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. I just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT