The Divorce Papers: A Novel (19 page)

TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI

222 CHURCH STREET

NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555

(393) 876-5678

MEMORANDUM

Attorney Work Product

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

TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI

222 CHURCH STREET

NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555

(393) 876-5678

MEMORANDUM

Attorney Work Product

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.

Ineptitude

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

This memo confirms a meeting of the partners tomorrow, Wednesday, April 21, at 10 a.m., in the conference room.

Uproar at THW

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

TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI

222 CHURCH STREET

NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555

(393) 876-5678

MEMORANDUM

Attorney Work Product

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.