Bryant's Barrister Blog

Posted By Administrator on March 4, 2010

There’s an old saying that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”  It’s true.  When I was  a freshman in college, I was late for class one morning and the car I drove was a late 90’s model Crown Victoria.  You could almost lay two people end to end in that car – it was practically a boat.  This made it difficult to park, especially after having been awake for only five or six minutes.  I found a parking place to my right and turned a little to sharply to enter it.  I hit a truck in the adjacent space.  So I put my car in reverse and tried again.  I hit the truck again.  It finally dawned on me that I would be unable to park there, so I found another space further away and parked there.

On my way towards the building I noticed the damaged I had caused.  I had ripped the rear bumper off of this truck and caused quite a bit of damage to my own car.  Not wanting to be late for class, I quickly wrote down the truck’s license plate number and parking sticker number and hurried to class.  I fully intended on taking care of the matter as soon as class was dismissed, but the University police had other plans.  About 20 minutes into class, I was escorted out of class by a uniformed police officer and charged with leaving the scene of an accident.  How embarrassing!  I had to go before the judge!

When I arrived in Court the judge asked me whether I plead guilty or not guilty.  Did I leave the scene of an accident?  Well, technically yes.  So I plead guilty.  The judge then decided to make me stand there in front of him for what seemed like an hour while he answered a question that his clerk had about the previous case.  He then looked at me and said “look, I know you tried to do the right thing, but you didn’t do the right thing.”  He entered my guilty plea and sentenced me appropriately.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  The statutes which organize the law are public documents.  You can find them on the Internet and at the courthouse.  It is unfair to others who know and obey the law to allow those who don’t know the law to go unpunished.  The law is equally promulgated to all and equally enforced on all.

God’s law is the same way.  If it isn’t enough that everything we see, which God created, proclaims his majesty and tells us things about Him, He gave us the law through His prophet Moses.  And we have the law in a central location – one book – the Bible.  Ignorance of that law is no excuse – which is how Paul opens chapter 2 of Romans.

We are unrighteous judges of God’s law because we are guilty of the exact same offenses.  Romans 1:18-32 provides a litany, although not exhaustive list, of the crimes of humanity.  We are all guilty of some of the things on this list, and as such we are unable to rightly judge anyone.  None of us are above doing any of these things.  And by judging others we judge ourselves.  In regards to sin, God has always seen humanity as a single entity.  Thus by condemning others we condemn ourselves, who practice the very same thing.  So not only does God view humanity as a single entity, but also views sin as a single entity – not as individual sins.  Just because I am not a murderer does not give me the right to judge the murderer.  I am a sinner and the murderer is a sinner.  Who am I to judge?  Only He who is perfect can rightly judge.

But there is hope in that God is a kind, forbearing, patient, and forgiving God.  Even so, we who are believers cannot presume that being forgiven gives us the authority to judge others.  God’s gracious forgiveness is not meant to give us that authority – it is meant to stir in us a longing to repent.

Hope grows stronger in that unlike us, God is a righteous judge.  To those who patiently seek to follow him and obey the law, God will reward.  Those who are self-seeking and disobedient will become an object of God’s wrath.  God will show no partiality.

So what is the Role of Law?  To set the standard by which all must but cannot live, and to lay the foundation upon which God’s justice will be done.

Category: The Role of Law | No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Administrator on February 15, 2010

“The ‘rule of law’ refers to a principal of governance in which all persons, institutions, and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards.” – The United Nations

The rule of law is a principal every lawyer and lover of democracy must believe in.  I certainly believe in the rule of law.  But this blog post and its progeny will discuss the role of law.  The law, while necessary, is mortal.  It had a beginning and it will have an end.  The need for law will one day pass away, and all that will remain is the adoration of The One who destroyed it.  The book of Romans discusses the role of law.  It poignantly exalts the law and its purposes while balancing its current role with, and future destruction by, sovereign grace.  We begin in Romans chapter 1.

Paul was a bond-servant of Christ.  To use a legal term, Christ had bailed him out like a bondsman posts a bond for an accused criminal.  As believers, we have all been bailed out by Christ, but Paul was more than that.  He was an apostle – one who speaks with authority having actually seen Christ.  God used Paul for the good news – a plan that was prepared in eternity past, promised through the Jewish prophets, and fulfilled in the man Jesus of Nazareth. 

Jesus was fully human – descending from King David; and fully divine – being eternal and powerful in nature having unequivocal power over life and death.  Through Christ we received grace – the law’s counterpoint – so that we might share this good news with the world.  Romans was written by Paul to the church in Rome, which Paul eagerly desired to visit and for which he often prayed.  The faith of the parishioners in Rome was known throughout the known world. 

So what is this good news to which Paul was enslaved?  To understand good news requires us to understand the dismal nature of the status quo in which news may be good, and the status quo is this: we are dead.  We never lived.  Morbid as it may be, we must understand our condition – we have never tasted, never loved, never perceived.  We are dead and will be forever.  Why?  Because we have not and could not maintain the standard of living which God has called us to.  Therefore, the good news can be nothing short of the power of God for salvation from this eternal death.  In the good news, God’s righteousness is revealed both to the one who has the faith to hear it and for the strengthening of that faith.  And the good news is one purpose of the Law – without the Law, we would not need this good news.

Violations of the Law incur the wrath of God, and there isn’t a human who has not violated the law.  The wrath of God will result in making our death irrevocable.  Our actions against the Law suppress the truth.  We cannot say that we cannot know the God who wrote this law.  Look around!  God’s eternal power and divine nature are clear in the things He has made.  If that were not enough, He gave us the law through Moses.  But we do not follow it either.  We are conceited and place undue emphasis on our own logic and thinking.  We think we are wise and understanding, but we have only made ourselves unwise – we lack understanding.  Among humans you will find the unrighteous, evil, covetous, malicious, envious, murderers, quarrelsome, deceitful, gossips, slanderers, God haters, insolent, arrogant, disobedient, foolish, faithless, heartless, and ruthless.  We all are guilty of at least one of these from an early age, hence we are dead.

Because of our inability to follow the Law, we are all under a sentence of death – both physical and spiritual.  We have become accustomed to both to a degree.  Physical death is painful because of the perceived finality of death.  But we have become immune to the sting of spiritual death because we are already spiritually dead (see Colossians 1, Ephesians 2, and Romans 3).  Once irrevocable, spiritual death is still perceived by the dead in a place known as Hell.  Many today would disagree on the grounds that we are all in essence good people.  That may be so, depending on your definition of what is good.  But according to the Law, no one is good enough because the measure of “good enough” is perfection.  No one is perfect. 

Others would say that the bar is too high; but us being human and God being God, who are we to complain?  The all powerful God of the universe created everything that we see and things we cannot see or even possibly imagine.  Can we really argue with His Law?  We are merely nothing compared to Him.  Where to set the bar is certainly His prerogative, and we are charged with meeting that bar.  The consequences of certain failure demand death.

This is the Law.  Under the circumstances, our faith in the Rule of Law may seem misguided.  But like it or not this Law rules and we must follow it.  No rebellion or revolution can overthrow it, for it is divine in origin.  This Law has been publicly promulgated through the scripture.  It is equally applied to and enforced on all humanity.  It was created by God and adjudicated by Christ who will fairly judge the living and the dead by this one standard of perfection.  But good news!  The Law is mortal, and when its end comes a new Law will reign.  In the new Law we must now place our trust and hope, because only under this new Law is our death revocable.

Category: The Role of Law | No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Administrator on November 18, 2009

Every estate planning or wills & trusts client that I’ve had has asked me “how can I avoid probate?”  My answer is always “you can’t – that’s a myth.”  Every estate must go through some sort of probate proceeding.  In essence, there are two types of probate in Arkansas: Small Estate Probate Administration, and everything else.  Although you cannot avoid probate all together, there are ways for even the biggest estates to go through the small estate probate administration process, which is substantially easier than the standard probate process.

Revocable Trust
One of the most common ways to avoid probate (i.e. go through small estate administration) is to retitle property in the name of a revocable trust.  A revocable trust is like a person that doesn’t die.  The person who creates the trust, called the “settlor,” controls the property before and after death.  This is also known as an inter vivos trust – a trust created during life.  Property would no longer be in an individual’s name, but in the name of the trust. 

There are some misconceptions about revocable trusts as well.  First, you can’t be the beneficiary and the trustee – at least not in Arkansas.  That’s called a self-settled trust.  Second, you don’t lose control of the property.  You can still do with the property what you want because it is “revocable.”  Only when you create an “irrevocable trust” does the gift become final, at which point you are prevented from controlling the property.  The decision to create a revocable or irrevocable trust should be made in consultation with your tax advisor and attorney.

Creation of Joint Tenancy
The first way to ensure small estate probate administration is to create a joint tenancy ownership scheme in property.  This gives each person with joint tenancy rights equal access to the property.  For example, if a bank account is owned by A and B as Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship and A dies, B owns the bank account.  Since the bank account is owned by someone, it does not have to go through the probate process.

Payable on Death, Transfer on Death, and Beneficiary Status
Bank accounts, retirement accounts, brokerage accounts, life insurance policies, and other similar assets can have a Payable on Death (POD), Transfer on Death (TOD), or an appointed beneficiary.  These designations serve to automatically transfer property to an individual at death, thus avoiding probate.  Your insurance agent, personal banker, broker, or attorney can assist you in making these designations.

Beneficiary Deeds
Historically you could not pass real estate through a POD, TOD, or beneficiary designation.  The Arkansas General Assembly passed a law that created what’s called a “Beneficiary Deed.”  A Beneficiary Deed acts to automatically transfer real estate to a beneficiary at death.  Some may ask whether that gives the beneficiary an ownership interest.  Academically yes – it gives the beneficiary a “future interest.”  However, the property owner who grants a beneficiary deed maintains full control over the property and can sell, encumber, or otherwise do with the property what they want.

Not on Your Own
You should not do this on your own.  Forms from your local retailer are usually not tailored to state law, and are certainly not tailored to your individual needs.  Sometimes, your circumstances may require probate – for example, if life insurance needs to run through the estate for any number of reasons.  Plus, these documents will likely need to be altered anytime you have a big change in your life, such as a new baby, new house, inheritance, a promotion, relocation to another state, etc.  You should have an attorney review your situation and draft the necessary documents.

Category: Wills, Trusts, Estate Planning, & Probate | No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Administrator on October 26, 2009

Pro se in legal parlance in essence means unrepresented.  A pro se litigant is someone who goes to court but does not have an attorney.  There are many dangers and only one benefit to being a pro se litigant.  The only benefit of going to court without an attorney is that the pro se litigant can save you a great deal of money.  That’s it.  Every other exclusive aspect of pro se litigation is a huge danger.  Imagine that you know you have cancer, but refusing to pay the doctor you decide to operate on yourself and administer chemo-therapy to yourself on your own with no medical advice one way or the other.  Obviously, 99.9% of the possible outcomes of this situation will turn out bad for you. 

The same happens when you go to court without an attorney.  Just as doctors have been trained in medicine, biochemistry, surgery techniques, pharmacology, and the like, attorneys have been trained in a complicated set of rules, procedures, trial strategies, and legal research techniques.  Just as doctors have been trained to save your life, attorneys have been trained to save your rights.  Each object that needs saving is equally painful: not having a doctor can result in physical pain, not having an attorney can result in emotional and psychological pain.  This post tries to explain in greater detail your need for an attorney when you have a legal “sickness”.

Rules of Civil Procedure
Attorneys have been trained in the Rules of Civil Procedure.  In fact, 20% of the first year of law school is solely dedicated to the study of the Rules of Civil Procedure.  In addition, much of the third installment of the Legal Research and Writing class is devoted to the practical application of the Rules of Civil Procedure.  Furthermore, some students take courses that delve even deeper into the Rules of Civil Procedure.

These rules are complicated, and as a pro se litigant, you are not exempt from following them.  “I can find the Rules of Civil Procedure on the Internet,” say some.  True, but can you find all of the case law that has interpreted those rules?  Are you prepared to defend a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss or a rule 56 motion for summary judgment?  What about a rule 19 motion to dismiss for failure to join a necessary party?  Are you sure you properly served the other party?  Are you sure you were properly served?  If not, your case may be dismissed.

I’ve seen it happen several times.  On one such occasion, an individual had filed for divorce on his own and showed up to Court for a default judgment.  He hadn’t properly served the other party, and had not waited a sufficient time to request a default hearing.  Because he failed to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure, his case was dismissed.  He had to start all over and pay all of the court fees again.

Rules of Evidence
Attorneys are trained in the Rules of Evidence.  Having a book containing the Rules of Evidence is not enough.  Good trial lawyers have them memorized and spend a great deal of time before a hearing or trial preparing each piece of evidence for admission based on a specific rule or exception.  Still think you can do it alone?  Do you know when to object on the grounds of hearsay?  Do you know what the exceptions to the hearsay rule are?  Do you think you are going to be able to have character evidence admitted?  In most situations it is inadmissible.  Do you have pictures that you need to admit?  Do you know how to admit them properly?  Do you know all of the grounds for an objection to a question or piece of evidence?

Mastery of the Rules of Evidence takes practice.  Evidence can only be presented a certain way, and if it is not properly presented, it will be deemed inadmissible.  Just because you are a pro se litigant does not exempt you from the proper use of the Rules of Evidence at and before trial.  I once watched a judge patiently sustain every objection an attorney made to the questions of a pro se litigant.  The judge did not consider any of the evidence that the pro selitigant wanted to admit.  Why?  Because she did not follow the Rules of Evidence.  She lost her case and because of a think called res judicata, she can never bring her case again.

Trial Practice Technique
There are techniques and strategies to every part of a trial and to the trial as a whole.  The overarching strategy influences the individual strategies and techniques used in the parts of a trial.  There is one strategy and technique for an opening statement.  There is a different strategy for the direct examination of friendly witnesses, and yet another strategy for the direct examination of unfriendly witnesses.  There is a special technique to a cross examination, and yet other techniques that may have to be used on a re-direct examination in the event that a witness says something wrong during cross-examination.

Attorneys spend a great deal of time studying these techniques both in law school and through Continuing Legal Education (CLE).  Even more time is spent fine tuning these techniques and strategies, and tailoring them to the specific situation at hand.  Hours of learned preparation are needed to properly prepare a trial strategy and to determine which examination techniques to use with which witnesses and when.  Poor trial strategy, technique, and preparation can severely lower a litigant’s chances of winning.

Protection of Rights and Interests
Ultimately, an attorney must always do everything possible to protect the rights and interests of his or her client.  This is learned in the bulk of law school – what we call substantive law.  In order to protect your Fourth Amendment Rights, you need to know what your Fourth Amendment rights are, how those rights are applied in a given situation, and the proper method of combating an attack on those rights in Court.  Or…you need to have an attorney who knows all of this to protect those rights for you.

I recently had a case where the opposing party filed an answer to a complaint by himself.  He admitted everything that I stated in my complaint and explained his position in the case.  If he had an attorney, the attorney would not have done that.  All that is needed in situations like this is a motion for summary judgment (one of those Rules of Civil Procedure).  If everything is admitted, there is no material issue of fact for a judge to hear.  The case is closed.  His interests were not protected, and by filing this pleading his legal rights, indeed his very freedom is in jeopardy.

Conclusion
Lawyers are often the brunt of a lot of jokes, and lawyers can cost a lot of money.  But lawyers are a necessary part of our society, if only to navigate litigants through the maze of rules of evidence, procedure, and substantive law.  At The Bryant Firm, my fees are lower than any other attorney in Northwest Arkansas so that people who may resort to pro se litigation have an affordable alternative that will assist in the litigant’s compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, application of the Rules of Evidence, use of good trial technique and strategy, and the protection of the litigants legal rights and interests.  Don’t go to court without an attorney.  Call The Bryant Firm at (479)286-1129 for a free consultation and affordable legal services!

Category: Affordable Legal Services | No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Administrator on October 12, 2009

Each fall, the Board of Advocates at the University of Arkansas School of Law hosts competitions designed to improve the lawyering skills of law students.  Earlier this year, I was the presiding judge over one round of the trial competition, which was a mock criminal trial designed to increase the trial advocacy skills of the participants.  The basics of trial advocacy require a sound knowledge of the rules of evidence.  More advanced trial advocacy goes into trial strategy, technique, and preparation.  The participants in the round I judged did a great job.

In early November, I will be a judge for the Fall Moot Court.  The Fall Moot Court competition is designed to increase the appellate advocacy skills of participants.  There will be a mock problem at which the participants will make their legal arguments in front of a panel of judges acting as an appeals court.  The judges will listen to the arguments, ask questions, and then decide who performed with the highest degree of appellate advocacy skill.  Unlike the trial competition, moot court requires argumentative skill.  Participants must be able to grasp the facts of a situation, understand how the law applies to those facts, and then formulate an argument for their client and against their opponent’s legal position.

These skills are invaluable to an attorney.  Even at the trial level, appellate advocacy skills are necessary for some of the basic pretrial motions, such as the motion to dismiss, motion for summary judgment, or motion in limine.  Competitions such as these help students become more comfortable in their own skin as judges and other lawyers (or students in this case) try to determine every weak point in a case.  In my mind, assisting with these competitions is a great way to assist families, not only here in Northwest Arkansas, but every place to which these students will go and practice.

Category: Giving Back | No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Administrator on October 9, 2009

Most people find it hard to believe this, but yes – there are times when the Bible actually gives Christians permission to seek divorce.  A lot of people also find it hard to believe that I am a lawyer and a Christian at the same time.  I remember visiting a church in the area and the pastor asked me what I did for a living.  I told him I was a lawyer.  His response shocked me at the time.  “Really?”, he said.  I couldn’t believe he was so shocked by the fact that I was a Christian after he found out I was an attorney.  I can’t help but wonder what he would have thought had I told him I was a believer before I told him I was an attorney. 

The point of this post is to document what the Bible says on divorce and to distinguish between being a lawyer and being a litigant.  This post delves deep into the scriptures and seeks Biblical answers free of personal prejudices for or against divorce.  If you are not a Christian and are reading this article, fear not.  I will represent you with the same diligence and passion with which I represent every other client I have.  As one will discover by reading this article, I have no problems doing what I do, which includes unashamedly providing legal representation to persons seeking a divorce.  If you are a Christian and are reading this article, fear not.  It is my goal by the grace of God to practice law in line with Biblical principles and solely for the glory of God.  It is unfortunate that many in the church view divorce as an absolute evil.  I remember going to church with my parents shortly before starting law school.  One of the older ladies in the church came up to me after the service and asked what I was going to be doing now that I had graduated college.  I told her I was going to law school.  “Don’t you be doing any of them divorces” she told me with an old bony finger in my face.  I soon came to realize that principles of Christianity and the responsibilities of a lawyer were difficult to reconcile, but not impossible.  Ultimately, what we do is less important than for what, and even whom, we do it.

Distinguishing Lawyering and Litigating

In the third chapter of the book of Colossians, Paul is giving the church at Collosae a laundry list of rules.  These aren’t like the 10 commandments.  These rules are very idealistic and noble in nature, applicable to everyone – not just Christians.  These “rules” tell us to not be angry, wrathful, malicious, slanderous, obscene, liars, and so forth.  They tell us to be compassionate, kind, humble, meek, patient, forgiving, loving, and thankful.  Then Paul tells the Colossians, “whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”  Col. 3:17 (ESV), emphasis added.  The term “whatever” is translated from the Greek word hostis, which in the KJV is translated “whatsoever.”  There certainly seems to be a connotation here that it doesn’t matter what you do, so long as you do it in the name of Christ.

Chapter 14 of the book of Romans also sheds some light on the subject where it says “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.”  Rom. 14:23 (ESV).  I interpret this to mean that whatever acts or deeds (see above) that I do, must be done from faith.  Failure to practice law or represent someone in a divorce case by faith alone is sin.  I would do the reader a disservice if I did not discuss what I do in the context of the rest of Romans 14 regarding causing a brother to stumble.

One of the things I always try to do (and sometimes fail) is to ascertain the spiritual standing of my client.  The purpose of doing so is not solely to proselytize them, so non-Christian you have no need to worry.  (I respect the wishes and limits of my clients, so while I may bring up the subject, a client must only request that we not discuss the issue and it will not be brought up again).  Many of my clients are Christians and are seeking to follow the scripture or are embarrassed about being in my office and being a Christian.  As a believer, I would be doing my client a disservice if I did not point out what the scriptures say on divorce and assist them in any way I can.

Some would say that a lawyer has no business assisting clients in such a way.  The rules of professional responsibility disagree.  Rule 2.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct states that “In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the client’s situation.”  Ark. R. Prof. C. R. 2.1 (2009).  In order for me to counsel a client in areas that may be relevant to a client’s situation, I must determine whether Christian counsel is relevant to each particular client.  Some would ask “what about the Muslim or Hindu?”  I would be happy to represent a Muslim or Hindu.  However, I am not competent to provide Muslim or Hindu spiritual guidance, although I have heard that many of the basic precepts of all of the world’s major religions are very similar.

I am convinced that it is perfectly acceptable to be a lawyer and a Christian.  But I should advise any client of mine that is a Christian what the Bible says about divorce and litigation.  I believe the Bible teaches Christians to avoid going to court against other Christians at all costs.  “When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?  Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world?  And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?  Do you not know that we are to judge angels?  How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!  So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church?  I say this to your shame.  Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?  To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you.  Why not rather suffer wrong?  Why not rather be defrauded? ” 1 Cor. 6:1-7 (ESV).

As believers, we should never resort to a secular court against another believer.  Why not?

1. Believers will one day judge the world.  (See Matt. 18:15-20, esp. v. 18)
2. Believers will one day judge the angels.
3. If Believers will one day judge angles and the world in matters of eternal consequence, can’t we resolve our own disputes?

As believers, we should seek Jesus in everything, including personal conflict.  Wasn’t it Jesus who commanded us to “turn the other cheek”?  As believers, shouldn’t we “forgive as you have been forgiven”?  This begs the question “do you have Christian clients suing other Christians?”  The answer is, “I don’t know.”  As a lawyer, I do not have the opportunity to guage an opponent’s spiritual well being.  I can only guage my client’s spiritual state. 

Clients have told me that they believe the individual they are suing is a believer.  We talk about it, and if my client is comfortable continuing, we continue.  In each situation thus far, there has never been a situation in which I was convinced the other party was indeed a believer.  In fact, based on responses to my attempts at resolving the situation without going to Court, and based on the Biblical principal of “you’ll know they are Christians by their love,” I would say I’ve been fairly convinced that they may talk the talk but do not walk the walk.

Either way, a lawyer has two jobs.  The first job of an attorney is that of an advisor.  I always give advice to clients to stay out of court if at all possible.  There are several reasons for this.  First, if everyone involved are Christians, the Bible commands it.  Second, going to Court costs more money in attorney fees and court costs.  Third, coming to one’s own resolution to a problem is always better than going to a judge to be told what to do.  I’ve heard it said that if all parties do not walk away from court equally dissatisfied with the outcome, the judge has not done a good job on that case.  Of course I also advise my clients on the law and how it affects their personal situation.

The second job of an attorney is that of an advocate.  An advocate’s job is to know the rules of civil procedure and evidence so that a case properly proceeds in a fair manner and facts are presented to the judge or jury in a fair manner.  By doing so, the attorney presents his or her case.  There are attorneys out there that would bend the facts and present the twisted facts to a fact-finder on a technicality in the rules of procedure or evidence.  Not me.  First and foremost, it’s wrong Biblically.  Secondly, it’s unethical for an attorney to mislead a judge or jury. 

Neither the advisor nor the advocate ever commits an act that results in litigation (that is unless malpractice is committed).  The lawyer is more like a pilot who navigates the client through the confusing and often dangerous maze of rules and laws called litigation.

Christians and Divorce

Jesus said “…everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”  Matt. 5:32 (ESV).  This verse stands for two propositions, one easy to digest and the other much more difficult to digest.  First, anyone who divorces their spouse makes their spouse commit adultery except on the grounds of adultery.  This gives Christians per se permission to get a divorce if their spouse has been unfaithful.  The verse makes sense.  Why would divorcing a spouse that has committed adultery make that spouse any more of an adulterer?  They made themselves an adulterer, not the Christian spouse that divorces them.

The second part is more difficult – whoever marries a divorced person commits adultery.  This seems to stand for the proposition that even permissible divorce, which breaks the legal bonds of matrimony, does not break the spiritual bonds of matrimony.  I can hear the divorced people who are now re-married very upset at this.  First, this isn’t my opinion – I’m just quoting scripture.  Second, I don’t think this means that anyone who has been divorced and then re-married to another individual should get another divorce.  Regardless, the Bible appears to prohibit remarriage.

Continuing in that same line of thought, we see that Jesus reaffirms this in Matthew 19 when he quoted the book of Genesis to the Pharisees saying “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”  When Jesus speaks, he does so with authority.  I interpret His statement “let not man separate” to be akin to God’s statement “let there be light” – a creative and permanent decree of God.  I do not take it to be a command, and even if it is, neither lawyers nor judges separate married couples.  Lawyers advise their clients and represent them in Court.  Judges are referees making sure that the rules of evidence and civil procedure are followed, and that justice is served in a fair and equitable manner.  In actuality, couples divorce themselves. 

Therefore, we cannot hold an attorney accountable for representing a client in a divorce case.  If every Christian attorney turned down every divorce case on the grounds of Biblical morality, every divorce would be handled by a secular attorney.  While I respect the wishes and limits of my clients, as a Christian attorney I can use the opportunity to share the gospel in a unique way.  If my client doesn’t want to hear it, they will not.  If my client will listen, then the gospel can provide healing and love that someone facing divorce needs.

Category: Christians: Litigation and Divorce | No Comments »
Tags: