A New York State Supreme Court judge handed a $10,000 penalty to a pro se patent lawyer for misconduct during a child custody hearing.
A trial court could not include a parties’ airline fares in an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. Sec. 9-15-14(b).
The Connecticut Supreme Court recently limited and more carefully circumscribed the basis for legal fee awards in family cases based on litigation misconduct in Berzins v. Berzins, 306 Conn. 651 (2012).
Attorney malpractice does not involve activity protected by anti-SLAPP statute.
To be entitled to attorney fees pendente lite under section 2030 from joined W2, W1 not required to show that she was likely to prevail or a prima facie case that W2 was connected to a dissolution proceeding issue.
A trial court can properly consider a party’s receipt of financial support from his mother when determining the parties’ respective financial circumstances for the purpose of awarding attorneys’ fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. Sec. 19-6-2.
Mother sought disqualification of parties’ son from representing his father in divorce action.
Attorney‑client relationship between ex‑husband and ex‑husband’s attorney in underlying divorce action did not alone establish that ex‑husband and attorney were in privity.
Trial court was authorized to enter a judgment in favor of law firm that represented wife in divorce proceeding and, therefore, law firm had right to intervene in proceeding in order to recover from husband attorney’s fees earned