The Secret Language Divorce Lawyers Speak
As published in the Huffington Post 3/15/2012
Lawyers often use idioms rather than legal terms to explain concepts and strategies in divorce law to our clients. Somehow, these idiomatic terms are more descriptive and powerful in describing the dynamics and techniques that are present in a divorce than any other type of language. Lately I have been collecting a number of these terms that I frequently use in my divorce practice. What follows are my favorite and most often used idioms, and what they mean for my divorcing clients.
“Whose ox is gored.” This is one of my favorites. It’s so graphic. It reminds me of the strong feelings (like bellowing oxen) divorcing individuals have when they are undergoing divorce. This idiom came from the Bible in a passage relating to compensation for gored oxen. What a great metaphor for divorce financial terms. Whose ox is gored was referenced by Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms in 1521, when he observed that most human affairs come down to depending upon whose ox is gored. I think Martin Luther may have been right.
Whose ox is gored means that someone’s interest is threatened or harmed. That happens a lot in divorces. Divorces are easy when there’s enough money to go around. Otherwise, someone’s ox is being gored, and it becomes a zero sum game, the parties are in pain, and there’s lots of bellowing going around.
“Zero sum game.” This is a favorite for collaborative lawyers and divorce mediators. The concept is that if you find out people’s interests rather than just hearing what their “positions” are, you can get more for each of the parties.
Litigation tends to be a zero sum game: someone wins, and someone loses. In collaborative law and divorce mediation, spouses can both get a bigger piece of the pie if they express interests rather than positions, and often it is not a zero sum game.
Another of my favorites is “skin in the game”. I use this one a lot. That’s when you have something at stake in a result or agreement you have made.
For instance, when couples are deciding who pays for college in their divorce agreement, if a party doesn’t share in the cost, that party may not have the incentive to control college costs , because they are not paying them. The result is post-divorce struggles and ensuing litigation. We have seen many of these. The dispute is about whether to send Junior to a private college (now costing over $50,000 a year), or a state school at $25,000. Good divorce agreements have both parties with skin in the game on college payment and other financial post-divorce decisions.
You may think the expression “gotten by the short hairs” has an off-color derivation. I did. But I found out (when writing this article) that actually the short hairs originally referred to are the short hairs (of a man, anyway) at the back of the neck. The first documented usage was in Rudyard Kipling’s “Indian Tales” published in 1890.
We lawyers use gotten by the short hairs when our client, or our client’s adversary has an advantage in bargaining that is watertight. We usually don’t use it in front of our clients, because it’s too depressing for them. It’s very difficult to negotiate from a position of weakness. Usually you have to make a trade of a strong position for a strong one in a negotiation. Weak positions don’t have much power. Or in the divorce context, if you’re lucky, you can rely on a spouse’s compassion for the other spouse, which does miraculously reappear at times.
In guiding a client in a divorce, “smoking her (or him) out” can be an apt term. For instance, say, a spouse has left and is sending over enough money (maybe due to guilt at having ended the marriage) so that the other spouse’s lifestyle has not changed at all. The departed spouse is often living like a student in someone’s house or a really ugly apartment. The spouse who is still living the marital lifestyle has no incentive to move towards divorce. A reduction of the voluntary support results in smoking her (or him) out and can cause a reality check. Then, progress can be made on getting the divorce done.
Same with “tough love”. She wants to leave the marriage, but still wants him to support her. She doesn’t want to hold a job, or can’t seem to. Exercising tough love, the supporting spouse will want to “put her on a short leash” and not make it too easy for her to “have her cake and eat it too”.
Finally, in a divorce, you can be “hoisted by your own petard”. The derivation of that one is interesting. A petard was a little box filled with gunpowder used to burst open gates and doors. Shakespeare was the first to use the term, in Hamlet (1602): “For tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his owne petar”. Basically, it means killing yourself with your own bomb.
Sounds like a divorce, as in when you decide not to work very hard to punish your spouse (who will receive support). That’s being hoisted on your own petard because you suffer, too. You might even say that the quandary puts you “between a rock and a hard place”, the rock being your obligation to support, and the hard place being scarcity for both ex-spouses created by lack of money.
So next time you need a divorce, think of the dynamics of your situation. See if any of the above terms apply to your divorce and have a frank discussion with your divorce attorney, mediator, or collaborative lawyer about how to best manage your divorce as it proceeds.
Copyright 2012 Laurie Israel