Having been involved in many hundreds of divorces both as an attorney and a Judge, all I can say is Fatcats view of the system is waaayyyy off base.
1. Most if not all states now have a 50/50 division rule which applies to all but extraordinary situation---such as a marriage of only a few months duration.
2. While there are more women Judges now, most are still men and untill a few years ago it was rare to see a woman on the bench; the idea that all these men were going way out of their way to favor women is silly. And, if a judge did unduly favor one side or the other, all lawyers know how to get the decision revied by an appeallate court where a disproportionate distribution will be promptly adjusted.
3. It is a simple fact that in most divorces BOTH sides think they got mistreated. A favorite pastime of some of my staff was to go out into the public hallway after a trial to listen to the things the litigants said. Staff members would now and then come back to see me laughing uproariously about the quarrell going on in the hall where husband and wife and lawyers are debating who got screwed; each side absolutly convinced I had favored the other side.
4. When a judge handles these cases by the hundreds, to claim that they do not pretty well know what they are doing---how to evaluate the need for restraining orders, how to devide assets etc. , is to suggest that one of you folks on installing your 50th set of injectors, is likely to screw it up because you don't have any idea how.
One morning two lawyers really made my YEAR; this happened to concern criminal cases, but the situation applies equally to civil cases.
That morning when I arrived for work, the senior deputy district attorney, who had been a classmate in law school was waiting to see me. Having been a classmate and friend for years, he felt at liberty to speak his mind; he sat down and said, "Vaugh, I was asked to speak to you on behalf the entire DA's staff. We feel you are so biased in favor of defendants that we cannot get a fair trial for the state"
I said I was sorry they felt that way, but did not agree with them. He went away a little disgruntled.
I spent the morning in trial and when I broke for lunch, an older defense attorney was waiting to see me. Being a guy who was about 20 years older than I, and a friend for 10 or more years, he felt he could speak his mind.
He followed me into my office and blurted out, "Dam it Vaughn, you have become nothing but a rubber stamp for the DA's office. A criminal defendant can't get a fair shake in your courtroom. "
I burst out laughing so hard I was nearly crying; he looked dumbfounded.
I said "Joel, before you say more, walk over to the DA's office and talk to Lee"
and sent him away. For months, they both did their best to avoid me, and I jabed them with it every time I saw them.
This sort of thing is played out for Judges OVER AND OVER -----ALL THE TIME. Comparing these experiences is one of the favorite things Judges talk about when they are together.
It is just the standard thing that both sides think they got shafted and the other side got everything. In over 30 years hearing cases, I would bet that not a single week went by that I did not get an irate letter from a husband or wife, or landlord or tenent, or what ever other kind of litigant, expressing outrage over the way I had given the other side way more than was fair.
That is a standard part of every Judges day.
Vaughn