Hot Topics for Trial Lawyers

A compilation of journalistic articles to keep you abreast of changing developments and current events in the litigation realm. If you are interested in writing for this Hot Topics segment, email tnuckols@texasbar.com

TOPIC:

Waiving Your Pro Bono Client’s Rights

Posted 9/11/08  

Most litigators at large firms will, at some point or another, make a commitment to giving back to the community through performing pro bono legal services. More often than not, these pro bono legal services will come in the form of a pro bono divorce (or a number of pro bono divorces). More often than not, the lawyer performing the pro bono divorce will have little knowledge of family law and will rely heavily on standardized, fill-in-the-blank petitions, decrees, temporary orders, and other forms. While it is unlikely, and probably unnecessary, to learn the details and nuances of family law in order to perform a pro bono divorce, it is extremely important to become familiar with the details of each and every form you file with the court - or your client could suffer the consequences.

The best cautionary example is the standard use of "Mother Hubbard" clauses in divorce decrees. The case law is clear that by including a Mother Hubbard clause in your pro bono divorce decree you are likely waiving your client's rights to pursue other causes of action against his or her spouse that existed at the time of the decree. In many cases, there may be no harm done. However, the risk of waiving a client's otherwise valid claim by failing to pay attention to an archaic clause in a standard form should be sufficient to make any lawyer spend a little extra non-billable time protecting their client's best interests.

Let's face it, I'm not qualified to be a family lawyer. It's not likely that you are either. Nonetheless, we will undoubtedly be asked at some point in our careers to be family lawyers. The least we owe our clients is a little attention to detail and - when that's not good enough - a phone call to someone who knows better.

Brandon Renken, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP