Is There Any Advantage to “Striking First” in a Divorce?

Frequently, I am asked whether it is best to strike first, that is, serve the opposition, or wait to be served. Clients want to know whether there is any tactical advantage, and whether the court will view them in any more favorable light. They want to know if there is any savings in holding off and waiting to be served. Unlike chess or martial arts where it is often said that waiting for your opponent to strike first is the best move, in family law, while there is no real advantage in terms of being given the moniker "petitioner" or "respondent," there are several other considerations to take into account—in particular, two issues that are relevant to everyone these days: time and money.

Choosing the proper venue can actually save you time, and consequently money. To illustrate, some courts are grossly understaffed with maybe one or two judges hearing 20-30 cases on a daily basis. If you are in a smaller venue, say Burbank, as opposed to downtown Los Angeles, you might find that even the best intentioned court simply does not have time to get to your matter, resulting in your worst nightmare, a continuance. Yes dear friends, continuances, which are often blamed on attorneys trying to delay things, are probably more likely the result of the court simply running out of time.

Continuances can be quite disturbing for family law litigants particularly when there are issues of extreme moment, such as in child custody disputes, hearings related to child or spousal support, or, where pertinent discovery issues prevail and you need to get orders for attorney fees and costs in order to pursue your rights. If you are in a venue which is generally well staffed (due to budgetary cutbacks and the horrific California state deficit the notion of a “well-staffed courthouse” is becoming a pipe dream) then you are certainly more likely to get your case heard in an expeditious fashion.

Venue selection is also important in terms of your and your lawyer’s commute to the courthouse. If you have an attorney you particularly like and want to hire that counsel, then it is best to know that his/her office is reasonably proximate to the courthouse that you contemplate using. That will also save you time and money. If your attorney is known to the court as someone who is prepared and competent, then that is also to your benefit. Of course the cynical out there may deliberately try and select the venue that is least suitable to their soon to be divorced ex-spouse, and I will not comment on that, other than to say, it does happen. 

What can be gleaned from all of the above is the following: if you are sure that you want to get divorced or if you are certain that you have issues that must be addressed by the court (child custody, child support, spousal support, restraining orders, discovery, etc.) then very little is really to be gained by waiting to see if the other side wants to file. If you are uncertain about what you would like to do, then you shouldn't be filing in the first place. While the old saying goes he who laughs last, laughs best, in family law it could be modified to he who files first, picks home.

If you would like to discuss your case with an experienced divorce lawyer in Glendale or Burbank, contact the Law Offices of Dabbah & Haddad, APC.