Comments on: Why Do Lawyers Fuck Everything Up?

By: just me

just me — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 05:56:38 +0000

She looks old,sad and empty in this picture!

By: lolly

lolly — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 03:30:19 +0000

this is a gorgeous photo of her.

By: Pachanga

Pachanga — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 01:03:44 +0000

Why did Britney fuck everything up?

By: Erin

Erin — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:04:50 +0000

To me it seems like every time she gets into little dramas and sagas like this her music ratings go up. How does stuff like this possibly help her reputation?

By: Snowdevil

Snowdevil — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:18:00 +0000

Hee Hee (I despise lawyers, but admit they are a necessary evil)

By: Snowdevil

Snowdevil — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:15:52 +0000

So in your opinion he will “need” legal representation every time he wants to discuss arrangements about the care of his children with their mother? Sorry, I just don’t buy it. Obviously you are either an attorney or a big fan on one and are biased.

By: Happygirrrl

Happygirrrl — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:59:56 +0000

along with a hefty bill, no doubt.

By: thatLisa

thatLisa — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:43:07 +0000

oh yea, from tmz:

UPDATE: 11:27 AM ET Mark Vincent Kaplan, K-Fed’s lawyer, says neither he nor Kevin want to interfere with Brit’s career. He says it could have been handled better if Jamie and company would have “manned up” and had Kevin got the benefit of his lawyers to protect his position. Kaplan says he’s going to present his own wording of the deal, but thinks they’ll work it out.

By: thatLisa

thatLisa — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:42:47 +0000

oh come on. it’s like an extended vacation. it is not a big fucking deal. the lawyers just wanted to be paid. the parents worked together.

the lawyers and Kevin should be stoked his lazy ass would get $4000/a fucking week to travel around and hang out with his kids. Jesus.

By: Valerie

Valerie — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:32:45 +0000

If this tour doesn’t happen, there will be riots everywhere. I can picture it now.

By: Legal_Beagle

Legal_Beagle — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:57:24 +0000

Honestly, I do not think there is a concrete timetable for when lawyers will no longer have to be involved. I think it is always going to depend on the behavior of the parties and the complexity of the issues. I would hope that at some point, there would be a consistent pattern of stable behavior on both sides that there would be less need for lawyers to be involved. I do believe that a year is nowhere near long enough to decide that someone who was institutionalized is now behaving rationally. I also would say that the fact that one party is under a conservatorship would tend to lean towards having involvement of attorneys. In addition, these are arrangements involving minor children being taken across state lines to live temporarily in different locations. That is a very serious thing, in both the legal and practical sense. When thinking of the complexity of the legal issues not to mention travel arrangements, lodging, medical care, etc., I would say with that sort of ‘plan’, I would want to security of having had legal assistance in fashioning the agreement. Will they always have to keep the lawyers involved in their parenting decisions? I would hope not. That would be a nightmare. But for now, I think the situation still calls for it, especially in this instance in which you are dealing with such young children being moved across state lines.

By: so...

so... — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:35:00 +0000

Of course that makes sense and thanks for educating us, I would have been in the lawyer bashing camp.

But I am curious, does this mean that Brit and KFed will always and ever have to have lawyers present when conversing on the topic of coparenting arrangements? Because that can’t be good. Put another way, what’s the ‘teach a man to fish’ ethic here?