The Divorce Papers: A Novel
Page 14
Retirement/Deferred Compensation Plans:
Dr. Durkheim will retain his retirement accounts with TIAA-CREF, which currently have a value of approximately $600,000. He will transfer the funds in his 401(k) plan, which currently holds $300,000, to Mrs. Durkheim.
CHILD CUSTODY:
Dr. Durkheim and Mrs. Durkheim will share legal and physical custody of their daughter, Jane.
CHILD SUPPORT:
Dr. Durkheim will pay child support to Mrs. Durkheim to the amount of $2,000 a month until Jane reaches the age of 18 or graduates from high school, whichever event occurs last. He will pay all her school fees and expenses, including all costs for college. He will pay her medical insurance and all medical fees.
SPOUSAL SUPPORT:
Dr. Durkheim will pay spousal support to Mrs. Durkheim to the amount of $3,000 a month for four (4) years to allow Mrs. Durkheim time to complete her degree at Mather and to secure employment.
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
MEMORANDUM
Attorney Work Product
From: Joe Salerno
To: Sophie Diehl
RE: Fiona
Date: April 19,1999
Attachments: Letter from Fiona to Proctor
Sophie—
Act II. Confidential, of course. Fiona has a point. Wynch is still here, making money hand over fist. I am going to formally dissent in a minority absentee opinion. I wish I’d been at the meeting.
Love,
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
April 19, 1999
Proctor Hand
Traynor, Hand, Wyzanski
222 Church Street
New Salem, NA 06555
Dear Proctor:
I write to protest the Committee’s findings regarding my letter to Mrs. Durkheim. I persist in thinking that the decision to use Sophie Diehl was wrong and that I acted properly and professionally. If a client asked to hire Sophie to help them underwrite corporate bonds or arrange a construction loan for Mather University or advise the board of Octopus Enterprises, I cannot believe David would agree.
As for the Committee’s report, I take serious exception to their finding that my conduct fell short of the standards expected of this firm’s lawyers. You will recall that two years ago, a male partner had an affair with a female client that seriously compromised the case he was handling for her. Nothing was said to him; everyone just stepped in and mopped up—despite the fact that every lawyer in town knew about the matter. He is still here, doing real estate deals.
I think the firm is operating under a double standard.
Yours,
Fiona McGregor
cc: Jason Bell
William Frost
David Greaves
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
From: Joe Salerno
To: Proctor Hand
RE: Fiona McGregor
Date: April 19, 1999
Attachments:
I regret I was unable to attend the meeting of the Management Committee. I think my presence might have made a difference in the way the Committee responded to Fiona McGregor’s letter. I do not think the Committee properly recognized the legitimacy of her complaints. She was not complaining only about the firm’s profits but also its high-handed treatment of its divorce lawyers. As you all know, I am a great admirer of Sophie Diehl’s, and I think she is a talented criminal lawyer. That being said, she is not a competent divorce lawyer. She is not even an incompetent divorce lawyer. It would have been much more proper for David to have served as the lead lawyer and to have used Sophie as his associate. The Meiklejohns, as I understand the matter, would have cheerfully paid full freight for both an experienced divorce lawyer and his raw associate.
I am now going to say two things that are unpleasant but that need to be said. First, the reprimand is sexist. There’s no question about that. No male partner (or male associate for that matter) would be treated in this way. None has been treated this way. John Wynch was never disciplined by the Management Committee, and his behavior was far more compromising to the firm and its reputation. Second, the reprimand is racist, or whatever the term is that describes ethnic discrimination. I do not believe a WASP would have been treated in the same way. John Wynch does double duty here. Those of us who didn’t attend Mather or Yale Law Schools, who don’t come from one of the original New Salem families, who live by our wits, our brains, our talent, and our industry, seem to be held to a stricter standard than those from the WASP ascendency. If there is a difference between Fiona’s behavior and Wynch’s, virtue lies with Fiona. She issued a challenge to the firm’s authority; so what? He undermined its standards of professional integrity.
cc: Jason Bell
William Frost
David Greaves
Virginia Ladder
Felix Landau
Frank O’Keefe
Katherine Sales
John Wynch
Ineptitude
* * *
From: John Wynch
To: David Greaves
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:33:14
Subject: Ineptitude 4/19/99 4:33 PM
For fuck’s sake, Greaves, what is going on here? Joe’s absolutely right. I love Proctor, you know that, but he has a rod up his ass 50% of the time and shouldn’t be allowed to run a meeting. And where the fuck were you? What do you mean getting your knickers in a twist because Fiona challenged your authority? That’s what lawyers do every day. That’s what we’re paid to do.
I was a schmuck in love with a client (and also sleeping with her), but nobody went after me. I read Fiona’s letter. She’s absolutely right too. I bring in too much money to be disciplined. And I’ve got balls. But so does Fiona, for that matter.
Stop this shit now.
John
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
MEMORANDUM
Attorney Work Product
From: David Greaves
To: Jason Bell
William Frost
Proctor Hand
Virginia Ladder
Felix Landau
Fiona McGregor
Frank O’Keefe
Joseph Salerno
Katherine Sales
John Wynch
RE: Partners’ Meeting
Date: April 20, 1999
Attachments:
This memo confirms a meeting of the partners tomorrow, Wednesday, April 21, at 10 a.m., in the conference room.
Uproar at THW
* * *
From: Sophie Diehl
To: Maggie Pfeiffer
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:01:57
Subject: Uproar at THW 4/21/99 11:01 AM
Dear Maggie—
The firm is in an absolute uproar. The management committee decided to discipline Fiona for challenging my assignment to the Meiklejohn case, and she protested. Then Joe stepped in and wrote a memo supporting her and basically accusing the firm of being sexist and racist. As I’m emailing you, a meeting of the partnership is going on. All we mice are scurrying around, trying to pick up crumbs of information. Joe has been really upset; I don’t know that he’s threatening to leave, but I wouldn’t be surprised. (He threatens to leave regularly for various reasons, then some case pulls him back. But this is different.) I’m not sure how the
partners are going to be able to mend things. If Joe goes, I’ll have to go too. I love David (sometimes) but I’m not a civil lawyer. And truth be told, I love Joe more. He’s more fun. There’s no fun on the second floor.
Fiona’s right. I just wish she didn’t hate me.
xoxo,
Sophie
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
April 22, 1999
Fiona McGregor, Esq.
Traynor, Hand, Wyzanski
222 Church Street
New Salem, Narragansett 06555
Dear Fiona:
I write on behalf of the partnership of the firm. The reprimand issued to you on April 16 has been withdrawn. The partners wish to apologize to you for issuing the reprimand and for criticizing your conduct in regard to your objection to the assignment of attorneys in the matter of Maria Meiklejohn. We recognize the sincerity and legitimacy of your concerns and deeply regret any offense that may have been given.
I hope you will accept this expression of regret. You have provided outstanding service to the firm, its clients, and the community in which we work and live.
Yours,
David Greaves
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
From: David Greaves
To: Sophie Diehl
RE: Durkheim v. Durkheim: Settlement Offer
Date: April 22, 1999
Attachments: Letter from Ray Kahn
Settlement Offer from Dr. Daniel E. Durkheim
Letter from Bruce Meiklejohn
I am enclosing a letter I received from Ray Kahn with a settlement proposal from Dr. Durkheim. It’s not so ridiculous that we can ignore it. They’ve shaped the proposal around Dr. Durkheim’s willingness to relinquish any interest he might have in the Vineyard property. It sets a tone. No doubt they believe (not altogether unreasonably) that, should the case go to trial, the judge would take the value of that property into consideration even if he found that Dr. Durkheim had no rights to it. Ms. Meiklejohn is, after all, a putative heiress. There’s also a veiled threat of a custody fight, but I don’t take it seriously. Dr. Durkheim wants this settled, and a custody fight would drag things out. And we all know he doesn’t want custody.
The letter and proposal are in their snakelike way artful. You will see that he’d like to keep you out of the loop. (He didn’t actually say: “Let’s keep the little lady out of this. We men can come to agreement better without her.” But, of course, that’s what he meant.) I shall respond by saying that I’ve asked you to look over the proposal and to draw up our counteroffer. That should make it clear he has to deal with you, which he won’t like. (I may be having too much fun with this. Is this what you and Joe do all the time?) I will also draft a discovery request to send with the letter.
I have an idea for setting a tone of our own. I will say that we are exploring the possibility of including in our proposal the value, past, present, and future, of Dr. Durkheim’s medical degree. Although there’s no Narragansett case on point as far as I know, the revised divorce laws give a very expansive definition of property, and there are precedents, I believe, that have taken the value of an advanced degree into consideration, if not as property per se then as an element to be considered in awarding “reimbursement” alimony for the contributions one spouse made to the other’s professional education and development. You need to do some research on this and get back to me ASAP. Look at N.Y., N.J., Conn., and Mass. law and the American Law Institute’s proposed model law on Family Dissolution. Ah, the pleasures of saber rattling. They’re right up there with early Robert De Niro movies. Kahn and his client will hate it. We could litigate the issue and make new law. That alone could take two years.
I am also enclosing a letter I received this week from Bruce Meiklejohn. He is taking the divorce very hard—not because of the hurt to his daughter and granddaughter but because of the wound to the family honor. I won’t apologize for the anti-Semitism because I’m not responsible for it and because I believe anti-Semitism is offensive to everyone, not only Jews. But I want you to know I find it appalling. What does one do about clients with repellant beliefs and values? And yet, I like him too. Enormously. Human beings are a mystery. The short and long of the letter is that money is no object. Of course, we won’t pile on the depositions or rack up the hours unless we need to and unless we have specific authorization from Ms. Meiklejohn. I’ll answer Bruce Meiklejohn.
BRUCE MEIKLEJOHN
50 SAINT CLOUD
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
April 20, 1999
David Greaves
Traynor, Hand, Wyzanski
222 Church Street
New Salem, Narragansett 06555
Dear David:
Before she left on holiday in Hawaii, my daughter Maria told me she had made arrangements with your firm to use both you and a young associate in your firm, Ann Deal (or is it the Scotch version, Dalziel; I knew a James Dalziel at Mather, her father?), as her attorneys in her divorce. I was very pleased to hear of this arrangement. If you need a third or fourth attorney, do not hesitate to use one. I shall pay. I want her to have the best representation possible. To be frank, I want you to bury Durkheim.
I have never liked him. I tried my best but I couldn’t. I invited him to my home and to the Vineyard place; I even spent a weekend with him (the longest of my life) playing golf at Augusta. After I put him up for the Cricket Club, he wanted me to put him up for the Plimouth Club. I tried to explain that the PC wasn’t PC: no Jews except, of course, Jim Rosental, Mather’s president. Can you believe he hired Ray Kahn to represent him?
I always thought Durkheim married Maria for her money and her connections. His first wife, Helen Fincher, was rich and well connected too. Can’t be a coincidence. I tried to warn Maria, but she was smitten. And now he walks out. He’s gotten what he wanted from her. I can’t help but feel that family honor is involved.
Maria won’t talk to me about it, and you probably won’t tell me anything either, all that attorney-client privilege blather. But I trust you and I know you’ll do right by my family. I don’t care what it costs, get the bastard. And if you need me to rattle chains at the hospital and the med school, let me know. It would be my pleasure.
Sincerely yours,
ELISABETH DREYFUS | 480 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, NEW YORK, NY 10027
April 10, 1999
Dear David:
Last night I went with Sophie to the Mather Rep to see the Stoppard play, The Real Thing, starring her great friend, Maggie Pfeiffer. Do you know the play? It’s about marriage and adultery and divorce and remarriage and adultery. There was a speech in it that struck a chord, coming as it did so soon after our lunch at Porter’s. It’s a husband’s explanation to his wife of the possibility of someone else.
I don’t want anyone else but sometimes, surprisingly, there’s someone, not the prettiest or the most available, but you know that in another life it would be her. Or him, don’t you find? A small quickening. The room responds slightly to being entered. Like a raised blind. Nothing intended, and a long way from doing anything, but you catch the glint of being someone else’s possibility, and it’s a sort of politeness to show you haven’t missed it, so you push it a little, well within safety, but there’s that sense of a promise almost being made in the touching and kissing without which no one can seem to say good morning in this poncy business and one more push would do it.
The Real Thing (London 19
82), page 73
Today, I bought a copy of the play at the Coop; I thought I should send it to you out of a sort of politeness.
Elisabeth
Terrible Discovery
* * *
From: Sophie Diehl
To: Maggie Pfeiffer
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:55:27
Subject: Terrible Discovery 4/22/99 6:55 PM
Dear Maggie—
Where are you? I tried to call you but got no answer. I’m a wreck. I’ve just had an awful experience. I was in DG’s office, looking through the Durkheim docket, the firm’s collection of documents and correspondence relating to this damned divorce I’ve been hog-tied into doing, and came across a letter which didn’t belong in the file and which I never, never should have seen. It was from my mother to DG. After we all had lunch and after she saw your play, she sent him a copy of The Real Thing. The letter quoted that bit from the play where your husband tells you about the “glint of someone else’s possibility.” I got light-headed reading it. Could Hannah have seen it and filed it? Did he misfile it himself? I didn’t know what to do, so I took it. What do I do with it? What do I do about it? She signed off her letter, “out of a sort of politeness.” How could she? And how could he be so indiscreet, leaving it there for anyone (Fiona even) to read? I can’t believe they are behaving so badly. They should both be pilloried.
I should have cottoned earlier to all this. Earlier in the day, David had written me a memo uncharacteristically relaxed, almost playful (in spite of all post-Fiona fallout). He’s always so matter-of-fact, precise, organized, in his writing. This one was rambling and filled with dangling pronouns. He said he was having fun with the case. He even talked about anti-Semitism in a way I’d never heard him talk before. He never liked it, of course, but he saw it as bad breeding. This time, he was indignant. I thought it was my good influence. I should have known better. It was my mother’s bad influence.