I get asked this one a lot, so here's a short post to point you all in the right direction.

Avoid "Men's Rights" Law Firms

This is a trick meant to prey on guys like you. They claim to be experts in helping men in divorce and custody cases, as if they know some trick that the rest of us don't. This is idiotic because we all play with the same statutes, same judges, same rules of procedure. People who represent women know the same tricks as the ones who represent men. How do I know? Because I go up against those guys constantly and if they had any special tricks they would have used them by now. They're not bad lawyers. They are often just as competent as everyone else. They just have no distinct advantage and they're not fighting any harder than any other attorney.

They do have two distinct differences, though: (1) They have labeled themselves in their community, and judges are aware of these labels and reputations, decreasing credibility. (2) They're more into using marketing gimmicks to get your money, which means they're usually more interested in the money than anything else. These firms often charge way more than their competitors. Why? Because they're intentionally marketing to the demographic that they know has more money to spend. Screw those firms.

Two-Part Test

A good attorney should be able to communicate two clear things in the initial consult:

  • I will be utterly and honestly real with you about case expectations and what the likely outcome will be.

  • No matter how improbable the result may be, I will fight hard through trial and appeal to pursue your goals.

Some attorneys lack the second and are just pushovers. They want a quick buck, to settle the case, and then churn the mill over to the next sad sap who hires them. They'll act strong and courageous up-front, but as soon as the other side makes one good point and the judge seems to agree, they back down and pressure you into settling. These guys are usually wimps afraid of a good trial.

Others in the reverse will promise you custody, support, extra parenting time, that they'll make her pay your legal fees, and that they'll even convince the judge to make her buy the moon and hand it over to you in the final entry. Then, when they obviously can't deliver, instead of owning up to the fact that they're lying scumbags only after your money, they actually blame you for why you didn't get everything they promised. "Hey, you didn't tell me about ___ at the first meeting. If I had known about that I never would have said those things. It's your fault for doing that or not telling me about it up front."

If an attorney is both honest about the realistic outcome, but vigorous in his pursuit of your goals, that's an attorney I would trust. When an attorney has both, you almost always get a solid stream of cost-benefit analysis at every step of the process. You're getting the right bang for your buck.

Vetting

Pushovers

Ask the bailiffs in your county how often they see that particular attorney going to trial on his cases. Look up the public docket to see how many cases he files a year. Go to the initial consult with specific questions in mind: (1) ask him how often he goes to trial; (2) ask him to tell you a story about the most recent time he went to trial; (3) ask him how much appellate work he does (if he doesn't do appeals, next him); (4) pre-meditate all of the weaknesses in your own case and ask him his strategy for arguing against those weaknesses; (5) tell him point blank that you don't think this case will settle (even if you really believe it will) and gauge his reaction.

Promisers

These guys are bold-faced liars, so you're not going to get an honest answer out of them. They'll tell you story after story of their great victories, none of it actually true. One such attorney in my area was bragging to every attorney in the courthouse that he got the court to aware $220,000 in legal fees to his client. That's actually a huge accomplishment. Interestingly, though, $205,000 of that went to my firm because we represented the client through most of litigation.

How do you vet them? Ask them about the weaknesses in your own case and how they think a judge would respond to those arguments and allegations. If they're dismissive and can't recognize the seriousness of some of your flaws (and heaven help you if you don't even recognize your own case's weaknesses), don't trust them. Ask them point blank how much they think the case will cost. If they are evasive or quote you some ridiculously high number and give you no other numbers, screw them. Good attorneys will give you ranges: "If we settle before we file, it'll be around $w; if we settle mid-way through litigation, $x; if we take it to trial, it'll be another $y; and if we have to appeal, that's usually in the ballpark of $z." Each of these can be ranges or general figures - but if they refuse to acknowledge any cost estimates or give you upper-end estimates only, then they are intending to charge you an arm and a leg regardless of your actual case prognosis.

Lastly, and most importantly: ask people who work for the courts. Other attorneys will lie to get your business. But actual court staff tends to know the attorneys and their reputations and they will be blatantly honest.

Good luck.