Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Practice Tip: Personal Security Issues and Tips for Family Lawyers

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
September 02, 2014

“Criminal court is where bad people are on their best behavior. It's much more dangerous for lawyers and judges in family court, where good people are at their worst.”

While this noted quote by Richard Dooling frequently generates some laughs, it underscores the predisposition of many family court litigants. As family lawyers, we certainly deal with clients who are often experiencing tremendous emotional, psychological and financial pressures. At times, that pressure can be overwhelming.

In February 2013, a paternal grandfather shot and killed his grandson's mother and her friend at the entrance to the Delaware Family Courthouse when they arrived for a custody hearing. He was subsequently shot and killed by security. In June 2012, a litigant in Chesterfield, VA, shot at a lawyer across the street from the courthouse after a custody proceeding. In June 2006, a Nevada family court judge was shot by a divorce litigant.

Instances of family court violence are rare, but can be traumatic and deadly. Family lawyers must be on alert for potential violence, both at the office and at the courthouse. Protecting ourselves is not a topic covered in law school or law-firm orientation. However, some basic guidelines in view of the cited incidents should be followed.

During initial client interviews, we must ask about and investigate all family members and significant others (current and former) who may have a history of violence. Many states have criminal dockets easily accessible online. Lawyers should routinely run such criminal background checks on all parties and related parties in a case. With the rising rate of gun violence, it is important to find out from clients who, in connection with the case, may possess firearms, in the past and present. Also important are mental health histories and diagnoses of all involved.

This type of data on the litigants, their families and significant others should, at a minimum, provide some useful tips for family lawyers, of the level of caution they may need to exercise in handling a case. Appropriate protective measures can then be considered including building security and access to lawyers' offices.

Aside from our own cases, each time we enter the family courthouse, we come into contact with other litigants from all walks of life. Areas of the courthouse where litigants enter before passing security could be the most dangerous. If an attorney or staff entrance is available, always use it. If one is not available, the family law bar may consider requesting such an entrance from the family court administrative judge.

It may be advisable to arrive at the courthouse separately from the client. Being aware of exits and impediments to exits in the courthouse is also important. If there are well-grounded concerns of potential violence at a proceeding, lawyers can alert security in advance for presence in or around courtroom. Finally, the family law bar may request a representative from the family court security unit to educate the bar about family courthouse security. ' Julia Swain, Fox Rothschild LLP

“Criminal court is where bad people are on their best behavior. It's much more dangerous for lawyers and judges in family court, where good people are at their worst.”

While this noted quote by Richard Dooling frequently generates some laughs, it underscores the predisposition of many family court litigants. As family lawyers, we certainly deal with clients who are often experiencing tremendous emotional, psychological and financial pressures. At times, that pressure can be overwhelming.

In February 2013, a paternal grandfather shot and killed his grandson's mother and her friend at the entrance to the Delaware Family Courthouse when they arrived for a custody hearing. He was subsequently shot and killed by security. In June 2012, a litigant in Chesterfield, VA, shot at a lawyer across the street from the courthouse after a custody proceeding. In June 2006, a Nevada family court judge was shot by a divorce litigant.

Instances of family court violence are rare, but can be traumatic and deadly. Family lawyers must be on alert for potential violence, both at the office and at the courthouse. Protecting ourselves is not a topic covered in law school or law-firm orientation. However, some basic guidelines in view of the cited incidents should be followed.

During initial client interviews, we must ask about and investigate all family members and significant others (current and former) who may have a history of violence. Many states have criminal dockets easily accessible online. Lawyers should routinely run such criminal background checks on all parties and related parties in a case. With the rising rate of gun violence, it is important to find out from clients who, in connection with the case, may possess firearms, in the past and present. Also important are mental health histories and diagnoses of all involved.

This type of data on the litigants, their families and significant others should, at a minimum, provide some useful tips for family lawyers, of the level of caution they may need to exercise in handling a case. Appropriate protective measures can then be considered including building security and access to lawyers' offices.

Aside from our own cases, each time we enter the family courthouse, we come into contact with other litigants from all walks of life. Areas of the courthouse where litigants enter before passing security could be the most dangerous. If an attorney or staff entrance is available, always use it. If one is not available, the family law bar may consider requesting such an entrance from the family court administrative judge.

It may be advisable to arrive at the courthouse separately from the client. Being aware of exits and impediments to exits in the courthouse is also important. If there are well-grounded concerns of potential violence at a proceeding, lawyers can alert security in advance for presence in or around courtroom. Finally, the family law bar may request a representative from the family court security unit to educate the bar about family courthouse security. ' Julia Swain, Fox Rothschild LLP

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.