2. Each party's ability or inclination to monitor his/her own attorney's actions.
3. Each party and counsel's I.Q.
4. Each party's B.Q. (Bitterness quotient). (Sometimes attorneys get in on this most unprofitable act.)
5. Whether our actions will come as surprise or dash expectations
6. A party has difficulty making up mind.
7. Client requests attorney to explain work. (This is commendable for client, but expense should be recognized.)
8. Plan a union plan (exceptions such as Teamsters)
9. Party or attorney a procrastinator.
10. Party or attorney won't cooperate.
11. Party refuses to consider compromise.
12. Employee retired before nonemployee's choices got taken into account.
13. Expert required to obtain fair division or to support court-bound case.
14. Other party won't get attorney and refuses to share fees, but wants to be educated at my client's expense.
15. Opposing Counsel (OPC) an original thinker--refuses to read the case files or law.
16. OPC won't read our briefs or correspondence.
17. OPC knows zip and wants me to explain rather than reading handouts sent for educational purpose.
18. OPC knows zip and proud of it.
19. OPC knows zip but thinks s/he an expert.
20. OPC makes verbal commitments and then backslides or renounces--forcing all to be placed in writing.
21. OPC writes unintelligible or insulting letters, resulting from lack of an analysis chip between stimulus and response.
22. OPC delegates nothing to staff and cannot be found to make appointments, talk settlement, etc.
23. Attorney Snob: OPC is so insecure that s/he refuses to talk to legal assistant who is simply trying to follow up and get the job completed.
24. Plan is known or familiar in type; plan is totally new and of an unfamiliar makeup to me.
25. Employee is a pilot and working for third airline in career, necessitating review of post-separation plan for community coverage.
26. Matter is a rush.
27. Matter is already set for court hearing.
28. Matter has already been messed up:
a. Can't readily find the controlling stipulation or other paperwork. b. Previous order which doesn't fit the pension plan. c. Wrong formula in the old judgment-- and the benefiting party won't admit it was an error.
29. Other issues in case; loose ends such as other assets, reimbursements not yet handled.
30. Issue multiplier effect. Five QDRO's do not save much in fees because of the need to keep them all segregated from one another to avoid confusion. For file and followup purposes, each plan must generally have separate correspondence as well as orders.
31. Employee dead; I must pursue widow[er].
32. Marriage already terminated; former spouse leverage to get favorable terms is diminished.
33. Employee has remarried and second spouse now wants survivor benefits pending or after retirement. This could cut spouse one's benefits in half on Employee's death.
34. Clogged court. If matter needs more than 20 minutes of court attention, a minimum of four court appearance dates will be set after the initial date.
35. A party wants to leave retirement benefits to children. (Best to distribute all to parties and maximize benefits during joint lives.)
36. Bottom line myopia: Concern more for cutting the other party's benefit than for what such party will get.
