ILNews

Book review: Divorce case allows glimpse into amusing law firm matters

August 13, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Cynthia Baker

It begins with a ten year old’s Happy New Year greeting to her grandpa, including the sentence, “Mommy and Daddy are cranky.” It ends with a brief reminder on a lawyer’s personal legal stationary. In between these handwritten notes, “The Divorce Papers” tells a story about a divorce through legal documents, emails, court filings, news articles, a psychiatric report, statutes, judicial opinions, billable hour reports, invitations, and, of course, offers and counter-offers.

book-review081314

Through the divorce of Dr. Daniel Durkheim and Maria “Mia” Mather Meiklejohn Durkheim, Susan Rieger’s novel introduces a wonderful cast of characters to

uched by the Durkheim divorce. More important, the novel invites readers to explore the threads of love and respect that can transcend a dead marriage. This humorous and touching novel sometimes positively glistens with the wit of smart lawyers, the love between husbands and wives and exes and parents and children, and the fresh ambition of a lawyer who is just trying to do her job (and make partner).

Set in 1999 in the fictional state of Narragansett (state statutes, judicial opinions, and law schools included), the novel’s main character, Sophie Diehl, is an associate at the prestigious mid-sized law firm of Traynor Hand and Wyzanski. Due to the absence of the partners who usually handle divorces, or, as the partners like to say, “matrimonial matters,” 29-year-old associate Sophie handles the intake interview for Mrs. Durkheim, the daughter of one of the law firm’s most important clients. Sophie is not a divorce lawyer.
Unlike her client, who was surprised by her husband’s filing of divorce proceedings after eighteen years of marriage (“I thought we’d live unhappily ever after,” writes Mia), Sophie almost expects her romantic relationships to end in disappointment. While Mia weighs the impact of her divorce on her only daughter, Sophie reflects on the impact of her parents’ divorce on her professional ambitions and personal relationships. The correspondence between, to, and from these two women provides the novel’s framework.

Its texture benefits from the fact that the author is a lawyer, has taught law at the undergraduate and law school level, and, has been through a divorce. Early in her legal career, Rieger taught a legal writing class that required her to create hypotheticals for her law students, including writing statutes, cases, assignments and inventing clients and law firms. After her own divorce, Rieger began her work on “The Divorce Papers,” which took years to write and additional years to complete. This blending of law and life, the lawyer and the divorcee, the real and the fictional, grounds the novel in what lawyers know and live.

While the always-so-clever, New Englandy pretentiousness of the correspondence can be a little unbelievable at times, it certainly entertains. For example, the wit, literary allusions, and personal insights contained in the inter-office legal memos between Sophie and her mentor/partner David Greaves are just beyond the pale of what busy lawyers would be able to do on any consistent basis. However, how else could readers appreciate the personalities, politics, and law firm dynamics of Traynor Hand and Wyzanski?

Similarly, these unrealistic aspects of the correspondence are what bring so many issues of the novel to life: sexism, racism, ageism, and, of course, the topic of all topics, love. The wonderful, wise and often hilarious email correspondence between Sophie and her best friend, while perhaps beyond belief in terms always being so “on,” does a wonderful job inviting readers into the relationships of many of the novel’s characters. And, while a divorce where money is really not at issue is difficult to believe, the Durkheim divorce is exactly that. However, this stretch of the imagination allows readers, like the divorcing parties, to focus on matters of ego and desire (which are really more interesting topics than money anyway, right?).

Finally, readers who are lawyers might especially enjoy watching the lawyers in the novel deal with each other, from law office management to professional development and retaining clients. For example, some of the novel’s correspondence sheds light on the bias and reputations of lawyers based on their respective alma maters and judicial clerkships, stereotypes connected to the sorts of law that lawyers practice, and even generational differences within the practice of law. With these candid views of what lawyers often take for granted, Rieger invites all readers, lawyers included, to laugh at themselves and some of the funnier aspects of the legal profession.

I can count the epistolary novels I’ve read on one hand: Nik Bantok’s “Griffin and Sabine,” Bram Stoker’s “Dracula,” Alice Walker’s “The Color Purple,” and C.S. Lewis’ “The Screwtape Letters.” “The Divorce Papers” makes five. While it may not rise to the acclaim of its predecessors on my little list, I enjoyed it very much. I think many in our legal community would too.•

Cynthia Baker is a Clinical Professor of Law at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT