I’m a lawyer and I love literature. I serve families in crisis, primarily in the areas of family, education, and consumer law. I only do criminal law as it’s incidental to my practice, primarily in the area of restraining orders. For a while, like many lawyers I was incredibly dissatisfied with what I do, until I was able to link storytelling to my practice. To tell stories, I believe in becoming the biographer of my client: What happened and why.
Often their narratives are compelling in and of themselves, and by weaving that tapestry I can combine the story with law, and research to explain why it is so. The same themes of ambiguity and deep questions that emerge in great literature find their way into litigation: Is the narrator reliable? Is the law just? Is there a higher level of law, such as when a parent tries to protect children from harm the law can’t see, like in emotional abuse cases? When a family is split by allegations of improper touching, it is right to split a child and parent? What if it really didn’t happen? J’accuse, ambiguity, and big questions.