by Susan Rieger
As I recall, you always decided to do what your mother wanted “plus tard.” “Who knows,” you’d say, “I could be dead later and not have to do it.”
How about coming around the drama school Friday night and watching The Real Thing rehearsal? We can get a drink after. I’d like you to meet the director, Harry Mortensen. He’s third-year and very talented. Everyone wanted to work with him. He’s also dark and brooding and smart and witty. If you fell for him, he could just break your heart. Right up your alley, sweetie.
Love and kisses,
Maggie
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
MEMORANDUM
Attorney Work Product
From: Joe Salerno
To: Sophie Diehl
RE: Request from David
Date: March 24, 1999
Attachments:
Sophie—
David has asked to borrow you for 5–15 hours a week for the next several months. He said it was an important case, and he wouldn’t ask unless it was important, would I mind? I don’t see why he put it to me as a request. We’re usually not so punctilious with each other. But do you mind?
I know you’ll get all your work for us done, and I won’t assign you a new case without first discussing it with you. I got the sense from David’s testiness that perhaps he didn’t have that kind of discussion with you. But a managing partner has to manage. I don’t envy him his job.
Love,
Joe
Matter of Durkheim
* * *
From: Sophie Diehl
To: David Greaves
cc: Hannah Smith
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:26:22
Subject: Matter of Durkheim 3/24/99 6:26 PM
David—
I’ll need help with the Durkheim divorce. Will you do it? Felix? I don’t think Fiona would want the job, but I may be wrong. What are the next steps?
Sophie
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
MEMORANDUM
Attorney Work Product
From: David Greaves
To: Sophie Diehl
RE: Matter of Durkheim: Attorney Assignment; Use of Email; Meeting
Date: March 24, 1999
Attachments:
Hannah printed out your email. I’ll work with you on the Durkheim case. Felix is up to his ears in divorces at the moment, and, as you wrote, Fiona is not a good choice. It wouldn’t work well, a junior associate taking the lead over a junior partner. I’ll explain it to her.
We should meet this Friday to talk about the case. (I’ll be out of the office tomorrow.) What about 3 p.m. in my office? In the meantime, look over some of the separation agreements we have in the files. In addition to the Habermans’, I recommend the Colliers’, Jason and Rebecca Peele’s, the Crawfords’, and the Goldsteins’. And, most important, the Peele file, in its entirety. Kahn & Boyle were the attorneys for Jason Peele. They play by their own rules. You should know what you’re up against. They’re not good lawyers, only mean ones, but the latter often passes for the former.
In the future, please do not use email to discuss a case, no matter how insignificant the information you are conveying may strike you. I have thought about this a good deal; I am not simply being a Luddite. I recognize email’s uses, but I persist in thinking that most communications between attorneys and between attorneys and their clients should not be transmitted electronically. It’s too easy for email to be misdirected, forwarded, hacked into. There is always the risk that someone other than the designated recipient will read your email. I worry not only that confidentiality will be broken but that by using email, we are playing fast and loose with the lawyer-client privilege and possibly forfeiting claims to protected attorney work product. Have you been following the Microsoft antitrust trial? Microsoft was hoisted on its own petard. There was a mountain of incriminating emails. Fitting in that case, perhaps, but not ours. I recognize that your message could compromise no one, but I would prefer that we stick to interoffice memoranda.
* * *
Re: Re: Advice Sought
From: Sophie Diehl
To: Maggie Pfeiffer
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:36:57
Subject: Re: Re: Advice Sought 3/24/99 6:36 PM
Oh, Maggie,
I can’t believe I ever had a crush on that man. What a skunk. Boy, did he have me snookered. I sent him an email saying I’d take on the case and got back a lecture on emails and the threat they pose to the attorney-client privilege. It was so infuriating. I know the rules—and the risks. There was nothing in my email that compromised anyone or anything. (Just my luck, he’ll intercept THIS email.) And, he never said “Thank you,” or “I know this is not something you signed on for.” Of course, if he doesn’t recognize a debt to me, then it doesn’t exist. And then there’s Fiona; she’s not going to take this well. I can hear her now: “You Yale Law grads knock me out. There’s nothing you can’t do. Habeas corpus with the right hand, alimony with the left.” She’ll no doubt accuse me of poaching her case. This is a royal screwing.
I’ll drop by your rehearsal around 9:30 on Friday. I can’t wait to meet this Harry fellow. Is he more Rochester or Heathcliff?
Love,
Sophie
P.S. Would I have had a crush on DG if he didn’t look like Jeff Bridges? (Rhetorical question. Don’t answer. My chronic weakness for sturdy men. And Starman Bridges NOT Lebowski.)
Join the E-Generation
* * *
From: Sophie Diehl
To: David Greaves
cc: Hannah Smith
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:10:16
Subject: Join the E-Generation 3/25/99 10:10 AM
Dear David—
Millennium Approaches. I think it’s time you bit the dumdum and entered the electronic age. We don’t need to be bombarding each other with constant streams of memoranda—like 18th-century courtiers sending notes round by hand. All that letterhead paper, filing, etc. I will make a promise. I will never send you an email that couldn’t be read by either opposing counsel or your mother. (The two negatives make an intended positive.) Email is very useful for making appointments, sending reminders, and the like. And if you want to make an email part of the record, you can print it out and have Hannah file it.
I won’t be able to make the Friday appointment. I’ll be out of the office all day, interviewing possible witnesses for the Trilling case. How about Monday morning? I can do anytime until 1 pm when I’ve got to leave for an evidentiary hearing.
I’m cc’ing Hannah so she can check your calendar.
Yours,
Sophie
P.S. Atticus as Jewish. I need to see that. I have seen The Third Man. It’s my mother’s second-favorite movie after Smiles of a Summer Night. I’ve also seen Paths of Glory, which is my father’s favorite movie, not counting Chariots of Fire, that great British weeper. So, do you watch The Simpsons?
Mr. Watson, Come Here
* * *
From: David Greaves
To: Sophie Diehl
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 18:32:11
Subject: Mr. Watson, Come Here 3/26/99 6:32 PM
Dear Sophie—
I hope your Trilling interviews went well. I’ve slotted you in at 9:30 Monday. Do you check your email over the weekend?
What do you think of my maiden email? I was taken by your lavish style—especially after that first terse, unfriendly (probably, deservedly so) message. What with the courtiers, the dumdums, and the bombarding streams, I was immersed in a soup of metaphors. Will email do this to me, too?
You might be interested to know that my mother is not a prig; I can’t imagine anything you’d sa
y in your most indiscreet moments that would shock her. She’s like Grace Kelly’s mother in To Catch a Thief, very down-to-earth, a bourbon drinker. You’d like her. She’d like you. My starchiness can’t be laid at her feet.
I am sorry you’ve been roped into this matter. I know I promised. At the very least, I should have asked you in person.
David
P.S. I know who the Simpsons are. I have sons, remember.
P.P.S. Don’t think I didn’t catch the Tony Kushner reference. I think Angels in America is the great American play of the second half of the 20th century. First half: A Streetcar Named Desire.
Men
* * *
From: Sophie Diehl
To: Maggie Pfeiffer
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 11:32:54
Subject: Men 3/27/99 11:32 AM
Mags—
I am wiped out. I crawled in at 4 a.m. I haven’t stayed out, let alone up, that late since your wedding. What can I say? Harry is terrific. I could fall for him, heavily and physically. I didn’t see any of his dark, brooding side. Probably blinded by those shoulders. He was funny, smart, interesting—and interested. He liked my client stories, especially the Trilling saga; but then what’s not to like about a case where a sociopath kills his neighbor because his Pekinese shat on his lawn? I’m seeing him again tonight after the rehearsal. My fantasy life may start taking a backseat to my real one. Although that has been resurrected. I’ve resumed my crush on DG. He wrote me an email in his old unconsciously (?) flirtatious way. Or, maybe not. Maybe he was just being teasing and playful.
I have to go into the office this afternoon to work on the Trilling case and tidy up my regular workload, since on Monday I begin divorce detail. I’ll see you this evening. I’ll come by at the end of rehearsal to watch the last act. I think the play will be a great success and you are wonderful as Annie, though not very likable. It’s interesting that a play about love is about adultery. I know you can’t do a marriage play without adultery—no plot—but there are less cruel ways of doing it (though no doubt less dramatically interesting). Perhaps for Stoppard, only the love for children is the real thing. My favorite bit is the second scene, where the playwright’s first wife says about him and their daughter: “He’s in love with his [daughter].” (I’m improvising.) And you (second wife) say: “Isn’t that normal?” And the ex-wife says: “Normal is the other way round.” I wonder why he picked this play? Does it resonate with anyone who wasn’t divorced or whose parents weren’t divorced? I’m thinking I should send my new client and her husband (and his new sweetheart) complimentary tickets to your play. I’m also thinking I should stop fantasizing about Mrs. Greaves’s husband. God, he’s as old as my father. I am disgusting.
But then there’s Harry. Do you know when I saw him, I could feel the hairs on the back of my neck bristling? I haven’t felt that way since 11th grade when I sat across the aisle from Jack in the theater class at Collegiate. I used to think I’d fall off my chair. I’d lost all will; I was pure desire—and desire couldn’t sit up straight or pay attention to Joe Egg. Do we ever feel that intensely again? No. Only teenagers kill themselves for love; Maman says, Anna threw herself under the train not because she lost Vronsky but because she lost her son. There we are again: the love for children.
I need more sleep.
Kiss Matt for me. Love,
Sophie
* * *
Hello
* * *
From: Harry Mortensen
To: Sophie Diehl
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 15:01:53
Subject: Hello 3/27/99 3:01 PM
Sweet Sophie—How are you feeling? Did you get any sleep? I’m wrecked. And you did it. You are coming by rehearsal tonight, aren’t you? It should be over by 12:30, but you’re welcome anytime.
Harry
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
MEMORANDUM
Attorney Work Product
From: Sophie Diehl
To: David Greaves
RE: Matter of Durkheim
Date: March 29, 1999
Attachments:
At our meeting this morning, we discussed the next steps to be taken in the Durkheim case. In the next few days, I shall attend to the matters that need attending to and do more reading and research. You will deal with Fiona in a way that will mitigate any ill feelings this assignment may have inadvertently engendered.
Matters That Need Attending:
1. Letter to Mrs. Durkheim/Addendum to the Fee Agreement
I shall write Mrs. Durkheim today explaining the conditions under which I will represent her. I shall advise her against using me and give her many cogent reasons why you or Fiona would better serve her (never mentioning my own disinclination). I shall say that if against advice of counsel, she still wants me to represent her, I will do my best. I will also say that because of my inexperience, I will regularly consult with you to make sure that she is getting the best legal advice. If she chooses to retain me, I shall ask her to sign an Addendum to the Fee Agreement, which spells out that she will be charged for your time as well as mine. We agree that it is better that I write the letter. Mrs. Durkheim might interpret a letter from you to that effect as patronizing, insensitive, and dismissive. (“Father’s Lawyer Knows Best.”)
2. Notice of Appearance; Acceptance of Service; Answer to Complaint
We need to accept service and file a Notice of Appearance with the Court and K&B; we should also answer the complaint: nothing too specific, boilerplate.
3. Discovery
After the matter of representation is fixed, we need to begin discovery. Mrs. Durkheim is in the process of assembling a financial history of her marriage and a proposed post-divorce budget for herself and her daughter. She does not believe it will be difficult to assemble the information and supporting documentation. She handled the family finances, kept the books, paid the bills. She doesn’t believe her husband has any hidden assets. Is she being naïve? Doesn’t she know about the Caymans? When we have a better idea of income and expenses, assets and liabilities, we can begin to formulate an offer.
4. Motion for Temporary Support
Mrs. Durkheim’s current income will not support her and her daughter. While her father would no doubt help her out until a settlement is reached, we should probably begin to think about making a motion for temporary support. In the Peele case you had me read, Jason Peele (a K&B client) closed the joint checking account, canceled his wife’s credit cards, and emptied out the safe deposit box—a week after the summons was served. And she had no job at all.
5. Continued Residence in the Family Home
Even if she doesn’t want to, Mrs. Durkheim needs to stay put in the family home until a settlement is reached. It can’t look as though she’s abandoned him. Also, since he’s so attached to the house, it may provide us with some leverage in the negotiations. We need to be vigilant here. Before he made any kind of offer of settlement, Jason Peele made a motion to exclude his wife and children from the family residence and changed the locks.
Narragansett Statutes
Title 33 of the Narragansett Code, Sections 801ff.
Dissolution of Marriage, Annulment, and Legal Separation
Sec. 833. Temporary alimony and support and use of family home or other residential dwelling.
At any time after the return day of a complaint, temporary alimony and child support may be awarded to either of the parties. In making an order for temporary alimony, the court shall consider all factors enumerated in section 832 (permanent award of alimony). In making an order for temporary child support, the court shall consider all factors enumerated in section 834 (permanent child support). The court may also award exclusive use of the family home or any other dwelling that is available for use as a residence prior to dissolution of the marriage, legal separation, or annulment to either of the part
ies as is just and equitable without regard to the respective interests of the parties in the property.
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
MEMORANDUM
Attorney Work Product
From: Fiona McGregor
To: David Greaves
RE: The Meiklejohns
Date: March 29, 1999
Attachments:
What is going on? I go off to Ireland for two weeks and return to find that Sophie Diehl is doing a Meiklejohn divorce. I had barely sat down at my desk this morning when Jennie burst in to tell me the news. (She was all wide-eyed, breathless; you’d think we’d been retained by Jerry Hall.)
It is irresponsible, not to say insulting to the divorce practice partners of the firm; an embryonic criminal lawyer who knows nothing about family law and who has been practicing law for 10 minutes is assigned the firm’s biggest, most important divorce case in years, and I am not consulted or even notified. How did this happen? Is it now firm policy that only Mather or Yale Law School graduates can represent the likes of the Meiklejohns? I can’t believe this is the way to run a law firm. I am stunned. There’s no other word.
cc: Jason Bell
William Frost
Proctor Hand
Virginia Ladder
Felix Landau
Frank O’Keefe
Joseph Salerno
Katherine Sales
John Wynch
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
MEMORANDUM
Attorney Work Product
