New York Law Journal, June 26, 2025 —
In this author’s opinion, one of the great disservices that we, as lawyers, are told in law school is the notion that using “legalese,” pseudo-Latin prose, and/or long-winded lawyer sounding words and grammar somehow puts our ability to convey a written point in a manner that far surpasses the ability of non-lawyers to do the exact same thing.
My National Institute for Trial Advocacy Instructor once told me that it was not the polished prose of the “Bobby Donnell” character (Dylan McDermott) in the late 1990s television show known as The Practice whose advocacy skills were worthy of praise, but instead, the down to earth, Plain English advocacy of the less suave character known as “Jimmy” (Michael Badalucco).
The more that I draft separation or other agreements in divorce cases, the more I am convinced that the Plain English, “Jimmy” style of written (and oral) advocacy is a much surer bet in terms of trying to avoid future disputes over the meaning of written words in those same agreements.
That brings us to Justice Jeffery S. Sunshine’s recent decision in E.S. v. H.G., 2025 NY Slip Op 50610(U) (Kings Cty., 2025).
In E.S., the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement (the “agreement”) resolving their divorce in 2006. At the time of the divorce (also in 2006), the parties had two minor children, ages four and six. Post-judgment litigation ensued when the mother sought to enforce the Agreement due to the father’s child support arrears.
At the time of the post-judgment application seeking enforcement on child support that is the subject of E.S., the parties—“who are both attorneys”—represented themselves. The father claimed that after the mother sought enforcement, he paid $82,400.37 in child support and “owes no other arrears for child support”. The mother disagreed.