New York Law Journal, March 27, 2025 —
During a divorce one or both spouses may feel compelled to establish within their community of family and friends the “why,” i.e., each spouse’s explanation as to why the marriage broke down. This is particularly relevant in American culture which, regrettably, can be quick to judge when word gets out that a couple is going through a divorce.
How spouses go about explaining the “why” can take various forms. Some spouses have heart-to-heart, private conversations with their treating mental health professionals. Others, much to the chagrin of their divorce lawyers, may go nuclear and find comfort in a very public social media rant.
The question becomes whether or not spouses are faced with any limitations on speech when they choose—if they do—to discuss their divorce and/or the information they learn during their divorce with third parties.
That brings us to Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine’s recent decision in T.I. v. R.I., 2025 NY Slip Op 50115(U) (Sup. Ct., Kings Cty. 2025). At the outset, I note that a large portion of the T.I. decision relates to the plaintiff-wife’s motion to disqualify the defendant-husband’s counsel from representing the husband because his counsel was subsequently retained by the husband’s brother in a malicious prosecution action against the wife.