Lawyer Must Pay $1.5M Verdict for Affair With Client’s Wife

Legal Ethics

Lawyer Must Pay $1.5M Verdict for Affair With Client’s Wife

Posted Aug 19, 2008, 08:47 am CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Solo practitioner Ronald Henry Pierce of Mississippi will have to pay a $1.5 million verdict against him for having an affair with a client’s wife, the Mississippi Supreme Court has ruled.

The court affirmed the verdict for intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract and alienation of affection in an Aug. 14 opinion (PDF), the National Law Journal (sub. req.) reports.

Ernest Allan Cook and his wife, Kathleen, had hired Pierce to represent them and their son in a medical malpractice case in 1997. At the time, Pierce was practicing law in an Oxford firm, but it later disbanded and Pierce moved his practice in Pearl.

Pierce had an affair with Kathleen after her husband moved to California in 2000, the opinion says. The Cooks later divorced, and Pierce married Kathleen. Ernest Cook sued Pierce in 2002.

Pierce told the National Law Journal he expected to lose the case because he wasn’t allowed to present oral argument on appeal. “I knew I was going to get screwed,” he said. He plans to file a motion to reconsider.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Dukes909 - 3 months, 3 days, 16 hours, 28 minutes ago

He wasn’t the only one, apparently!
Posted by Bill Dickey - 3 months, 3 days, 15 hours, 46 minutes ago

Another expensive lesson. My dad always told me it is never worth it to dip your pen in the company’s inkwell.
Posted by Ester - 3 months, 2 days, 21 hours, 40 minutes ago

$1.5 m is worth paying for true love.
Posted by Ellen Barshevsky - 3 months, 2 days, 14 hours, 57 minutes ago

this is exactly what I am talking about. Men are after only 1 thing, even when defending a lawsuit. Now it has come back to bite this guy, in his wallet. He should NOT have decided to have an affair with his client’s wife. That is WRONG. Now he must wonder if it was worth it. I don’t think his new wife will be happy with him shelling out $1.5M to the ex, either. He may be loaded, but he’d better wonder the next time he sets his sights on another woman.
Posted by b - 3 months, 23 hours, 45 minutes ago

The guy’s website is hilarious:

http://ronaldhenrypierce.com/index.cfm
Posted by b - 3 months, 23 hours, 42 minutes ago

Direct quote from the website:

“While divorce lawsuits are stressful and emotionally draining, your lawyer is not a psychologist or a psychiatrist. It is less expensive to handle your stress by regular exercise, healthy diet and companionship with good friends. (Do not date however, because you are still married).“

You cannot make this stuff up.
Posted by Al Tidom - 3 months, 22 hours, 55 minutes ago

This poor schnook got caught with his “hand in the cookie jar”. But he is not solely to blame so please not to beshry this yutz; he’s out $1.5M, and now has the ex-wife and a new child to support. As one who has also married a retread, I can tell you there will be difficulty going forward. Mrs Barshevsky, above, is clueless as to the realities of this world. Women also are to blame, since no one is forcing women to part their theighs for love. Love is not objective. If it was, then many would not be married or have any child, either in or out of wedlock. Let us all pray we do not repeat the transgresions of others, as we can easily be there.
Posted by baller - 3 months, 22 hours, 33 minutes ago

legal practice will soon be hoist by its own self riteous petard. this article makes me sick.
Posted by anon - 3 months, 22 hours, 24 minutes ago

Does anyone else find it odd that he has this height and weight on his resume??
Posted by Ronnie - 3 months, 22 hours, 13 minutes ago

Actually, I think the quote is pretty spot on. I’m a divorce attorney, and I think clients need to hear that. I’d probably amend to include that the client may want to seriously consider seeking the advice of a psychologist or psychiatrist and, depending on the state you’re in, it’s not so much the dating, but the sex, that you can’t have during the divorce. Believe me, you can be charged with post-separation adultery. Not a good look. And regarding his resume, depends on his age and locale. I know a lot of older attorneys and attorneys from Southern states that include date of birth, marital status, number of children, etc. People used to consider those things relevant.
Posted by SimplyB - 3 months, 21 hours, 28 minutes ago

Well said Ronnie!!!
Posted by Just Me - 3 months, 20 hours, 51 minutes ago

I think the point “B” was making with including the quote from Pierce’s website is that Pierce was advising his potential clients to do something that he turned right around and did by dating Mrs. Cook while she was still married to Mr. Cook. The advice about diet and exercise apparently did not work for Mrs. Cook.
Posted by Kenneth Krasny - 3 months, 20 hours, 20 minutes ago

Florida has ethics rules against “doing” a client. The legal and ethical ramifications shold be obvious to even the horniest lawyer. Of course, today’s “progressive” society frowns on self control, decency and honor while the Bar lectures us constantly on that very thing. How very noble this example is to the public and other lawyers. How noble, indeed.
Posted by R - 3 months, 20 hours, 6 minutes ago

If he’d stayed a solo practitioner in his private life as well, he wouldn’t be in this jam.

If I had my weight on my resume, I’d have to update it all the time. Mainly to increase the number, I’m afraid.

If you’re going to go that route, why not list your shoe and glove size?
Posted by R - 3 months, 20 hours, 2 minutes ago

I’m sorry, but the photo on his website at http://ronaldhenrypierce.com/index.cfm does not appear to be that of a 5’10”, 195-pound man.. I’m guessing 225.

His professional qualifications appear impressive, though!
Posted by Andy the Lawyer - 3 months, 19 hours, 40 minutes ago

This guy should have practiced in California, where there’s no tort for alienation of affection, or any other tort for doing someone else’s spouse—particularly if the spouses are separated. State bar discipline wouldn’t have been an issue because the sex post-dated the representation by some years.
Posted by Walter Smith - 3 months, 19 hours, 40 minutes ago

What sucks is that a different standard is applied by courts to attorneys than to others.Would the result have been the same if the culprit had been a engineer,contractor, teacher or candlestick maker? I don’t think so. This kind of thing happens thousands of times every day in our society but other husbands who suffer the same fate could never recover like this.
Posted by cousinavi - 3 months, 19 hours, 38 minutes ago

Men are only after one thing? The only women who say that are the ones to whom men never turn for that one thing.
Someone needs to get laid.
Posted by HAHAH - 3 months, 19 hours, 20 minutes ago

You could never get a jury to do this in California that’s for sure. Just move out here before you have affairs.
Posted by Bill - 3 months, 18 hours, 58 minutes ago

All I can say is wow to #18 cousinavi’ s comment
Posted by Mike C - 3 months, 18 hours, 39 minutes ago

I like the last paragraph…

He was refused “oral” arguments, but said he still expected to get screwed (quote)...

Heck, I’d be happy with that…....
Posted by Nena Wena - 3 months, 18 hours, 6 minutes ago

Priceless!!!
Posted by Jerry - 3 months, 17 hours, 44 minutes ago

Good for the scumbag lawyer.
Posted by mark - 3 months, 15 hours, 37 minutes ago

We were told by our civil procedure professor the first day of law school to: 1) never commingle funds; 2) always return phone calls; and 3) never f**k your clients. Easy ethics rules to remember.
Posted by Kevin K. - 3 months, 15 hours, 14 minutes ago

(linkback) Fair or Foul? Lawyer has affair with wife of client, ex husband sues, $1.5M [VOTE] - http://www.thriveorfail.com/4cff2
Posted by Money grubber aka attorney - 3 months, 15 hours, 12 minutes ago

how much did he get from the med mal case?
Posted by Insider - 3 months, 14 hours, 11 minutes ago

I befriended Kat Cook while we were both in law school and watched all of the saga unfold. This Opinion is a travesty to the law of Mississippi and mangles the doctrine of alienation of affection terribly. The real story is that Kat’s trust-fund kid husband left her to pursue his ill-fated attempt to become a movie producer in Hollywood (imagine how that’s turned out so far, since you haven’t heard of him until now), also leaving her to care for their children (including one severely autistic child) alone, without money or funds in support. Left destitute, she ended up selling off furniture and anything of value she had left to make ends meet. Some time later, Kat found comfort in Peirce (a truly intelligent, but poor lawyer who took her son’s case for free), they eventually slept together and carried on a relationship during the time Kat’s husband refused to give her a divorce. (we don’t have no-fault divorce in MS) Kat’s husband didn’t want her back, he just didn’t want anyone else to have her.

As we all know, the doctrine of alienation of affection was originated to prevent a rich man from stealing a poor man’s wife. The tort was meant to punish for such acts by hitting the rich man in his pocket book for such a transgression. In this case, assuming there was any stealing (and we all know that women aren’t property to be stolen), this scenario is just the converse: a poor man stole a rich man’s wife. The entire purpose behind the tort of alienation of affection is thwarted with this decision.

The real mistake made in this case, in which I think all parties would agree, was that Peirce ended up cross-examining Cook, and appeared to be an a**hole picking on Cook to the jury in a very conservative Mississippi circuit court. I guess you can’t sue yourself for malpractice…
Posted by Tony - 3 months, 14 hours, 7 minutes ago

Personally, I think all who have affairs should have to lose everything, period.

Marriage is a social contract which apparently there is no penalty for breaking the contract.

Someone mentioned the double standard about a lawyer being held responsible by paying a fine, but likely others such as engineers would not.

Well, it’s also true on a gender basis. If a man has an affair, he loses. I know, in most states, the law says otherwise when it comes to divorce, but the reality is judges don’t always split the property 50/50, etc.

Now if a woman has an affair, it must have been her husbands fault in the eyes of our society.

The folks here should be familiar with the stats, and 2/3rds of all divorces are filed by women. I seriously doubt that their husbands are having affairs or are abusive. When you look at the work by marriage counselors such as Dr Willard Harley, most of the women who abandon their husbands or come to see him are not victims of abusive or unfaithful husbands. They are emotionally unfulfilled.

So she can go out and have an affair, and most likely she’ll get the kids, get 1/2 or more of the assets and she’ll get child support.

Now there are no checks to ensure child support is actually used for the child, it can be used on the affair partner.

But let a guy not pay, or just the hint of he’s making more money than he claims, and the accountants arrive.

Personally, I think No Fault Divorce is far more destructive to the family than Same Sex Marriage ever could be.

Yet many here probably make a ton of money in divorce cases, so it seems there is little motivation to change the laws.

But if someone were motivated, there are a few things I’d like to see.

First, infidelity would matter in custody cases. If a spouse cannot be trusted to keep her vows, why should we trust them with our children?

Affairs are abusive behaviors, so anyone who has an affair has already demonstrated a pattern of emotional abuse and should be treated as such in court.

I understand that NFD was created to stop the lying in courts and many groups want to preserve it for cases where there is abuse, etc. Frankly, if one’s spouse is abusive, then it’s your civic duty to tell the world. If you just quietly divorce them, then how is the next person going to know.

It may be the wakeup call one needs.

However, if one wants an NFD, we can’t imprison people in marriages, so I say streamline the process. If they want out, let them go. They get the assets they came into the marriage with and 1/2 the debt or debt divided based on income percentages, and they are the non-custodial parent of their children.

They are leaving the marriage, and that should include the assets accumulated in the marriage, the children.

The party who wants to work on the marriage will keep the kids, keep the assets and only have a portion of the debt.

If one wants to break the social contract of marriage, they should expect to pay and not GET anything in a property or custody hearing.

Let folks out if they want out, but make it clear that that’s all they get. They get out. They get a chance to find a new place to live, to earn their own money, and to be a visitor to their child.

Maybe if they really had to give up that much, that affair partner may not look so good.

And if their spouse is abusive or unfaithful, then let them prove it in court.

The stereotype is that men are worse than women. Frankly, unless men are having affairs with other men, it’s pretty clear to me that men and women participate in extra-marital affairs in even numbers.

It doesn’t matter if one of the parties is not married, they are still engaging in activities that are destructive to families and marriages, and therefore they should both be held to the same standard.

So young women who have affairs with married men are not victims, the are just as guilty of destroying the family.

So to all the ladies who want to argue that men are lying cheating pigs, ask your sisters why there is one of them that gives them the opportunity.

Women are involved in affairs in numbers equal to men. So there is no gender based moral high-ground here.

It’s time that not only divorce laws, but actual divorce settlements reflect this.

It’s time that fidelity matters when it comes to custody and property division.

So him losing 1.5M probably wasn’t enough. What did he have before he got married? That’s about how much he should have left after his affair.

How much did she have before she got married? That’s about how much she should now have after her divorce.

It gets attention because it’s a lawyer and a large sum of money.

Yet I suspect most here know the damage done by an affair, yet the victims, the betrayed husbands and wives and children are ripped up in courts. The unfaithful spouse tries to paint the other as unfit, etc, while the faithful spouse cannot bring up the most abusive act possible in a marriage, the betrayal of their vows.
Posted by Tony - 3 months, 13 hours, 56 minutes ago

And insider above proves my comment. Kat had an affair, but look at all the justification. Her husband did this and that.

Frankly, it’s not wise to trust someone who will break a vow.

I"m not saying what he did was right, running off to try to have a career in Hollywood.

Yet none of that is justification to sleep with another man.

We don’t accept excuses for any other kid of abuse, and everything I’ve studied, affairs are one of the most horribly abusive things you can do to your spouse.

If she wanted another man, I’m sure in a state as conservative as MS, one can get a divorce for being abandoned.

So there is no excuse for her to betray her husband, even if she felt that she was abandoned by him.

She could have ended the marriage, AND THEN slept with another man.

And the attorney who says having a relationship while divorcing is not a good idea, and then sleeps with a client.

Seems to me it’s was natures way of saying he wasn’t smart enough to keep that $1.5million.
Posted by Willem DeDonis - 3 months, 13 hours, 22 minutes ago

Interesting posts. I don’t understand why one would spend $1,500,000 to an ex as compensation for sexual alienation of affections. The ex can buy a lot of affections with $1,500,000. And will the new wife stick with the man with the cheating heart? Now he has $1,500,000 less in the bank, and may be less desirous to her. It is not inconceivable she could take up again with the ex. This could be the fodder for a soap opera, no? I do feel bad for the chap, though; having to pay all that money for a retread.
Posted by prosecute1966 - 3 months, 11 hours, 59 minutes ago

I wonder if anyone has considered that our society would be well-served to make divorce really, really quick and easy, but make getting married very difficult. A quick license and a justice of the piece or minister is all it takes in most states to get married—one of the most serious commitments one can make, and all it takes to do it is a piece of paper and a rote recitation by a black robe. No wonder divorce is so prevalent. It’s not because of no-fault divorce that people are breaking up their marriages and having affairs; it is because it is far to easy for two people who are everything from ignorant of the enormity of what they are doing to folks who have psyches so damaged that they can’t think clearly enough to discern whether the person they are marrying is worthy of the devotion they are promising.
It is absolutely crazy—the number of people I’ve seen get married who not only should not date or marry, but should’ve run, not walk, from their betrothed. It is nonsensical, but we cling to the archaic notion of marriage and its sanctity, but any practitioner who has even sat in the gallery of family court could see that American marriages are predicated on (many times) hastily made decisions. When those marriages inevitably end, lawyers and lay people alike want to bemoan whose fault it was, and who should be paying whom how much.

The simple truth is Kat Cook probably should have never married “the trust fund kid husband”, and he should not have married her. I’ll bet if you could both to be honest, they could point to several red flags they both ignored that would lead a reasonably intelligent person to conclude that they should not make a lifelong legal commitment to each other. “Alienation of affection” my butt!! The guy’s a trust fund kid—he presumably doesn’t need $1.5M to be “made whole”. He is just pissed that another man could take something from him that he shouldn’t have had in the first place. She just slept with the lawyer because she was mad that the guy she shouldn’t have been with anyway left her for Cali. This is just about lust, anger, pride, ego, and a whole bunch of wrong decisions.

...and stuck in the middle is our dumba** legal system, trying to make some ill-conceived, largely archaic tort law mean something it shouldn’t.
Posted by prosecute1966 - 3 months, 11 hours, 57 minutes ago

Excuse my misspelling—I meant to type “justice of the peace”. No Freudian slip.
Posted by sammyP - 3 months, 11 hours, 53 minutes ago

as usual…the comments provide more entertainment value than the story!
Posted by df - 3 months, 10 hours, 34 minutes ago

I found the post by “Insider” the most interesting. Situations like this are so fact-dependent. I am automatically highly concerned about “dependent” relationships (in the sense of a power imbalance, the lawyer was acting for the woman’s disabled son for free, that’s power over her) but that would seem to be more a matter of professional ethics and discipline. I’m also not a fan of quick and easy divorce, but forcing people to stay together by imposing financial penalties for breaking up is not a good answer.

Quaere, was the ex-husband’s original behaviour (abandonment?) itself actionable, not to mention his (in a loose sense) arguably abusive behaviour? What’s the limitation period, can the ex-wife sue him for intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.?
Posted by jkk - 3 months, 9 hours, 33 minutes ago

Ooooh, that would be a great scam… if the original couple planned this. The XH gets $1.5M and the XW is now married to the lawyer, who supposedly has some money left over after paying the $1.5M… if she divorces him, she gets alimony too.
Posted by Tony - 3 months, 8 hours, 28 minutes ago

prosecute1966 has some good points. Yet I don’t think MOST marriages are like this. I know I did all the pre-marital counseling, dated my unfaithful former wife for 30 months before we married, so it wasn’t a weekend in Vegas sort of deal.

I could see an easy out if there are no children. However, once children are involved, and mix in some infidelity, I think the one betraying the marriage is free to go, but leave all the marital property there, if they really want out to go screw someone else.

And if their spouse is abusive, they owe it to society to prove that point in a court of law. If they are not willing to do what I believe is their civic duty, then they can leave all the assets and the children in the marital home with the spouse they seek to divorce.

Why should someone get to divorce another, but want to keep the spoils of the marriage. If you want to leave, leave. But don’t try to grab all the stuff and the kids while bailing out.

I do agree with the whole it should be very hard to marry. But in our society, folks have the right to marry.

I wouldn’t even take away their right to divorce, just limit how much stuff they can take if they are unfaithful, breaking their vows etc.

You can’t force someone to love, but why force the betrayed or abandoned spouse to give up his home, his children, etc?
Posted by Jennifer - 2 months, 4 weeks, 12 hours, 50 minutes ago

After reading Insider’s info, I feel strongly that this verdict is BS.

Abandonment should be sufficient cause to issue the divorce, can a practicing MS atty give us the skinny on how hubby can stall the divorce in this case?

I think it is BS that you can desert your family for years and an attorney gets hit up to pay the deserter anything. Look attorneys spend 10+ hours a day at the firm meeting clients. I don’t see the problem if the guy is no longer your client and you hook up with the wife. Seriously. It’s not cheating when it is years after being abandoned people.

Truly our “think like a lawyer” reasoning is foul when common sense can’t factor in at all.
Posted by Another Insider - 2 months, 4 weeks, 6 hours, 6 minutes ago

Insider’s comments (#27) as to the underlying and primarily untold facts are dead-on. I, too, went to law school with Kathleen (Kat) and watched and heard about the drama as it took place. Kat is a wonderful person and is an incredibly intelligent woman. She fell in love with her autistic son’s attorney while her husband, a wealthy trust fund brat, was off pursuing a film career in CA, leaving Kat and their three children in MS. Regardless of what anyone thinks of either of the two men in this triangle, Kat is—by all accounts—a remarkable woman and is undeserving of any judgmental or tacky comments posted above.
That said, I, unlike some, am glad MS has chosen to maintain an action for alienation of affections. Despite the origins of an AA claim, the MS Supreme Court (in several decisions) has made clear their reasoning for maintaining such an action…which has absolutely nothing to do with ownership of a woman. First, a claim for AA is viable against a man, a woman, or even a company or entity in certain situations. It is no longer simply a way for a poor man to seek reimbursement for monetary loses when a rich man swoops in and steals “his property.“ Secondly, MS has maintained this cause of action to do what so few in this country still do…that is, to preserve the sanctity of marriage. In the 2007 case of Fitch v. Valentine, the MS Supreme Court ruled that, “in the interest of protecting the marriage relationship and providing a remedy for intentional conduct which causes a loss of consortium, this Court declines the invitation to abolish the common law tort of alienation of affections in Mississippi. Alienation of affections is the only available avenue to provide redress for a spouse who has suffered loss and injury to his or her marital relationship against the third party who, through persuasion, enticement, or inducement, caused or contributed to the abandonment of the marriage and/or the loss of affections by active interference.”
Any injustices in the Cook/Pierce case were based on facts and evidence which were either ignored or not admitted at the trial level—rather than any unfairness in the mere existence and availabilty of an action for AA.
Posted by kat - 2 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 23 hours, 22 minutes ago

OK. $1.5 Mill wife here.

I hope each of you understand how humiliating this whole thing is for me. Almost all of you are right in some way. The facts of my marriage were for the most part ignored by the publicity. There is a great deal to be learned about the law from them. However, as bad as those facts were, I do not excuse what I did or what Pierce did.

What encourages me right now, is that there are people out there who care enough about the way their fellow lawyers conduct themselves that they take time to comment- even those who don’t have a complete set of facts. Great value can come of these kinds of things only in that what most of you say may help give some repair to the public perception of our profession. For this, I appreciate all of you. (particularly Tony)

Law school buddies, y’all are a big part of the reason I hold this profession in as high a regard as I do. You deserve to be in an honored field. For my part in the disparagement of it, I am most agrieved. I am also very proud to have you in my personal and professional life.

Many of you bloggers talk about getting out of the marriage before having an affair. My comment to you is that I challenge you as members of the Bar to do what you can to make it easier for people in impossible situations to make better choices and to get out of bad marriages. It is way too hard for women in situations like mine to afford decent advocates or any advocates at all. Put your professional life in line with your values and help people do better than I did. Be affordable and good at what you do, and care about the end result for your client.

I had no where to go. There was no marital property. Cook titled it all in his trust. I had no assets and no career-no resources but my own spirit. I also had a lock-out pre-nup before there was good law on comingling assets. I did file for divorce first. However, Cook out spent and out gunned me and revelled in doing anything he could to drag it out. He sued me for custody of the two “normal” children claiming it was detrimental to them to be raised around their autistic brother. Still, it dragged on and on until I agreed to the divorce on his grounds. I never got any vindication for the abuse I suffered. My adulterous actions got in the way of what would have been a slam dunk divorce for cruelty. I challenge each of you to be the kind of advocate that remedies situations like mine with swift diligence, true concern, and an awareness that the law is more than a job.

In saying that, I have to say, that Pierce did a bad thing personally in his actions with me and discredited the profession in so doing. However, what I have learned in being his colleague is that he fights for his clients harder than anyone I know. He has done it cheap and many times free. He has always wanted to make law more than money. He has made me and many others better lawyers by that example. I did fall in love with that. I hope that the humiliation doled out to him for this awful situation with me does not stop him from being the tireless advocate he has been for many. There are just not enough tireless advocates. It really hurts when one falls.

I hope each of you takes something from all of this besides outrage. Its too good a story not to learn from it.
Posted by Tony - 2 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 5 hours, 53 minutes ago

Kat,

I’m sorry you had to endure what you did, as it must have been a tough situation.

I’m glad that you say that you don’t excuse what you did and that it was a poor decision.

I take exception to the idea that we have to make it easier for folks to make good decisions. If good decisions were easy and relatively pain-free, folks would already be making them.

Instead, often the good decision is the hard decision, and folks, like electricity (and I’m an Electrical Engineer who dreams of maybe going back to law school someday) will follow the path of least resistance.

So I approach this from the layman’s perspective, as well as the betrayed husband who, due to no marital misconduct of my own, find myself a visitor in the eyes of the courts and my former wife, while a woman who unilaterally and without discussion or marital counseling decided she no longer wanted to be married and a stay at home mom, but wanted to take the child and be a single mom, have an affair, etc.

So I have to ask how do you make it easy for folks to get out of a possible situation while NOT making it easy for what is the more common scenario which is rewarding those who are quitters with any of the marital assets or custody of the children?

I think those who suffer abuse or infidelity or abandonment should have a relatively easy way out.

However, I think those who simply want to quit should be entitled to leave with only those things they brought into the marriage, and NOT get custody of the children.

So how do you address both aspects of that? Most states are not like MS. There is no AoA in most states.

We can’t force folks who no longer are willing to keep their vows to do so. But what’s wrong with not only letting these folks out of their vows, but telling them that they are forfeiting the right to be primary custodian of their child, and 1/2 of any marital property if they want to unilaterally break the vows they’ve sworn?
Posted by Rob - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 20 hours, 43 minutes ago

Women cheat just as much as men do. They are just better at hiding it. They have to because of their ingrained sense of the social and economic consequences of getting caught. Given the choice , most women would rather be married than not—even though they are unhappy with their husbands. Statistically, men will divorce a cheating wife more readily than a wife will divorce a cheating husband. Women know this. They are also better “multi-taskers” and this serves them well when they get the urge for a little “on the side.“ The husbands they marry are usually men they have settled for. The man they really wanted and loved is the one who got away. Men cheat simply for variety and excitement with the subconscious goal of “spreading their seed.“ Women engage in extramarital sex because they are looking for the “best” man. That quest does not end with marriage. It endures until they die just like the man’s need for variety. So mena dn women do the same thing but often for different reasons. Men get married thinking that the sex will always be good and plenty. Women know better. They look to a man for such things as stability, security, parenting skills , financial ability etc. Often, women marry for reasons that have nothing to do with the man. It might be that all of her sisters are married; her biological clock is running to have children; her mother or friends are bugging her about not being married; they are tired of dating; or (gag me!!) they want someone to “grow old with”.. So she gets married to someone to meet these needs, demands and societal expectations. Another key point is that both men and women lie. But when men lie they know it. When women lie, they have already convinced themselves that what they are saying is not a lie but is true. Their superior emotional architectural allows them to do this type of mental gymnastics men can’t do. This makes women much better liars than men. Monogamy is an aspiration dictated by society but is, by no means, the norm among animals or humans. So guys, take it from a former cuckold (now playboy for 10 years), while you’re on the golf course on the 18th hole, envisioning your wife working, doing chores, takingcare of the children, think again!!! As a singIe man, I have been with many a married woman who looks forward to her husband’s golf day more than he does!!!
Posted by Rob - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 20 hours, 35 minutes ago

P.S. One constant refrain I have heard from divorced women is that they got divorced “because he wasn’t THERE for me.“ I have always asked them to define exactly where “THERE” is and have never gotten a sensible response. So remember guys, when you hear this, it just means the husband didn’t “do it “for her anymore and she needed a new knight in shining armor to carry her off into the land of Bliss.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Legal Ethics