have it both ways.  You can hire an experienced lawyer with tons of overhead expenses and pay $200, $300 or even $350 an hour and all you are doing is paying the attorneys' expenses and putting extra money in his or her pocket to support a fancier lifestyle with a BMW or a Mercedes, OR you can hire a new breed of attorney, one who is not only experienced, but who has taken technology to its very limits and give you a rate and payment blocks that the other traditional lawyers laugh about.

I've been through a divorce.  I know what the rates are.  I know the players and I'm an innovator.  I've done this for my present clients and my future clients and if the truth be told, I've been doing most of it for the past year but still paying all the expenses for a physical office with extra amenities so client's feel comfortable.  In the end, clients are more secure with me than they are going into the nice office I just shut down.  Why, because they pay for me and my experience.  They don't get nickel and dimed for every little thing.  They know from day one what to expect and I don't let them down.

I'm a Rhode Island attorney, yet I've had clients in and from Texas, Florida, Costa Rica, Virginia, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Indiana, Massachusetts, California, Maine, the Dominican Republic, Virginia and more.  They reach out to me because harnessing the power of technology works great for them.  So why not Rhode Islanders?  Why not save $12 on the gas it costs you to drive to a physical office in Cranston or elsewhere in the state when you don't have to.  My Virtual Office concept puts money back in your pocket, not mine.  I cut my rates.  I cut my expenses.  I cut my  lifestyle.  Why?  Because people deserve affordable and experienced divorce lawyers.

I'm giving back to the community not because I have to, but because I've been there and I want to.  Divorce is hard enough, you don't need to go broke on attorneys too.

Jared, I want you to take a day and think about whether you want a new attorney or not and whether you feel comfortable with me and what we've discussed today.  I'm not a sales person and I don't beg for anyone's business.  If you want to hire me, great!  I'm in your corner.  If you want to remain with your current attorney then I wish you my very best and I hope you get through this and end up with a great life ahead of you.

Jared thanked me, said "It still sounds too good to be true.", and said he would consider it.

My only question (though long and drawn out) is this? 

Does what I offer sound too good to be true because attorneys are expected to charge huge rates and ask for large retainers, OR do people really think its  worth paying their attorney an extra $100, $200 or even $250 per hour not for their legal expertise but rather for their attorney to pay for the upkeep on a fancy office, a top notch secretary, an office manager, a water cooler, their utilities, legal research services, a billing coordinator, a paralegal, an accountant, an IT Specialist to keep their computers running, and a person to maintain their landscaping outside the building?