Inside the Courtroom: Navigating High-Stakes Family Law with Michael Rousseau (Ep. 48)

Michael Rousseau 1

[00:00:00] Justin: So we’re back to you within your best interest today. I’ve got Mr. Michael Russo. I call him the trial room courtroom legend. Uh, and I know that’s probably a little bit overkill for you, Mikey, but, uh, fantastic attorney. And we wanted to really highlight the role of, uh, basically a senior attorney and how you fit, uh, into the firm and how we fit as, and how we have a cohesive unit to tackle a case.

[00:00:24] Justin: So we’ll just dive right in. Um, so welcome Michael. Uh, can you kind of tell me basically, uh, how you got your start, your early beginnings in law? What, what drove you there, uh, and what made you kind of choose family law and kind of give the, give the listeners your history a little bit of that? Uh, well, thanks

[00:00:43] Michael: for having me, uh, Justin.

[00:00:44] Michael: But, um, I, I guess I always kind of knew I wanted to get into law, uh, preferably in the litigation side, uh, ever since I don’t high school even. And, um, you know, I went to SMU finished there. Uh, what’d you study in college? Uh, [00:01:00] business. Okay. I went to University of Georgia and got my, uh, business degree from Terry College of Business.

[00:01:05] Michael: Um, I’m originally from Austin. Went out to college there, uh, came back up here in North Texas. I. Um, with the, after I finished law school, I wanted to, uh, clerk for a judge. Uh, it’s generally, at least in law school, they tell you it’s a good idea to go do that. Um, if you can’t, what were you, is that like your first summer or what?

[00:01:21] Michael: Uh, it was right after I graduated, uh, for the three L Um, actually during law school, I, uh, clerked at a real estate law firm and did some real estate litigation work there. I mean, as an, as an intern, you, it’s not much. And then one summer I also worked for Bank of America and their legal department. Uh. I thought I was gonna go into commercial or business law at that point.

[00:01:42] Michael: Went to the clerkship, uh, out in the US Virgin Islands. It’s part of the third circuit. I know it’s, oh dude, how was that? Uh, a lot of fun. Different, um, different legal field out there, but it’s also very litigious out there. So I was in the courtroom a lot and that’s when I realized that when I come back, I’m gonna wanna do [00:02:00] litigation.

[00:02:00] Michael: I actually joined a litigation, uh, firm on St. Thomas, uh, and then in 2017. Um, so when you say litigation, just kind of dumb that down. So what, what does that entail when you were doing litigation in St. Thomas? Basically in law school, they break it down. You can either go down the transactional route or the litigation route.

[00:02:19] Michael: Uh, I just was just more keen in, honed in on doing the litigation route, which is the court essentially in layman terms, the courtroom, uh, lawsuits, people suing each other over my rate of issues. It could be anything. Uh, whereas, you know, transactional is more, uh, you know, that real estate law m and a, uh, corporate business law where you’re dealing more with, uh, contracts.

[00:02:40] Michael: Not to say there isn’t a lot of, you have to understand contract, contract law in litigation, but I knew I wanted to be in a courtroom. So when I moved back here in 2017 after the Hurricane Irma out there, um. I decided to come back and join the firm in Dallas. Uh, they do everything from insurance, defense, commercial [00:03:00] litigation, and I started in civil litigation.

[00:03:01] Justin: Was there like a big difference, and I didn’t mean to interrupt, but was there a big difference between the court style and the Virgin Islands versus this style here? Uh,

[00:03:12] Michael: in, I would say out there is more, uh, akin. It’s more akin to family law in the states. Okay. Uh, it’s so, it’s a little wild west. Yes. At times.

[00:03:24] Michael: Yes. Very much so. And I, that’s what I liked. I thought it was more interesting. I, when I went to a firm and just was doing more civil litigation work and then some construction litigation, um, I, you, you rarely get in the courtroom. You do a little bit for certain kind of motions, but it’s not what you’re gonna have to do in family law.

[00:03:43] Michael: And thankfully that firm I was at, it was a larger firm, but they did have a small. Section dedicated to family law and I just asked, I want to get more cases in that area to try it out. Um, a lot of people sometimes veer away from family law and, uh, law school because it is emotionally [00:04:00] taxing mm-hmm. On attorneys and clients.

[00:04:02] Michael: Um, the most similar one might be criminal law. Uh, some people say, but once I started doing that, I just immediately knew that’s what I wanted to do.

[00:04:10] Justin: Yeah. I was gonna ask you like, you know, going from. The, I guess the esteemed court, uh, clerkships to the big transactional stuff that you’ve done to, um, also the construction litigation.

[00:04:25] Justin: Um, you know, you pivoted to what I think encaps or captures a lot of, uh, uh, the same litigation strategies. Did you, did you, were you able to pull some of your litigation strategies from, uh, other areas, real estate business? Pull that in.

[00:04:41] Michael: Yeah, absolutely. And I, I think it’s really important, um, from just a procedural standpoint because the, the one thing you learn a lot in just regular civil litigation, uh, is procedure, uh, which is really important in Texas, of, of courts, essentially, uh, in any court really, and sometimes [00:05:00] family law, if you, I think sometimes when you jump right into it.

[00:05:03] Michael: Um, it just so it’s so fast. It has a different operative style and, uh, a lot of attorneys don’t have the, that base experience about procedure and certain kind of, um, motions you can file for, uh, you know, summary judgment or other, other kind of motions that do apply in family law that aren’t often utilized, that are very common in.

[00:05:23] Michael: Uh, civil courts and civil litigation cases. So I think having that experience at first has really helped, uh, me understand the, the process from a litigation standpoint of family law.

[00:05:32] Justin: Yeah. Like using the rules of evidence. I mean, I think some people think that, you know, doctors will be brain surgeons and heart surgeons, but they think lawyers should be able to kind of do it all.

[00:05:42] Justin: Yes. Yeah. And that’s not, it’s not true. We might know some procedural aspects of it and, and we can carry that forward, but what’s your thoughts on like. I guess being overly broad or, or having multiple where you say I’m the personal injury lawyer, the criminal lawyer, the family lawyer, having the jack of all [00:06:00] trades, do you really see the ability to keep up or stay abreast of what, abreast of what you need to, uh, know, um, in family law specifically, especially with the personalities that we we’re dealing with?

[00:06:11] Justin: Well, yeah,

[00:06:11] Michael: certainly. I think especially in in family law. You know, it’s, people are like, oh, it’s just, you know, dealing with a divorce. But it, I mean, it’s so much more complex than that because divorces are not one divorce. I mean, there’s similarities between cases, but all of ’em are entirely different.

[00:06:26] Michael: People have different kind of assets, different estates, different issues. I. And being part, uh, or at least being involved in, uh, civil litigation and understanding business law, you’re gonna have to deal, I mean, family law, you’re going to potentially deal with all of those issues. Um, and it’s good to have a, you know, foundational background in understanding, uh, how businesses work, uh, how, um, you know, a p and l works, how balance sheets work, how valuations work, and, uh, how businesses work.

[00:06:52] Michael: Um, because you’re gonna face that in family law and if you’re gonna be successful in it, you’re gonna have to have a, a good understanding of how that works. So having a. [00:07:00] General background in litigation and business, I think has been very helpful in carrying that over into family law to understand clients’ specific needs.

[00:07:07] Justin: Yeah, we, you know, we, you and I were in trial a couple weeks ago on, on the NFL case and. Um, I’ll get into that in just a minute. Um, ’cause I know people like to hear the actual, what do I do here and what do you do here, um, in the courtroom. But from a preparation standpoint, you know a lot of, we’ve talked a lot about most of our cases get resolved in mediation.

[00:07:28] Justin: That doesn’t mean we don’t have. Temporary orders and agreements and we’re doing kind of mini trials. Can you explain what your approach is or how you prepare from basically the time the client walks in the door, uh, through that first like three weeks where it’s like rapid fire in a temporary orders phase?

[00:07:47] Justin: Yeah. What your approach

[00:07:48] Michael: is. Yeah. And that’s a, uh, something unique to family law, uh, temporary orders, hearings. You don’t have those in civil court. They have temporary injunction hearings and. Uh, similar basis on it, uh, you know, to get [00:08:00] certain orders in place that, you know, just so there is something for the parties to adhere to during litigation.

[00:08:05] Michael: But with family law, uh, you know, you have to treat a temporary orders hearing, uh, as if it is a trial. And, uh, you know, you want to be cost or cost conscious with clients and what’s gonna cost. But like you said, most cases do settle in mediation. Uh, and that’s in all areas of law, including criminal law, uh, I wanna say.

[00:08:23] Michael: So probably at least 90% do that. But you have to prepare as if you are going to trial, and that starts in the beginning.

[00:08:29] Justin: Yeah. That’s a great, that’s a great pivot point on the budgeting side. So you, you dealt with some very big contractual and commercial litigation cases, uh, in the construction arena, and y’all had temporary injunction hearings, which.

[00:08:42] Justin: Uh, to the layman, that’s our temporary orders hearing or temporary restraining order hearing, which happens very quickly. So tell tell our listeners kind of the cost difference between how we budget a temporary restraining order hearing. Just do a comparison for ’em. Like how much would somebody spend on a [00:09:00] temporary injunction hearing on a bigger case?

[00:09:01] Michael: Well, yeah, and what all is involved? I mean, it, it just, it generally depends. I mean, you know, a temporally, temporary injunction hearing after you file a TRO when you start, which we do a lot in family law as well about, we want these immediate orders in place. Uh, most counties in the area, uh, in north Texas and generally throughout Texas, have standing orders, which are basically temporary injunctions that go into effect once you file, uh, and are binding on the party that filed.

[00:09:27] Michael: Mm-hmm. And they’re binding upon, uh, the party served with them once they’re per personally served or, um. Accept service and waive issuance of that. But a temporary order hearing and family law, generally you’re trying to, if it’s a divorce case, you’re trying to have temporary orders in place affecting not only property and debts and use and who’s paying what and who’s gonna be staying where, and using what during the litigation, but also all the custody related issues as well.

[00:09:53] Michael: So we, you know, family call like a mini trial because you’re effectively having your first trial in a condensed. [00:10:00] Amount of time, uh, covering a my rate of issues and trying to get all that into place to set you up for your, you know, your success during litigation. Whereas in civil law, it might just be one particular issue or a couple of issues.

[00:10:13] Michael: I. Um, to cover, just to keep some status quo. Um, and those hearings, I think are less intensive or all encompassing. Yeah. So family laws, you mean? I

[00:10:22] Justin: kind of laugh and cringe at the same time when I hear things like, well, it’s family law, it’s simple. Mm-hmm. Like, this is no big deal. But you’ve dealt with, you know, and this is not just touting family lawyers back or patting us on the back, but you’ve dealt with complex commercial litigation issues where they spend, I’m assuming hundreds of thousands of dollars on the temporary injunction phase.

[00:10:42] Justin: Is that accurate? Yeah, they

[00:10:43] Michael: can, depending on how big of an issue it is, and you know, what they’re trying to achieve within that period of time. But it certainly could be extremely expensive.

[00:10:52] Justin: Uh, and you get like five to seven grand to play with in the. Um, if you’re lucky in certain circumstances on the temporary [00:11:00] orders phase, uh, which you just said was sometimes way more encompassing as far as the evidence, can you kind of walk through why it’s, why there’s so much more and how you have to condense it so quickly in a family law case?

[00:11:13] Justin: Well, because

[00:11:15] Michael: you’re trying to, within generally a two to call it three week period. If you’re trying to gather someone’s life story essentially, or their marriage story, um, and condense big picture items, uh, into essentially a 30 minute. Presentation of your evidence. And I know that’s a, a really difficult for, I mean, I understand why that’s so difficult when people, uh, clients come in and they want to explain their entire story and the life and, and you’ve really gotta work on condensing and say, look, depending on which county we’re in, we might have 20 minutes aside, and you want to cover a massive amount of issues and talk about individual credit card statements and whatnot.

[00:11:55] Michael: But you really have to give a really good summary that’s powerful to the [00:12:00] judge, to, you know, lock in on your position right there. And it’s, I mean, it’s difficult. And then you get, people are trying to gather documents and everything related to their kids, to their finances, to anything, and trying to get you all that information, us, analyze that information, figure out how we’re gonna present that information, how we’re going to counteract or defend against any allegations our way or against us.

[00:12:24] Michael: And try to get that, how are we gonna present all of this within the 20 to 30 minutes?

[00:12:28] Justin: Yeah. So I get that question a lot, uh, from clients. Like, what do you mean I have 20 or 30 minutes or an hour on a temporary orders hearing? So that shouldn’t be that challenging if you only have that much time. But what are your, what’s your take on that?

[00:12:41] Justin: Like if you get, you know, a lifetime worth of stuff and you’ve got significant property and you’ve got real child custody issues and you’ve got to condense that down. How, how do you, how do you pick or how do you advise the clients what pieces of evidence that you need? Well, you, you

[00:12:58] Michael: have to understand, you [00:13:00] know, break it down with, with your client, uh, you know, what is the most important things to you, what are the three things that within the next couple weeks are gonna be the most important things to you.

[00:13:10] Michael: We’ll get to everything else. We’ll figure out any issues might arise right after this, all the way up to trial. I can’t anticipate that. Um. You really need to focus in and say big picture. What are the most important things you need to present? Because, you know, 20, 30 minutes can, depending on how, you know, witnesses are answering questions or trying to get evidence, uh, or documents into evidence, uh, it goes a lot faster than people might, uh, expect.

[00:13:38] Michael: And the reason the courts put these limits on these hearings is because I, you know, to the individual and to, you know, our firm, this is the most important case on the docket it cover, you know, expansive. More important, obviously, than anything else going on. And I understand why people would believe that it’s their life.

[00:13:53] Michael: It’s, it’s the most more thing to them. Sure. But these courts, I mean, they’re backed up. Um, there’s so many other people that have similar or [00:14:00] worse issues and they’re just trying to get this through. So you really gotta be able to grab the court’s attention and. They’re people too. They’re busy. They’re maybe some of the judges aren’t fully paying attention the whole time ’cause they’re working on other cases while they’re listening to yours.

[00:14:15] Michael: So you gotta really focus on high, high, you know, I guess. Macro issues in your life that are gonna just resonate with the court. And that’s why having a law firm and a lawyer present the case. Uh, we understand what the judges want to hear, what they’re looking for, and we can guide clients to this kind of judge is gonna be more interested in these issues.

[00:14:36] Michael: So if this is important to you, this is how we should present it.

[00:14:38] Justin: Yeah. So on that note, like I, I talk a lot about never speculate, don’t conclude. And you know, a lot of people come in and say, well, they so-and-so’s crazy, or so-and-so’s wasting all these assets and wasting all this money. And you know, we kind of say don’t speculate and don’t conclude, and we need the actual evidence mm-hmm.

[00:14:57] Justin: Mm-hmm. Um, to be supported in a case, but [00:15:00] we gotta do it in a really short time span on these temporary orders. You and I were in trial. Uh, was it two weeks ago in Collin County? And it kind of feels like Bobby Fisher, where they’re hitting the, the stop clock for, for each side. Yes. And we were presenting multiple experts, um, big property, big uh, child custody issues, and, and even then it was a trial where they limited our amount of time on a final trial.

[00:15:26] Justin: So can you kind of explain, um. How you are. You know, one of the things I tell the clients, this is a super long question, but one of the things I tell clients about you that I, that I really admire, and one of the things I, I really strategically pair you up with is gonna be the complex litigation where you’re gonna be in a courtroom.

[00:15:44] Justin: Most likely there are, there are very differing issues. So how do you balance. The caseload. Whenever, um, I assign you a case, how do you balance when a client’s calling you and asking you about things that are ire, what [00:16:00] you consider irrelevant, but also trying to make them or make them see that you do care?

[00:16:05] Justin: Like, how do you, how do you, how do you do that on a day to day? Well, I think,

[00:16:10] Michael: I try. You can’t tell someone. Um, ’cause it’s not irrelevant. I mean, a lot of what they might be saying, it’s irrelevant in the context of what we’re trying to achieve or for purposes of an actual trial. Uh, but it’s not irrelevant to how they feel about the situation.

[00:16:25] Michael: It’s not irrelevant to the important facts. It’s, you know, their understanding of their life and what they’ve, you know, heard someone say or there’s speculations and you really have to, I think, to connect with the clients and make them know you, you know, you understand we care and I do. And it. I, you know, I just don’t try to be dis I’m, I’m not trying to be dismissive when I’m, you know.

[00:16:47] Michael: Talking about personal issues that they might be having with the case or their speculations, or their concerns or their speculative concerns, and just let them know, you know, that, you know, if you’re having personal issues, you know, a [00:17:00] therapist is the best way to deal with that. Or speaking to someone else that’s a professional and how to, you know, come to grips with your own.

[00:17:06] Michael: Uh, issues and, uh, really just trying to keep clients on track of what is really important here from a legal perspective and what we need to do to achieve what they, what they want out of it. So I think really to answer your question, you, you want to be able to be understanding what the client, but also let them know we need to focus in on these specific issues if you want to have a chance at a favorable outcome.

[00:17:33] Justin: Yeah. And you know, we get the, the thought a lot, well, if I, I need a man or a woman or so-and-so’s not listening to me as much. So how, how do you feel like our team is, um, I guess designed or gathers around, um, what I would consider the more highly emotional cases where, you know, you are able to be free up to be able to go into a courtroom?

[00:17:57] Justin: How, how do you see. You know, for [00:18:00] example, Tiffany, our paralegal, uh, interact with the clients and, and how does that help you able to free up, I guess, and, and how do you balance the client’s emotions in that process?

[00:18:10] Michael: Well, I think it’s one of the benefits of our firm is that we have multiple attorneys and paralegals that have different backgrounds and different personalities, uh, different communication styles, and we’re very good if, if someone.

[00:18:26] Michael: You said highly emotional needs or, you know, has a, a specific, like a, a mother with young children, I mean, obviously I’m not a mother. Um, I can, um, sympathize with their situations, but I, you know, I, I obviously don’t have that, the personal, um, relatability to what exactly they’re going through. And like you said, with Tiffany, we, we have multiple attorneys that are firm, that are, are mothers.

[00:18:49] Michael: Um, we have paralegals that can be in that position. We have attorneys that are fathers. And we’re an interactive law firm. I mean, we, I understand we assign cases to specific attorneys, [00:19:00] but we have, we’ve done it before. We have other attorneys step in to help on specific issues or to talk to clients about how they’re feeling, about what they’re.

[00:19:08] Michael: Feeling at that time. And, uh, we work as a team in that regard so we can cover all of it.

[00:19:13] Justin: Yeah, I mean, I, I, I think that’s the big misconception out there. I had a, I had a client call yesterday. You know, we have people, every business has staff turnover. They have, you know, people that have babies, they get sick, they’re traveling.

[00:19:25] Justin: Um, you know, I, I think that there’s a big misconception in family law, uh, and probably other areas of business that, like the person that was assigned my case, if anybody else touches it, they don’t understand. Mm-hmm. Uh, what’s going on in the case. So can you kind of give some insight about how we deal with and what our processes are to be able to pick up and go on a day to day?

[00:19:50] Justin: Because we have things that derail all of us as attorneys. Um, and we have staff turnover. We have, uh, things that exist. And how do, how have you [00:20:00] seen us deal with that situation at the Semore Law Firm? Uh, the number one

[00:20:06] Michael: goal is to understand the client’s case. And I think the best way to do that is through org, um, organization.

[00:20:14] Michael: Mm-hmm. And we’re a very organized law firm. Uh, if. The, we track the cases, we keep notes, we have pleading binders. Uh, we have it on our, our server system. We have all the, anyone has access within our firm, other by anyone, I mean other lawyers access to file. So if we need someone to step in to help with this, um, the cases already been organized.

[00:20:35] Michael: There’s notes on our, uh, portal. Uh, they can jump in really quickly and understand the case. And additionally, you. All of our lawyers are constantly bouncing ideas off of, uh, each other for their own cases. So even though Ashley and Tanner you might have a case that I’ve been working on for the most, most of them, I have a general understanding of where, what’s going on in that case, just from our, uh, collaboration

[00:20:59] Justin: and, [00:21:00] and also like I talk a lot, I probably beat clients up with the, the whole concept of timelines, uh, using our billing to update the client, um, and inventories, you know, ’cause.

[00:21:12] Justin: I, I’m assuming we’re all the same in that we get some, some clients that just want to pepper us with a bunch of text messages and emails and it’s just they don’t really know where they’re going. So, um, can you explain why getting the clients at the very beginning in chronological thought order and getting that timeline is helpful?

[00:21:31] Justin: Not only because of organizing their train of thought when they’re testifying in a courtroom, but also because of that need for. Having a bunch of hands and a bunch of hands on deck and eyes on the ball.

[00:21:43] Michael: Yeah. And we really hone in on it. I mean, cor the chronological timeline and is, is so important and it’s crucial to understanding the case.

[00:21:53] Michael: And, and it also helps the attorneys, um, understand it from that perspective, that under where we need to go to present [00:22:00] the case to a court. And I think if really explaining that to clients and having them, and I understand they’re coming in, could be highly emotional. They’re lost, they’re scatterbrained.

[00:22:08] Michael: I mean, I, I get that. It’s obvi. I mean, who wouldn’t be? And

[00:22:10] Justin: it’s stressful. It’s stressful. You’re in a freaking

[00:22:12] Michael: courtroom. It’s weird. And not yet, and not only that, I mean that they’re trying to deal with all of this and then manage their day-to-day life as well. Right. Their job kids. I mean, nothing. Just because you’re going through a divorce doesn’t mean your life stops.

[00:22:24] Michael: So I, I understand why. It can just be, you feel completely overwhelmed, but you, I think to really explain to clients that. You know, to do their homework and it’s gonna be rough. It’s going to be time consuming. It’s gonna for on their end. But the more they can give us the, uh, an organizational, um, structure of their timeline, uh, their documents, the background, the easier it is for us to collaborate within the firm.

[00:22:49] Michael: It’s easier, it’s gonna be more efficient for us to, um, figure out how to present their case to a court. And they have to understand that. Look at it from not only our [00:23:00] perspective, but of course perspective. Mm-hmm. Um, if they’re disorganized in presiding, the information, our presentation is gonna, in effect be maybe somewhat disorganized as well.

[00:23:11] Michael: And then the judge isn’t gonna understand the case, uh, the way we want them to understand it. And sometimes when people, it’s their life, they’re like, well, I get it. Why? Why can someone else not get it? Yeah. Um, you have to understand, we have, you know, it’s not just, this isn’t my only client, my only work, I’m wor working on a.

[00:23:26] Michael: You know, 50, 60 cases at times. Um, and having an organization, having the client put the work in in the beginning to really organize their case is gonna be, uh, extremely helpful in their outcome in the long run and for us to present it to a court.

[00:23:40] Justin: Yeah, I think it’s hard too because, you know, if, if a client doesn’t get in the habit of.

[00:23:46] Justin: Organizing their thoughts and also the exhibits and getting, making sure those are in admissible form. There’s a lot of interruptions. Like our trial a couple weeks ago, I mean, we had, what, what did they give us? Like four hours or, and we ended up doing it [00:24:00] for a couple days. Yeah. Well,

[00:24:00] Michael: we had, we had two and a half hours aside for a case with multiple young children, a complex estate, complex fact patterns.

[00:24:07] Justin: Now was that our choice, by the way? No.

[00:24:09] Michael: No. And the thing is, if you go and you make a jury demand and you, uh, you have a. Pre, you know, a, a status hearing or a pretrial conference when you’re telling the judge, and both attorneys said, we’re gonna need four or five days on this. You might get it, the court might find some time, but the problem is they’re gonna push you.

[00:24:25] Michael: You’re like, yeah, we can get you in in two years from now.

[00:24:27] Justin: Yeah.

[00:24:28] Michael: And most people don’t want to wait two years living through the court system. So if it’s a one day trial and a lot of calories, you get two and a half hours aside. Granted, sometimes in cases if the case is moving smoothly and they’ll, yeah, just

[00:24:40] Justin: tell our listeners how many freaking notebooks we had for that.

[00:24:44] Justin: 15, 16. Okay. And you don’t use ’em. These are,

[00:24:48] Michael: yeah. Massive notebooks of documents to the room. And you have to stand, I mean, think about it in two and a half hours, can I walk a client through a notebook of. Eight years of credit card statements and [00:25:00] then somehow tie that in and explain that to a court why the other party has been wasting funds or why, um, you know, you’ve been spending too much money or why you don’t need, uh, spousal support or whether or not there’s been waste on the estate.

[00:25:13] Michael: Uh, you have to hit big picture points on that.

[00:25:15] Justin: Yeah. So the, we had, uh, a introverting expert in that case on the property side. Can you tell our listeners just kind of what the differences between these two experts, what, just specifically what they found and their differences of opinion and how that would’ve impacted the client?

[00:25:35] Justin: Oh. In, in that

[00:25:35] Michael: particular case, it was, uh, you know, a commingling or a, a mixed characterized asset. Uh, meaning, you know, there’s a portion of it that was separate property, meaning acquired before the marriage or by gift device ascent, in this case before the marriage. And then the asset, uh, is it an investment account or a 401k?

[00:25:55] Michael: It started to, um, increase in value from the date of marriage moving forward. So [00:26:00] you, that creates an issue. And, and we had the NFL pensions. Yeah, we had pensions, we had a, a different ation. We had a disability. Yeah, there’s four or five different unique plans and depending on how, which method and approach the experts were using to, uh, do a forensic tracing of those accounts, we were hundreds of thousands of dollars apart on some of those accounts.

[00:26:20] Michael: Um, as it related to, uh, which portion was separate property and which portion was community property, if it were in our case. The higher it was a separate property, the less amount of funds were available to divide, um, for the court. We would have the authority to divide for the community estate. And because we were so far apart on that, um, we were able to work, work out, um, we made a, a decision to work that out where we think it could be best for our client and, uh, mitigate any kind of risk in trial.

[00:26:49] Michael: In trial. Yeah. Uh, we were allowed to step outside for. Five, 10 minutes after, I don’t even know how many hours going through this kind of issue. And then it’s, I understand why it’s difficult. You’re in a room with a client and like, [00:27:00] we have four minutes. Do you wanna make this decision or not? I know we’ve been preparing for this for over a year and a half, but yeah, this is what we’re gonna have to do.

[00:27:07] Justin: They, they’re, they’re offering effectively all the way up until trial and including in trial, basically no liquid assets. Yeah. And, and no cash. You just get this and take it and just walk away and you should be happy with what you got, kind of thing. And you know,

[00:27:25] Michael: I mean, I think strategically sometimes when people come in and they wanna make a property, uh, proposed property division, which you have to present to a judge before trial.

[00:27:34] Michael: This is, this is my proposed property division. It’s essentially a spreadsheet of all the assets, liabilities, who should get what percentage breakdown. Um, if you come in, I think too aggressive. Where you’re trying to offer zero liquidity, zero real estate, you can have portions of retirement accounts that you know, in effect are gonna have, you know, maybe significant penalty or, or taxable, uh, issues.

[00:27:59] Michael: Uh, if [00:28:00] you divide that way, I mean, these judges aren’t stupid. They can see what’s going on there. And I think sometimes maybe circle back to that. Explain to clients, I understand that’s what you feel is right. Um, but. We want to come off that. We’re trying to be reasonable to the court as well. Like Yeah.

[00:28:16] Michael: So

[00:28:16] Justin: even on our side, like where we’re representing somebody, we wanna maximize value, obviously. But you sat there, you watched the cross examination, uh, and what was your perception when I was asking him those questions based on his relief? Just raw, like No. Well, I think the, the

[00:28:34] Michael: court could obviously, I mean, ’cause there an they, they, he’s wasn’t as if he was lying on the saying.

[00:28:39] Michael: I mean, it’s like, yeah, that’s what I think we should do. And the court’s gonna understand that without even, even having to hit them with the last question. Mm-hmm. So circular collect questions where you’re saying you lead em with this, this, so what you’re saying is zero liquidity for your wife. And I mean, a court’s gonna see that and understand that.

[00:28:55] Michael: It, it, it might affect that witness’s credibility moving forward, and the judge is gonna see [00:29:00] that’s not a just and Right. Fair and equitable division.

[00:29:02] Justin: Yeah. And I, I think too, it’s important to note that. You know when something is completely unreasonable as far as a plan or a proposed property division or a custody, uh, aspect, where you have like the absolute person that’s never been involved in the primary care taking decisions, ask for primary, just ’cause they don’t wanna pay child support, which is very common in our business or in the property situation where they don’t want to give the liquid assets and they want to give the assets that have no value as the proposal.

[00:29:32] Justin: It. You know, if you make that unrealistic proposal, I think it’s very easy for the judge to detach from that and go, okay, this one sounds reasonable and this one sounds unreasonable.

[00:29:44] Michael: Yes, if you can explain your proposals and they’re reasonable, and sometimes by being reasonable, that means you’re gonna have to concede or.

[00:29:53] Michael: Give up something. Even if you absolutely feel a hundred percent about one way or the other, that that’s just not the law sometimes. And you [00:30:00] have to be reasonable from both ends. I mean, we were on the other side of the cases like that where we’re representing the party in control of all the assets or who worked the entire time.

[00:30:07] Michael: And I understand. I can understand. I feel like this is the money I made. I’m the one that worked. I’ve been paying for everything. Um, and I just don’t think it’s fair. I mean, that’s one word you have to let go of when you’re in court. I mean, I don’t understand. It’s, it’s a legal term, fair and equitable, but yeah, it’s also equitable.

[00:30:22] Michael: And there are laws and there’s community property laws in Texas and it’s also advising from the other side, uh, clients. Um, you know, like, I understand why you don’t wanna do this, but you’re gonna have, you’re gonna have to propose. Or I, you know, we advise you to propose dividing this fair, uh, making it look fair.

[00:30:40] Michael: It’s gonna build you good, um, credibility with the court and also, and also in custody matters. Uh, you know, even if you absolutely believe I could be the best parent, I could be. This, I know for a fact that I should have these, but the facts show I’ve never done any of these day-to-day caretaking for these children specifically, especially very young [00:31:00] children.

[00:31:01] Michael: You know, you have to, even if you think your, your wife wasn’t a good wife, or your husband was a good husband, or that they lighted you or cheated on you, or were unfair, most have to believe that they will care about their kids. And you have to be realistic from not feeling how you feel about it emotionally.

[00:31:17] Michael: But what’s happened, and that’s just one thing I’ll say a lot of people have. ’cause there’s what if, what if this happens in the future, or I wanna prevent this ’cause I think this might happen. And I mean, courts, I mean, they punish retrospectively. Just as in criminal law, you can’t say, well, for propensity even.

[00:31:34] Michael: I mean, courts could consider that in making a decision, but you can’t say, well, you know, I so-and-so’s always gonna be, well, yeah, he was, or he was violent, or he, I saw him punch a wall three years ago, so how do I prevent him being around our kids? I think he might hit, you know, do something like that. And unfortunately, you know, the courts, they can’t punish people for things that haven’t happened.

[00:31:51] Justin: And that’s a tough conversation that mm-hmm. We have to sometimes lead a client or steer a client away from

[00:31:57] Michael: Yeah. It’s like, what’s gonna hap well, what if he, for, he forgets to [00:32:00] pick up from school, or if he, uh, isn’t on time for all this, like, can I prevent that now? And I’m like, well, the courts are gonna give parents unless there’s direct evidence that they’re, you know, to build, you know, a drug addict or have a extensive family violence, uh, history, they’re gonna give people a chance to be a parent and.

[00:32:17] Michael: You deal with those issues as they come and it’s a difficult to tell a client like, yeah, that’s gonna have, maybe gonna have to happen. I know you don’t want it to happen, but you know, the courts, um, are gonna give people chances too. So you gotta explain and be very clear that this is the evidence we have.

[00:32:31] Michael: We think we have a case for this position, these concerns you might have in the future. You obvi, you most certainly can testify. You have these concerns. Uh, but we’re not gonna be able to deal with them through the judicial process until they actually occur. Gotcha.

[00:32:43] Justin: Well, and that, that brings me to my final point.

[00:32:46] Justin: You know, there’s, there’s obviously a time and a place for pro se or somebody representing themselves. I. Is there any way in your mind that a case with any level of complexity, even if it’s just a disagreement of a house, a [00:33:00] disagreement of who should have the right to establish the residence within what counties, a disagreement about educational decisions, is there any real way in your mind?

[00:33:10] Justin: That a pro se can navigate those waters the same way an experienced family lawyer or a law firm can.

[00:33:18] Michael: No, no. Not even a, a little bit. And I understand the last thing someone wants to do is spend money on their divorce. I mean, I, I get it. I mean, it, life’s day to day. Life is expensive. Kids are expensive. Uh, you don’t want to.

[00:33:32] Michael: If you, you would prefer not to spend money on an attorney or divorce when you’re effectively losing your net worth. Uh, but you have to view that from almost a business perspective. If it’s a dissolution or winding down, uh, bankruptcy, uh, court where you’re, yeah, you’re gonna be paying lawyers and you’re gonna to effectively lose money.

[00:33:50] Michael: It’s not like a personal injury case or a contingency case where I got injured, my lawyer, I don’t have to pay. They get a percentage of what we collect. That, that’s not applicable in these areas of [00:34:00] law. So you really have to understand with a pro se, meaning representing yourself, unless it’s a very, very simple divorce, no kids involved, uh, you have a couple bank accounts or like a lease, and y’all are work really well together.

[00:34:16] Michael: Which is all issues. All issues. Which is very rare. Yeah. The work where, you know, if we run into, uh. A clarification issue or an enforcement issue post divorce, we’ll be able to work it out because we’re doing fine. But that’s not that. 99% of cases are not that way. So, you know, you do it yourself. You’re gonna fill out these forms of custody.

[00:34:33] Michael: But you know what happens if you don’t put a geographic restriction in there? You know, something you might not even know about would exist even. You can Google Chat GVT, but you’re not gonna know how it applies. What happens if someone breaks it. And then if you do it yourself, the uh, the orders one that you’re gonna enter are gonna be.

[00:34:50] Michael: Vague, you’re gonna have clarification issues. You’re gonna have post-divorce issues with property division, um, closing documents and future custody issues. [00:35:00] And you might have a great case, and I see it all the time when I’m waiting for other cases to go forward. Someone might have a, a slam dunk case for a protective order or on a motion and compel discovery or whatever the issue is.

[00:35:10] Michael: But if you don’t know the Texas Rules of Evidence and you don’t know how to present evidence to a court, you’re, it’s not going to get into. Your documents are not gonna get into evidence and the court can’t consider it.

[00:35:21] Justin: Yeah, and I, I think, I think that’s

[00:35:22] Michael: a good segue too, because it’s, and I and Chad, EBT and that, yeah, you could tell, it will give you case law.

[00:35:28] Michael: Um, it might explain to you process, but it’s not gonna teach you how to cue it, how to cue it, or how to present evidence or how to prove up documents or how to properly authenticate anything. And that’s where Lord and. Most importantly, you don’t under, you’re not gonna understand the court system, the judge’s tendencies and how they view certain issues.

[00:35:47] Michael: And you’re really paying for a lawyer, not only. To get present this in the correct procedural manner and to guide you and advise you on realistic, um, outcomes, what could happen, but also for experience and [00:36:00] expertise for understanding these judges huge. And to get you outta

[00:36:02] Justin: your way. Yeah, I mean, it’s like, you know, if you don’t understand the judges and you, I, you know, we have a client yesterday called and for to, to try to hire us, and I said, we’re just not the right fit.

[00:36:12] Justin: Because this, this party has already been in the court 10 or 12 times on a pro se situation and has probably already made the judge not very happy with, with the positions that this person was taking and wants us to come fix it. Like the plastic surgeon that’s done eight, you know, nose jobs, that’s, and they go, your nose is gonna look like that ’cause you’ve done it this many times.

[00:36:33] Justin: Well, and

[00:36:33] Michael: that’s, and that’s another issue where I think a lot of people at first they’re like, you know what, I’m gonna, I’m gonna give it a shot per se. Uh, I think I can do it. And then they dig themselves a hole or they’ve lost out on presenting certain evidence, and then they hire us halfway through and we have to almost start back from the beginning, see where we got to, and there might be some things we can’t fix at that point because there’s just, there’s laws about modification.

[00:36:56] Michael: You, there needs to be a material substantial change in a circumstance since that [00:37:00] last hearing. And just to hire us at that point and say, well, uh, give it a retry. You can’t do that.

[00:37:05] Justin: Yeah. And you know, the, the, the lawyers out there, you know, there’s a lot of good ones, but there’s also some not so good ones, right?

[00:37:12] Justin: Yes, sure. Just like any job. Totally understand. When a pro say, or somebody wants to represent themselves, they’re like, my last lawyer didn’t do anything. We hear that a lot, but there there is, there is a situation. There’s a lot of situations where many things are done behind the scenes in our business.

[00:37:27] Justin: Mm-hmm. And I, I don’t really love hearing my lawyer did nothing. Now, some, sometimes it’s true, but there are a lot of things that happen to get from point A to point B, and they just haven’t gotten to point B yet.

[00:37:40] Michael: Yeah, right. And,

[00:37:41] Justin: and that is

[00:37:43] Michael: certainly true, but when someone’s, when people take that position where.

[00:37:48] Michael: My last lawyer did nothing or, um, my, it’s all my, my wife’s fault. It’s all my husband’s fault. It’s my mother-in-law’s fault. Um, they’re a narcissist. I mean, that’s a [00:38:00] big word. Used in almost every single consult. And I’m not trying be remiss about it, but that’s not. Like everyone and most people in these courts have narcissistic tendencies when they’re going in there.

[00:38:12] Michael: Yeah. And people generally don’t even know what that term means. And I’ve had a lot of courts say, you know, I want, uh, them to take a psychiatric evaluation. It’s gonna show they’re a narcissist. Right. And they think that somehow is gonna, the court’s gonna therefore say, you’re right. You should get all the assets and everything.

[00:38:25] Michael: Yeah. Have you ever had a cord go, Hey. You’re

[00:38:28] Justin: right, they’re a narcissist.

[00:38:29] Michael: No, I’ve, I’ve seen people paint. I’ve never

[00:38:31] Justin: even heard like a court make a, I’ve I’ve obviously, their, their actions Yes. That are narcissistic tendencies or they really get to narcissism can lead to a court concluding that that person shouldn’t be the primary caretaker or should have some supervision.

[00:38:44] Justin: But I’ve never heard them go, you prove they’re a narcissist. So here’s the children, here’s all the money. And

[00:38:49] Michael: also you have to correlate. This narcissistic per, even if you get a psychiatric or psych evaluation, you pay a ton of money for an expert to prove, yes, this person was [00:39:00] corded to, and they have narcissistic personality disorder.

[00:39:02] Michael: If you have no evidence that that is in any way negatively impacted the children or led to anything. Bad acts, essentially. It doesn’t matter. I mean, there’s a lot of people that have narcissistic personality disorder that are highly successful and do well and are good parents. And I think, and I’ve had even judges say, look, y’all wanna do psychological evaluations?

[00:39:24] Michael: ’cause y’all think each other are crazy. Go ahead. Y’all pay for it. I’ve never found, this was a quote from a judge in Tarrant County. I’ve never found these to be particularly helpful, but if you don’t wanna spend the money on it, go for it. Yeah. So I think. Those are only imp. You know, it’s important if you think if psychological issues that people think they have.

[00:39:42] Michael: I mean, general anxiety disorders one I see come back all the time. Mm. Who isn’t anxious, they’re going through the most difficult time of their life. They’re gonna come back maybe with things like that. But really, unless you think someone’s schizophrenic or medications bipolar, like a, a severe mental, um.

[00:39:59] Michael: [00:40:00] Issue and it’s untreated and they’re not dealing with it, and you have specific evidence to show they acted this way due to this, you know, mental episode, then I, they can be very important and you have to do if it’s endangering or it could be potentially endangered to your children. I understand why they’re necessary to go through with, but really it’s, you gotta focus on these judges are probably gonna give us a chance and we need to be realistic about, um.

[00:40:27] Michael: Outcome and that can guide us. And once I think clients can get into that mental space, and it sometimes, at first it doesn’t happen, and sometimes it happens 80% through the litigation process where they’ve come to terms with it. And generally the other side does as well. And that’s why we, you know, a lot of cases end in mediation.

[00:40:44] Michael: ’cause you know, the, the, the tempers are down, down with the big hurdle, the big hurdles are down and they wanna move on with their lives.

[00:40:51] Justin: Well, great stuff we could go on for days. Um, and we will come back at you with a lot more scenarios and trial scenarios. Uh, Michael Rousseau here, [00:41:00] guys. Uh, if there’s any questions you have, please do not hesitate to schedule a consult with our office.

[00:41:06] Justin: Uh, it costs you a minimal amount of money. I feel like we give you a great amount of information. We’ve had a lot of positive client feedback. Uh, 8 1 7 3 3 6 4 4 4 4 or, uh, you can reach us@lawyerdfw.com. Uh, we’ve been around a long time and we can certainly help you with these issues before you spend the big bucks or maybe steer you in the right direction, uh, of hopefully not having to navigate, uh, the litigation waters.

[00:41:34] Justin: Thank you very much.