A woman who did not want a divorce, based on her religious beliefs, sought assistance from the Firm when her husband retired early, began drinking excessively, and dissipating the family’s wealth on gambling ventures.  Instead of filing for divorce, the Firm brought an action for “separate maintenance” and convinced the Court to award her sole title to and exclusive use of the marital residence, plus the major portion of the family’s investment and retirement accounts, plus periodic support payments for herself and the children, and her attorney’s fees.

The Firm represented the wife of a dentist whose husband, after more than twenty-five years of marriage and two children, began having a homosexual affair.  The Firm’s investigative team obtained the necessary evidence, and the Firm filed suit for divorce, alimony and division of property, and took the case to mediation in order to avoid a public trial (which neither party wanted).  At mediation, the Firm obtained approximately 70% of the parties' marital assets for the Client, consisting of the marital residence and investment accounts, plus sufficient alimony for the rest of her life so she would not have to work, plus retirement benefits and all her attorney’s fees.

A woman won a $17 Million lottery prize and then married her long-time boyfriend.  When the marriage soured after several months, she filed for divorce.  Although the winnings were not subject to the husband’s claim for “division of property” since she had won the prize before the marriage occurred, the Firm convinced a jury that he was nevertheless entitled to one-half of the winnings as his “lump sum alimony”. The verdict was later reported by the press as the highest divorce verdict in the jurisdiction during that year.

The Firm's Client’s husband sold his business for several million dollars and became a day-trader.  He also became an abusive alcoholic.  The Client took their son and went to a battered women’s shelter, and was referred to the Firm.  After obtaining a highly favorable judgment against the husband, which was upheld and affirmed on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court, but which the husband still refused to obey, the Firm then filed garnishments and attachments to seize the husband’s property on behalf of the wife and child.