Transcript

Amy Rod: In my experience and the experience of lawyers that I talked to, more and more folks are representing themselves. And I think that this has just become more prevalent, and I think it’s something as family lawyers, in particular, you know, we’re just going to have to figure out how to navigate and just be more comfortable with.

Voiceover: You’re listening to The Texas Family Law Insiders podcast, your source for the latest news and trends in family law in the state of Texas. Now here’s your host, Attorney Holly Draper.

Holly Draper: Today, I’m excited to welcome Amy Rod to The Texas Family Law Insiders podcast. Amy is a board-certified family law attorney based in Wharton on the Texas Gulf Coast. She is the only board-certified family lawyer in the counties where she practices, of Wharton, Matagorda, Jackson, and Colorado.

She is the current District Five Director of the State Bar of Texas and a former member of the Family Law Council. She currently serves on the Formbook and Pro Bono Committees for the Family Law Section.

While her practice focuses primarily on family law, she also has a general civil practice, assists clients with wills, real estate, and probate matters. serves as the assistant city attorney for the city of Wharton, and is the Municipal Court prosecutor for the cities of Wharton, East Bernard, and Eagle Lake. This is Amy’s 25th year as an attorney, and she’s a partner with Paul Webb P.C. Thank you so much for joining us today.

Amy: Thank you so much for having me.

Holly: It really strikes me how different the legal landscape is in other places besides where I practice, because where I live, board-certified Family Lawyers are kind of a dime a dozen. And there’s just no way that you could do all those other things, because it’s so saturated. So I think that’s fascinating, that you get to be involved in all those different areas.

Amy: It’s great. It makes for, you know, family law practice is interesting enough. It gives me a good kind of change of pace in doing some other things other than family law. So I’m lucky I get to do kind of a variety of legal matters.

Holly: So why don’t you kind of tell us a little bit about yourself?

Amy: Okay, all right, will do. I am originally from Wharton County. I was one of those small-town kids. That’s where I would never set foot back once I went to college. I went to my undergraduate education at Sam Houston State University, which is kind of a family deal. Majored in criminal justice, of all things.

Went to law school at the University of Houston, and then decided, when I was living in Houston, that maybe I didn’t actually want to live in Houston. And so I found a law firm, actually the law firm I’m with now, and clerked with them, kind of commuted, and then they ended up hiring me when I graduated. I didn’t intend to practice family law at all.

I knew that I didn’t really think I wanted to do a criminal practice. There are three lawyers here, so basically, I got whatever they gave me. I didn’t have a whole lot of say. So my primary partner, Paul Webb, did a good amount of family law, and we had a terrible divorce in about 2005. And I remember we were walking to the courthouse, and he had his dolly with his boxes, and he looked at me and he said, yeah, no, I’m done.

I’m not doing any more family law after this. And so I didn’t really have a choice, and so that’s how I got started in family law. As it happened, I ended up getting two jury trials out here, which were very, very unusual, because we don’t have many jury trials in family law cases at all. I just happened to be involved in both of them.

At that time, you referenced me being board-certified. After I finished that second jury trial, I thought, well, if ever I’m going to get board certified in anything, I’ve now qualified. And so I looked into it and was able to qualify to sit for the exam. And sat for the exam. So, you know, it’s the family law practice was kind of accidental. The board certification was sort of accidental.

Also, I figured out I’ve got probably a good temperament for family law, and I hope we can talk about that a little bit. You know, the joke is where most people have a heart, I have, like a black piece of coal. Which is an ugly joke, but I am very good at compartmentalizing and not taking my work super personally. Personal, personal, I’m married to my high school sweetheart. You know, if we could be a story of, you know, small town, married your high school boyfriend, I did.

He’s an accountant by trade. He’s a controller for a local company that actually manufactures beef jerky. I have two kids. One is 23. She just got her MBA from the University of Oklahoma. She’s in social media, digital marketing. My son is a junior and plays baseball at Houston Christian, which used to be Houston Baptist. So that’s sort of me in a nutshell.

Holly: So today we’re going to talk about something that every family lawyer from the big city to small towns has to deal with, and universally, probably dislikes dealing with. And that is dealing with pro se litigants. So I know you spoke about this at Advanced. What makes this topic interesting to you?

Amy: I think it’s interesting because it’s become inevitable, and the longer I practice, and I don’t know if it’s the economy, I don’t know if it’s the advent of the Internet and AI, but in my experience and the experience of lawyers that I talk to, more and more folks are representing themselves.

One of my district judges made the comment from the bench the other day that he calculates that at least 80 to 85% of the divorces that he has in front of him, at least one party is pro se. That is shocking to me. And I think that this has just become more prevalent. And I think it’s something as family lawyers in particular, you know, we’re just going to have to figure out how to navigate and just be more comfortable with.

Holly: I think that’s interesting. The next time I see one of the judges that I practice in front of I’m definitely going to ask, because I’m curious if that’s universally happening throughout the state, or if bigger cities see less of that than smaller counties. But either way, I think it’s safe to say that the numbers have gone up, and it’s something that we need to know how to deal with and know how to deal with well. So are there special ethical concerns we need to consider when dealing with a pro se party?

Amy: Yes, and it’s the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. The specific rule is 4.03 if you want to go and look at it. They’ve actually amended it very recently and added in an additional provision and some comments. But basically, what 4.03 in a nutshell says, we as attorneys have to be very, very clear when we’re dealing with and it’s funny, because if you’ll notice, and I’ve noticed it with the courts I’m in front of.

And then in all the all the reading materials, they don’t really use the term pro se. They say unrepresented litigant. So when dealing with an unrepresented litigant, you have to let that party know that you don’t represent them, and you have to be very, very clear about that from the outset. And I think that’s particularly important in a Family Law setting.

And I don’t know if you’ve had this experience, but I still have people who come in and say, well, we’re not really arguing about anything. Can’t you just represent us both? And I think that is a big misconception with the public, that if we’re not going to go to war over a divorce or a family law case, we can just share the lawyer. It’s going to share costs.

You know, we can do that. And what the rules say, 4.03, is that you’ve got to be very, very specific that you don’t represent this other party. And in the comment to 4.03 is interesting too, because it does sort of give you a little bit of a caveat that it says, well, if we really have a transaction or controversy where the parties are aligned, where they really do want the same thing, you can do that, and you can negotiate with the other party.

You can talk about terms. You can give your view of the legal obligations. But that’s, I don’t think that that really applies very much in a family law context, because unless, literally, you’re just going to be the scrivener, you’re just going to draft their agreement. There are issues and controversies in family law cases.

Holly: Well, I do think that it can come up if you have a third party involved, or more than that. Say you have grandma is involved, and grandma and mom or grandma and dad might truly be aligned.

Amy: Absolutely, and that is the case. And so that, you know, and that’s just a circumstance where you just need to make sure you understand everybody’s interests at the outset. And you know, in my practice, and I have that semi-frequently where the grandparents come in and say, look, our daughter agrees, we’re going to take custody.

I think, to be in compliance with the rules, you need to communicate with that third party and confirm that is actually the case, and let them know I’m happy to represent you if this is what you want, but you just need to confirm to me that y’all are absolutely aligned.

Holly: So, what type of information can you give to a pro se litigant without giving legal advice?

Amy: This, to me, is the challenge. It really is. Between not giving legal advice and then dealing with an unrepresented party in a court hearing setting this, I think, is the challenge. The rule says, and this is comment three to the rule. It says that you can give the litigant information, basic information about the court.

And the easiest way that I can describe it is basically, you can give them website information. If this is information that is or could be on the court’s website, then you can give that information. And the rule and the comment actually lists out specific things.

You can provide them with the actual rules, the procedures of the court, how to navigate the courthouse, how to find the court file, how to arrange for an interpreter, those type things that is not, that is not considered legal advice. The other thing that the rule talks about really specifically is that you can provide information about resources.

So you can tell the pro se litigant, hey, you know, I know you’re trying to represent yourself. You know, we have a legal aid group here, or, you know, out here, we don’t have a whole lot of access to free legal services, but there are some.

You can point them to Texas Law Help and say, look, you know, here’s a website you may want to look at. You can’t tell them which form to go get. That’s legal advice. But you can definitely point them to resources. The rule says that is not considered to be legal advice. That is what they term legal information.

Holly: I do think there is a really fine line that you have to walk there, because certain types of legal information, if you are giving it to the other side, could be detrimental to your client.

Amy: 100% and that’s sort of where, you know, it’s a tough line to walk, because, and if for no other reason, you know, from efficiency’s sake. And sort of the example, I think that I used it Advanced Family Law is if I know that my judge is never going to give a 50/50, you know, a week on and week off, I really want to tell that pro se person that.

Or, and the other thing is, and like you said, I don’t want to help them to the detriment of my client. And so, you know, I have the option, I think, under the rules, to just say I’m not going to tell you anything. If you’re going to represent yourself, you know, I respect you for that, but I’m not going to provide you any information.

You know, folks sometimes, and I don’t know if they don’t understand, but they will ask a lot of questions. You know, do you think I should do this? Well, you know, I don’t represent you. But no, you’re right. You definitely, but you do have the option to just say, I’m sorry I can’t provide you that information. I don’t represent you.

Holly: Because even something as simple as, you know, pointing them to Texas Law Help or telling them where to apply for legal aid or pro bono services. My client is probably going to fare a lot better if that person does not have an attorney.

Amy: 100%. You know, if the person hasn’t filed an answer in the case, you know, I don’t have to tell them you need to look at this website to figure out what you need to do next. You know, that is not to my client’s benefit.

But if the circumstance calls for it and you’re comfortable with it, or if you’ve got a client that says, look, I just want to get this done, you know, I don’t care. Whatever we need to do, that’s fine. I think it’s definitely a case-by-case basis. But again, we have no duty to help. I mean, I don’t need to give him the address of the courthouse if I don’t want to.

Holly: And I think it’s, you know, in certain situations, it could be beneficial, and it is better for our client if there’s a lawyer on the other side. So kind of, in that example about, you know, my client’s going to fare better if the other side is pro se, well, in a trial, probably. But is that really where your client should end up, or should there be a reasonable settlement agreement reached?

Amy: 100%. And I think we’ve all had the circumstance that the client comes in and says, Well, great news, she doesn’t have any money, so she’s not going to be able to pay a lawyer. And you know, in my mind, to move the case along, that’s not necessarily great news for me. It’s easier for me to deal with another attorney than to deal with a pro se person.

So I think sometimes our clients, if they knew the big picture, maybe wouldn’t be as excited that the other party doesn’t have a lawyer. The other thing is, you know, if I get 15 emails from a pro se respondent, or I’m having to send certified mai,l try to contact them, that can end up costing my client more money than it would if they had an attorney. Absolutely.

Holly: Are there any special considerations to think about when it comes to negotiating with a pro se?

Amy: I think so, and I think this is where we can run afoul of the rules. And even if we’re not running afoul of the rules, we can cause ourselves issues. And so the best advice that I try to do is every communication with the other side or with the pro se person is, I don’t represent you. I’m not your attorney. I can’t give you any legal advice.

And so the example is, and you know, you’re in the hallway and you’ve got an order or you’re trying to come up with an agreement, and you know, the person says, well, what do you think the judge is going to do? Well, you know, I’m not going to give you any legal advice. And the person says, well, I’ve heard that I can pick the kids up every Friday during my visitation from school. Is that true?

Well, kind of, yeah, but it’s not my job to give that information to the party. And so, like I said, what I try to do is anything we can do in writing, I want to do it in writing. That way, there’s not confusion later, and sometimes there are misunderstandings that are just good faith. And the example that I use is, again, the standard possession order.

An unrepresented party thinks that they understand what that means, until they get it and it’s six pages long. They thought they just meant every other weekend I get my kids. And so part of that is, anything that you can do in writing, I try to do that. That way, we just sort of end-run, even if they’re good-faith misunderstandings.

The other thing is, a lot of it depends on the client, and the level of sophistication. If this is a divorce, and we don’t have any kids, and this is this person’s third divorce, you know, this is not their first rodeo. That’s one thing, if you’re dealing with someone who has a limited level of education. You know, the fact of the matter is, most folks are pro se not by choice.

Some are, but many they just don’t have the funds to retain an attorney. And so they’re trying to work their way through. So, to understand what level the pro se party is working at, the other thing that we’ve got issues out here sometimes we’ve got a little bit of a language barrier.

And so to me, it’s important, you know, sometimes I will say, do you have a family member that can come with you to help bridge the communication gap, if I’m trying, in good faith, to reach an agreement?

So I think those are all things to remember, because there’s nothing worse than you think you’ve got an agreement, and then you send the order and they say, no, I didn’t agree to this part. And then you’re starting from square one.

Holly: When I’m negotiating with a pro se, and really, I do this no matter what, but I never, ever write up a whole order and send it over. Because that’s even for represented parties so overwhelming and people can get bogged down in the minutia, when, instead of really focusing on the key elements of this agreement. So we will always do up a proposal that lays out the nuts and bolts to make sure that these are the real issues here that we are talking about.

But then, with something like the possession schedule. If the other side doesn’t have an attorney and you just putan expanded standard in your proposal, I do think it is really important to also send over this is what the expanded standard looks like. This will be plugged into your order, so that they know, or you know, have every opportunity to know this is what the order will look like on that piece.

Amy: Absolutely. And you know, a good example is, and I’ve had it happen, folks that go through the Attorney General’s office, and they come in to me six months later, and they say the dad now says he gets the child for 30 days in the summer. And I’m like, well, yeah, it’s like, on page six.

Well, I didn’t know anything about that. Well, you know, I understand that. So no, I agree, because there, and, you know, there’s a lot of moving parts on folks that have an attorney. They think they understand what it’s going to look like.

Where are we going to do the exchanges if we don’t live real close to one another? That type thing. There’s a lot of play there. And so I think that’s a great idea, because then you run the risk that you’ve got what everybody thinks is an agreement until you don’t.

Voiceover: This episode of The Texas Family Law Insiders podcast is sponsored by The Draper Law Firm, providing family law litigation in Collin, Denton, and Dallas counties, and appeals across Texas. For more information, visit draperfirm.com or call 469-715-6801.

Holly: So one of the hard things that can occur when dealing with an unrepresented litigant is it can be really difficult to move cases forward without going to court. So how do you walk that line between giving legal advice and, you know, just being able to move the case along without having to have a hearing over every last little thing?

Amy: That is tough, and it’s tough also when you’ve got courts that don’t have mandatory docket control orders. Which many of our rural courts don’t. And when you’ve got a smaller court where your district judge is on the bench two days a month, I mean, you know, that can be really difficult.

So, what I think works is that, and some of this will depend on whether it’s contentious or not contentious. If it’s a situation where you’ve got, you’re going to need a temporary order. What I think is a great idea is when you go to that temporary orders hearing you have a scheduling order that you’ve crafted that says, here is when we’re going to exchange documents.

Here is when we’re going to go to mediation. Include the mediator’s name, if you want to. Here is when I’m a big fan of a pre-trial hearing. About a month out, or some period of time before trial, you can always pass it, but that way they have in their hand in writing, here’s the timeline of the case.

Knowing that we can agree, we can maneuver this, but at least we’ve got, you know, and I am a huge fan of here’s our trial date, and that is our finish line. We can move it if we need to, but that way, and like I said, if you can do it in the scheme of a scheduling order that the court signs or that is at least on file, then that gives motivation to that unrepresented party to say, look, I’ve got to get this stuff done, because I’m going to get in trouble with the court if I don’t.

Or I’ve got a court date that is already on the books, that if I have not provided a single bank account or tax return, I’m gonna have to explain that to the judge. And so I think that’s super helpful, because otherwise, we kind of can languish because they don’t know what to do.

They’re not moving the divorce. Maybe they don’t want to get the divorce, maybe they don’t want a custody order. Maybe they know that child support is coming at the end of this rainbow, and they’re in no rush to get there. So that way, you’ve got something that everybody is operating off the same timeline.

Holly: So what are some other good practices? I think the scheduling order is a great idea. Some other standard practices attorneys should consider adopting for cases involving pro se litigants.

Amy: Again, like I said, everything that you can get in writing is great. You know, if you’ve got an email address, you can communicate in an email. Scheduling orders, deadlines. The standard request for production that the family practice manual puts out, and I can say this because I’m on the form book committee, is a little difficult.

I mean, when you’re asking for a retirement statement, that request is five lines long. And so if you can have in that scheduling order, or if a Rule 11 agreement, or some other agreement, here are the documents we’re going to exchange. In plain language, easy to understand with a deadline, I think that is super helpful, also. The other thing is, if you can do third-party discovery, and we can talk about discovery a little bit if you want to.

I don’t have to rely on the other side to get me a retirement statement. I can send the deposition on written questions over to the other side. And so I think that’s good. Again, if you can get those court dates at the beginning, then you’re not trying to chase them down and serve them or try to get documents and go back and forth.

Holly: So let’s go ahead and talk about discovery. Since you brought that up, I could not agree more about the complicated nature of the form discovery requests. And even when we’re dealing with attorneys, it’s like, why can’t we just put it into plain English what we really want? Because they’re so vague and generic often, and request everything under the sun.

And you can really streamline the process if we can just say, this is what I actually need. Now I understand there are times when you don’t know what you actually need. But I think with a pro se that is particularly important of let’s focus down onto what do we really need and make it obvious.

Amy: I agree. And I think sometimes they just get overwhelmed with I can’t figure all this out. I don’t understand it. I don’t know how to go about getting it, so I’m just gonna stick my head in the sand and act like I didn’t get any of it. So I think that’s a problem. You know, if my client can bring me last year’s retirement statement that was in the desk drawer at the house for the other party, I don’t need five years of retirement statements.

I mean, and this is particularly true for folks with, like, low net worth divorces. I don’t need six years of their one bank statement. You know that my client has gotten every month. And I think that’s a great idea, because then you’re doing what you’re supposed to do due diligence-wise. But again, you know, if you represent the party that did all the books and handled all of the bills and knows all of the financial ins and outs, the question is, what do I actually need from the other party?

And again, try to try to limit it in time. I’m a big fan of run the credit report. That will give me an idea. If we’ve got a bunch of credit cards out here that maybe my client didn’t know anything about. And so, I try to just make it as simple as possible, because I think you’re more likely to get what you need if you can make it again, simple, finite, and a shorter period of time. I don’t need the bank statement from 2016. I just don’t.

Holly: So what about the courtroom? We have made it to trial. We are going to trial against an unrepresented litigant. What do attorneys need to know for that scenario?

Amy: I will tell you, personally, I struggle with this terribly because I think it’s a really, really fine line to walk for a lot of reasons. I will tell you, in getting ready for the paper at Advanced, I tried to talk to as many judges as I could, because I’ve had the personal experience. And some of this is, it’s important to manage your client, and then it’s important to be prepared.

Because what I have found is that when you go into a hearing with a pro se party, the judges I submit are being told they don’t really admit this, but they’re being told they’re supposed to give a non-represented party the best opportunity that they can to present their case and to participate in the process. So what does that mean?

A lot of times it looks like the judge is helping them. It just does, because they kind of just are. And so to begin with, before we hit the courtroom, I try to warn my client. Listen, we’re going to go in there. The other party is going to say any manner of nonsense. The judge is going to let him or her do a lot of that.

And so you’re going to be frustrated because you’re going to want to do the same thing, and you’re not going to be able to, because you’re represented. You’re going to be frustrated because it’s going to look a lot like the judge is helping them and and you just have to understand, I mean, I have been there where, you know, my client is burning a hole in my left ear, going, aren’t you going to do anything about this?

And the fact of the matter is, there’s not a whole lot to do. And so what I try to do, and it’s a hard line to walk. Because on one hand, you want to be a zealous advocate for your client. I mean, you want to go in there and object when you need to object and let the court know that they’re not following the rules, because the law says a pro se party has to follow the same rules.

They don’t get their own set of rules. We all have to do the same thing. The reality is a little bit different than that. And so what I try to do is to let the judge know I know what the rule is. I know that those are improper questions. Or I know what the rule is, and that’s non-responsive, and to kind of get that on the record. It can be difficult, because at some point, I mean, it can just drag on, because you could object to every question.

You can object to every answer. It can just be really difficult. Sometimes, the court will get frustrated because they just want to get the information and get to a ruling. And you don’t want to look like a bully. And maybe some of your clients want you to be a bully, but I’m going to be in front of that judge again. None of these folks are, likely.

And so it’s a tough line to walk, but I think it’s important to let the client know what to expect is going to happen. And I tell mine at the end of the day, if we get where we need to be, if it’s rough going to get there, it’s worth it. And sometimes it is.

Holly: When it comes to objecting, I think the temptation is there, especially with younger lawyers that really want to show that they know all the rules to object to everything. And I get that. I have that instinct as well, but I think you in this particular situation where you probably can object a lot, you want to be judicious about what you are objecting to.

Object to the things that are important. If somebody is just rambling, it has nothing to do with anything, and it’s not going to hurt your client, whatever. But if they’re using hearsay, or they’re putting in exhibits that they haven’t authenticated, then absolutely you should be objecting and expecting the court to follow the rules.

And if you annoy the judge, then, and you know, you’re going to get, okay, I’ll give you a running objection. Or you’re gonna get stop. I get it. I get it. But as an appellate lawyer, you’ve got to keep objecting. So, object on everything that is important.

Amy: I agree. I think that you have to be selective. And so, is the pro se party going to ask 1000 leading questions? Probably. And so, you know, the judge knows what a leading question is. And so sometimes a good way to handle that, like you said, if it’s not hurting your client, it’s not the end of the world.

It’s not anything that we need to preserve, you know, and I will tell you, I’ve got a pro se on an on the other side of an appeal right now. So you know, it’s not anything that we need to preserve. But I think there’s something to say, Your Honor, I understand that Mr. So and So is not an attorney, and he’s not really familiar with the rules, he’s leading.

And I think that the court understands that I’m not going to object to every one of these questions, but I just want the court to note that these are leading questions. And I think that sort of strikes a decent balance between judge, I know that you know, and you know that I know, but we’re not going to spend a full day because I’m going to object and they’re going to flounder around trying to figure out how to ask the right question. And my favorite is when then the judge tells them how to ask the question, which now, what are we even doing here?

Holly: So we’re done with our trial, we’ve got a ruling, and now it’s on us to draft an order, because we’re the ones with the lawyer on our side. So what tips do you have for getting that order dealt with as quickly as possible, trying to avoid an entry hearing? What do you do in that situation?

Amy: The first thing that I do is, if the judge is going to make an oral rendition from the bench, I try to get as specific as possible. And that, you know, to ask when the judge says I’m going to give you a standard possession order, okay, if you’ve got those questions and you think it’s going to be an issue, for instance, where are we going to exchange? Is it expanded or not?

You know, sometimes judges, I’ve got some judges that they don’t really differentiate. Some of them are still on old school, Friday at six to Sunday at six. And so I try to get it on the record that as many specifics as we need. You know, if a court says I’m going to order that y’all are going to sell the RV, and pay the debt off, and then, you know, split the proceeds.

Okay, judge, can you tell me who’s going to sell the RV? How do you want that, specifically? Tell us which one needs to do it. Is there a deadline? That type thing. Because that will help you later, when you send that order to the party, and the party says the judge didn’t order that. Because there’s a lot of, you know, it’s sort of like when you mediate a case and you’re like, okay, well, this is a three-page MSA that’s going to turn into a 50-page final degree of divorce.

That’s the first thing. If I can get the judge to give us an entry date from the bench on the spot, I try to do that too. Again, it gives us a finish line. It’s already set. I don’t have to send notice to the other party if they refuse to sign the decree or they just ghost me.

Holly: So one thing that I saw in your paper that we really haven’t talked about, but I think is very definitely worth mentioning, is the importance of being respectful and kind in how you’re dealing with an opposing party, and it can get frustrating. I mean, we’ve all been there where the other person is off the rails or a jerk to us, or whatever. But talk a little bit about that.

Amy: I think that it’s important, and this is hard because, again, you know, some of this is you’ve got a client that you’re representing that it’s your job to advocate for that is just wanting you to absolutely beat this other person into the ground. And what good does it to me to have an attorney if we’re just going to kind of let them do what they want.

I think it’s our duty as attorneys to treat everybody respectfully. Again, most of these folks, in my experience, that don’t have an attorney didn’t, don’t. The fact that they don’t have an attorney is not because they really thought it’d be fun to play lawyer. Or, you know, they watched it on TV, and how hard can it be?

Now, don’t get me wrong, there are some of those. Or this is their third divorce and second modification. And you know, they know how this works, and they wasted all that money before with those lawyers. But I think it’s important for us, on a on sort of a macro level as attorneys, to show that we can be respectful. We should be respectful.

Again, it’s not my job to get over on somebody because they can’t afford a lawyer. It is my job to represent my client. And I’ve also found, you know, some of these folks, because they’ve been on the internet and on the message boards, and their brother-in-law got divorced is they want to come in looking for a fight.

And they want to come in, and, you know, some of this, and, and, you know, I find too, especially if you’re a younger lawyer, younger female lawyer, you know, you’re dealing with some folks that think, well, you don’t have enough experience. I’m going to try to intimidate you, even though I’m not an attorney.

If you’re nice, that will defuse that situation pretty quick. And if they realize, you know, sort of like we tell our clients, or, you know, the thinking is one reason why I’m convinced that mediation works is that people want to go tell their story to somebody. And once they tell it to the mediator, they thought it was the judge, but turns out, the mediator is good enough.

You know, sometimes they want to come in and just say their peace. Once you let them do that, and then they don’t get a rise out of you, and they don’t get the fight that they thought they were going to get, you can move on to get the case settled. Because at the end of the day, that’s what we need to be doing. I mean, these are family cases. These involve kids most of the time.

You know, my goal in life is not to spend my day at the courthouse. My goal in life is that I can help these folks and get them to their next chapter. A lot of times, fighting with a pro se being disrespectful, you know, believe me, when I get the ugly email, I will type the ugly email right back, and then I delete it, and then I send the professional email. And it makes me feel a little bit better. And it’s tough, but at the end of the day, I think we’re tasked to do that by our oath. I think that makes us look better as a profession.

Holly: So before we wrap up, there’s one question that I like to ask everyone who comes on the podcast, and that is, if you could give one piece of advice to young family lawyers, what would it be?

Amy: Well, you’re gonna get more than one, I think. My main one is, have a sense of humor. Family law is hard. The clients are difficult. The circumstances are difficult. I once had a criminal defense attorney tell me he said, when I get my clients, they’re on their best behavior because they’re trying to demonstrate that whatever they did was a mistake and they’re not going to do it again. When you get your clients, they’re on their worst behavior.

And I don’t think that that’s wrong. I think it’s important to just remember, you know, and try to meet people where they are. I think it’s important to be honest with your client if what they are asking you to do is not going to happen and is not reasonable, I don’t think that you serve them by blowing smoke at them to tell them, oh yeah, for sure, we’re going to go get a week on and a week off when you know it’s not going to happen.

I think that it’s important too as young lawyers, especially in the family law bar, if you’ve got something that you’ve never seen before, or you’re not sure what to do about it, reach out to somebody. I mean, I’ve never met a family law attorney who wasn’t happy to help somebody, because we’ve all been there.

I’ve been privileged enough to speak at a few seminars, and I love it when I get emails from folks that say, hey, I saw you talk. I’ve now got this situation on your topic. Am I pointed at the right direction? So, like I said, I think asking for help, there’s nothing wrong with that. Because you’re not going to find anybody who hasn’t had that feeling of, oh no, I don’t really know what to do.

And especially if you’re not in a big firm, if you’re in a smaller firm, you don’t have other lawyers, you can walk down the hall and talk to, send an email or pick up a phone. But like I said, young lawyers, more experienced attorneys, I’ve never met anybody who’s not willing to help. You know, reach out and say, hey, can you give me a few minutes? And you can get the help, and then you’ll feel better.

Holly: Where can our listeners go if they want to learn more about you?

Amy: We have a website. My tiny little law firm. www.paulwebbpc.com. That’s got a little, a little information regarding our firm. If you see me at any of the Family Law seminars, come up and introduce me. I’m happy to talk to folks.

Like I said, I love it when I get an email or a phone call, and a person says, hey, I saw your talk on this. I’ve had this come up. You know, what do you think? Am I doing this right? Or, you know, can you point me in the direction? If I can’t, I’ll find somebody who can.

Holly: Perfect. Well, thank you so much for joining me today. For our listeners, if you enjoyed this episode, please take a second to leave us a review and subscribe so you can enjoy our future episodes.

Voiceover: The Texas Family Law Insiders podcast is sponsored by The Draper Law Firm. We help people navigate divorce and child custody cases and handle family law appellate matters. For more information, visit our website at www.draperfirm.com.