Pur

chaseacopyof
THEDI
VORCEPAPERS
atoneoft
heser
etai
l
ers:
 This is a work of f iction. Names, characters, places, and
incidents either are the product of the author’s imagination
or are used f ictitiously. Any resemblance to actual persons,
living or dead, events, or locales is entirely coincidental.

Copyright © 2014 by Susan R ieger

All rights reserved.

Published in the United States by Crown Publishers,
an imprint of the Crown Publishing Group,
a division of Random House LLC, a Peng uin Random
House Company, New York.
www.crownpublishing.com

crow nand the Crown colophon are registered trademarks

of Random House LLC.

Grateful acknowledgment is made to HarperCollins Publishers

and Carcanet Press Limited for permission to reprint the poem
­“ Telemachus’ Detachment” from Meadowlands by Louise Gluck.
Copyright © 1996 by Louise Gluck. Reprinted by permission
of HarperCollins Publishers and Carcanet Press Limited.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

R ieger, Susan, 1946–
The divorce papers : a novel / Susan R ieger. —First edition.
pages cm
1. Divorce—Fiction.  2. Domestic relations—Fiction. 
3. Women lawyers—Fiction.  4. Divorce settlements—Fiction. 
5. Domestic f iction.  I. Title.
PS3618.I39235D58 2014
813'.6—dc23
2013027552

ISBN 978-0-8041-3744-7
eBook ISBN 978-0-8041-3745-4

pr in ted in the un ited state s of a m er ica

Book design by Jaclyn Reyes

Jacket design by Anna Kochman
Jacket photography Fredrik Broden

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

First Edition

Rieg_9780804137447_7p_fm_r1.indd 4 1/16/14 2:28 PM

 How these papers have been placed in sequence will be made
manifest in the reading of them. All needless matters have been
eliminated, so that a history . . . may stand forth as simple fact.
There is throughout no statement of past things wherein memory
may err, for all the records chosen are exactly contemporary, given
from the standpoints and within the range of knowledge of those
who made them.

—B r a m S tok e r, Dracula
1897

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_fm_r1.indd 9 11/1/13 2:32 PM

 From the desk of Sophie Diehl

1/1/99

My Durkheim File

TR AYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI

222 CHURCH STREET, NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555  (393) 876-5678

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 1 11/1/13 3:10 PM

 I. INTAKE

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 3 11/1/13 3:10 PM

 Dear Poppa,
I wish you were here. Mommy
and Daddy are very cranky. Is
1999 going to be a good year?
What, s a millennium? And what, s
Montezuma , s revenge? Daddy
has it. Mommy says I have an
iron stomach.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
Jane

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 5)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 5 11/1/13 3:10 PM

 MARIA DURKHEIM
4 0 4 S T. C L O U D S T R E E T
NEW SALEM, NA 06556

February 1, 1999

Dr. Stephanie Roth

211 Central Park West
New York, NY 10024

Dear Stephanie:

I need your help. Life is falling apart here. I’m sure you’ve heard our
news. Daniel has asked for a divorce. It’s so wrong, for him, for me, for
Tom, most of all for Jane. Our marriage has its problems, God knows,
but there’s life in it yet, and I cannot bear the thought of putting our
daughter through a divorce. You’ve been a close friend of Daniel’s
since medical school; he listens to you and trusts your judgment.
Would you ask him to slow down, talk things through, maybe give
marital counseling a shot? We’ve been together 18 years; he shouldn’t
throw it all away.

I’d be grateful for anything you could do. Thanks.

Yours,

Mia

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 6)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 6 11/1/13 3:10 PM

 Stephanie Roth, m.d., p.c.
T H E BE R E SF OR D
211 Central Park West
New York, N Y 1002 4

February 6, 1999

Maria Durkheim
404 St. Cloud Street
New Salem, NA 06556

Dear Mia:

I am truly sorry you’re taking the divorce so hard but I

can’t help you. Daniel’s decision wasn’t made on the spur
of the minute. He has been unhappy in the marriage
for years, and you have been too, if you could be honest
with yourself. He is, of course, sad about the affect of
the divorce on Jane, but he is confident she will be much
better off in the long run. It’s not good for a child to grow
up in a home where the parents don’t love each other and
can’t get along. I believe in my heart he has made the
right decision, for everyone’s happiness, including yours.

You should think about the future and all its myriad
possibilities. Don’t cling to the past. Put the bad times
behind you and move on. Honestly, this is the best thing
that could happen. You’ll see.

I wish you well in all your future endeavors.

Yours,

Stephanie

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 7)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 7 11/1/13 3:10 PM

 MARIA DURKHEIM
4 0 4 S T. C L O U D S T R E E T
NEW SALEM, NA 06556

February 11, 1999

Dear Stephanie,

Fuck you `, too.

-Mia

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 8)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 8 11/1/13 3:10 PM

 MARIA DURKHEIM
4 0 4 S T. C L O U D S T R E E T
NEW SALEM, NA 06556

February 15, 1999

Dan-
You are a complete and utter asshole. Whose idea was

Golightly ’ s? Yours or that scumbag lawyer you hired?

You shouldn ’ t play these games with me; I ’ m better at

them than you. Here ’ s the current plan. I ’ m going to have

my answer delivered (wrapped around a dead fish) at the

annual Ped/Onc meeting next month, by the High Sheriff

of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, all decked out

in his dress whites. (My father has supported his campaigns

over the years.) I looked it up: the meeting is on March

11, in Boston, at the Ritz Carlton, and you ’ re speaking at

2 pm in the main ballroom.

M.
THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 9)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 9 11/1/13 3:10 PM

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH CIRCUIT

CHAMBERS OF 185 CHURCH STREET

JUDGE ANNE HOWARD NEW SALEM, NA 06555
(393) 875-5511

February 28, 1999

David Greaves
Traynor, Hand, Wyzanski
222 Church Street
New Salem, NA 06555

Dear David,

Thank you for hosting my retirement dinner. I love getting together

with my former clerks (I was going to say “old” clerks, but Sophie
hardly qualifies under that heading). You’re such a smart, interesting,
decent bunch. And I was so pleased that Jared came up from D.C.

The upside of senior status is the lighter docket, and I’m ready for that;
the downside will be the diminishing quality of my clerks. I have to
face it (without complaining): I’ll no longer get the very best. I shall
miss that. I loved working with you, the original who set the standard,
and all your descendants down through Sophie, and I’ve taken pride
and pleasure in my role as a Supreme Court feeder. At last count (and
I do count), I’ve sent 10 on to clerk for the Court. Ruth will still take
my calls, no doubt, but the others are likely to plow greener pastures.
I don’t blame them. I’ve had a great run.

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 10)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 10 11/1/13 3:10 PM

 Sophie seems at sixes and sevens. She and I have lunch once a month.
We take turns treating each other at Golightly’s. It was her idea. “I’m
a tonic for you,” she said when she first called. “Clerks are worshipful,
and if not worshipful, then calculatingly sycophantic. Lawyers, they’re
toadies. Which explains, of course, why judges are tyrants, looking
down, literally, on everyone in the room. You need a little roughing up
now and again, a little humbling.” Does everything she thinks come
out of her mouth?

I wonder what she’ll end up doing. I had her pegged as a professor, like
her father, but when I said that once, she looked at me as though I were
out of my mind: “Can you imagine anything worse than reading and
writing all day, and then only being allowed out to lecture to a class
of entitled, fledgling Gordon Gekkos who expect an A for showing
up? Whose parents call when they don’t get one? I’d rather defend
meth heads. Which I do.” I’m glad she’s under your wing while she
tries to figure out what she wants. She’s so quick, so lively. Prickly
too, of course. She told me she regularly goes down to your office at
the end of the day, to “take off my shoes and take down my hair—
metaphorically.” It was good work I did, making this connection—for
you both. You missed out on a daughter, with those fine, handsome,
brainy sons of yours, and now a grandson. And she missed out on—
well, you’ll figure that out, if you haven’t already.

The oysters were wonderful, especially with the Champagne. Why

eat anything else, as Isak Dinesen believed. A splendid feast in all
respects. My best to Mary.

Fondly,

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 11)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 11 11/4/13 12:20 PM

 Crankiness Abides

From: Sophie Diehl 3/1/99 1:30 AM

To: Maggie Pfeiffer <mcp15@mather.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 1:30:07
Subject: Crankiness Abides

Dear Mags,

I will turn 30 in 6 months and I don’t know what I should be doing. You
know what you want to do; Matt knows what he wants to do; my sibs
know what they want to do, except of course Francoise, who just likes
kicking around the world. But still, that’s something. I’m treading water.
Do you remember swim class at Brearley, the 30 minutes of drown-
proofing, as if we might find ourselves one dark night floating on a
mahogany plank in the Atlantic with Leonardo DiCaprio?

I know I shouldn’t write emails after midnight, but I can’t fall asleep;
I drank too much tonight and I’m feeling sorry for myself. (I promised
myself I wouldn’t gripe to you before I sat down at the computer, but
as you know better than almost anyone, I can be a self-pitying drunk,
which is a step above a mean drunk, but not much. I apologize.) I will
pull up my socks in proper Diehl fashion and try to find the silver lining.
One bit of news: I saw Andrew Bellow on the street on Friday with the
chickie he’s taken up with, looking tired and unhappy. Chickie wasn’t
looking so good either. Roots showing, black tights with a run. I can’t say
my spirits lifted at the sight of them (Andrew smiled brightly and said
hello as we passed. I nodded.), but I may have walked on with a lighter
step. I updated my bad boyfriend list earlier: Andrew makes 5.

I did have a good time tonight, though it’s triggered all these anxieties.
David had a dinner party for Judge Howard and her clerks. She’s retiring.
Great food (oysters, lobster, the finest trayf in the land), great stories,
great toasts. The judge was so happy with the occasion and all of us. As
a group, they seem pretty happy with their lives and work. They’re also
pretty impressive, a deputy U.S. AG, the New York State AG, the deans
of Mather and Narragansett Law, the managing partner of THW (and

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 12)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 12 11/1/13 3:10 PM

 these were just the locals). David got us all T-shirts, with the Judge’s
great line from Ernest v. Farago: “What has become of us? When did
we start fencing unicorns and foddering wolves?” Judge Howard is
wonderful in every way. I worship her. Truth be told, I want to be federal
circuit judge (“Decroche la lune,” as Maman always says) but I can’t say
that to people (except you, of course) and I don’t know how to get from
here to there. (Give piles to the Narragansett Democratic Party?) Geez,
it is 1:30. I will settle now for getting from here to bed.

Love,
Sophie

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 13)

Rieg_9780804137447_5p_01_r1.indd 13 12/11/13 12:08 PM

 TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
N E W S A L E M , N A R R AG A N S E T T 0 6 5 5 5
(393) 876 -5678

MEMORANDUM
Attorney Work Product

From: David Greaves

To: Sophie Diehl
RE: Mrs. Maria Durkheim
Date: March 15, 1999
Attachments:

I’d like you to interview a prospective client in a divorce case this Wednes-
day. I know you haven’t done a matrimonial, but the situation calls for
white-glove service and there’s no one else available that day. Fiona is out
of the office this week, Felix will be in court, and I’m trying to close the
Pericles deal. The downside of a boutique firm. But the upside too; we all
become utility infielders.

The client’s name is Maria Durkheim. She is Bruce Meiklejohn’s daugh-

ter. She’s coming in at 10:30 a.m. He called me last night to ask us to
talk to her. He’d like us to take her case. He said he thought his daughter
needed “heavy artillery.” I know what he means, but I don’t know what she
wants. The husband is a big star at Mather Medical School, an oncologist,
chaired professor, department head, Freeman Prize winner. Meiklejohn
doesn’t like him one bit, and he made it clear he’s glad they’re breaking up.
He said the marriage was a mistake from the start—“water and oil,” he
called it, using standard Meiklejohn-speak for “Jew and Gentile.” He de-
scribed Dr. Durkheim as “one of those people, you know the kind, overly
aggressive and ambitious, striving, someone who tries too hard to fit in.”
Bruce Meiklejohn is straight out of the Darien of Gentleman’s Agreement.
I once heard him say, “Mather College was never the same after the GI
Bill.” Too many physicists? Anyway, I want to give you a heads-up. I have
no reason to believe the daughter subscribes to any of this, but Meikle-
john says the divorce could be ugly. There’s a child, a ten-year-old girl,

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 14)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 14 11/1/13 3:10 PM

 Jane. She was uppermost in Meiklejohn’s mind. “Now, hear this, Greaves,
you look out for my granddaughter, Jane.” I don’t know if the ugly part
involves money or Jane, or the couple’s dynamic. Probably all three, if ex-
perience means anything.

Let me know if you’re free Wednesday morning. It’s only a couple of hours
of your time, and you might even enjoy it. Divorcing couples harbor mur-
derous thoughts; they just have better impulse control than your regular
clients.

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 15)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 15 11/1/13 3:10 PM

 TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
N E W S A L E M , N A R R AG A N S E T T 0 6 5 5 5
(393) 876 -5678

MEMORANDUM
Attorney Work Product

From: Sophie Diehl

To: David Greaves
RE: Mrs. Maria Durkheim
Date: March 15, 1999
Attachments:

I’ll do the interview, of course, if you need me to do it, but I can’t believe
you don’t have better choices. Proctor? Virginia? I have two serious defi-
ciencies, both of which make me a lousy candidate for the job.

1st. My rank inexperience as a lawyer who’s never done a civil case, let
alone a divorce, should stop you in your tracks. I put into evidence So-
phie Diehl’s CV Lite:

1969: Sophie is born

1987–91: Sophie attends college
1991–92: Sophie spends the year paralegaling at the Southern
  Center for Human Rights
1992–95: Sophie attends law school
1995–97: Sophie clerks on the 13th Circuit
1997– Sophie begins working at THW doing criminal defense
  work (1½ yrs! That’s it.)

2nd. If, despite the clear and convincing evidence presented above, you
persist in your request, I would ask for an ironclad dispensation from any-
thing beyond the intake interview. I cannot do a divorce. I am not only ill
equipped legally; I am ill equipped temperamentally. (i) I don’t like client
contact. I suspect it’s why I settled on criminal work. I like that most of my
clients are in jail. They can’t get to me; I can only get to them. (ii) I don’t
like divorcing parents. I had my very own set, both of whom behaved very,
very badly in ways that would make your hair stand on end.

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 16)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 16 11/1/13 3:10 PM

 How’s this for a rewrite of Anna Karenina: “Every divorcing family is
unpleasant in its own way.” Poor Anna K, so heartbreakingly 19th cen-
tury. No one dies for love anymore; only love dies and then they get a
divorce. Perhaps I’ll write the modern update of Anna; she gets divorced
and loses custody, but she has visitation every other weekend. Then she
goes back to school and gets an MSW and works with troubled children.
She doesn’t throw herself under the train; she simply takes the subway.
(She can’t afford a cab: bad settlement.) Could that be Mrs. Durkheim’s
story? Is there a Vronsky? Do I have to find out things like that, for dam-
age control? What else do I need to find out? Is there a checklist? Do I
interview or do I just listen? What do I do? (Do you hear the anxiety in
my voice as I write, rising to a near screech?)

Gentleman’s Agreement?

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 17)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 17 11/1/13 3:10 PM

 TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
N E W S A L E M , N A R R AG A N S E T T 0 6 5 5 5
(393) 876 -5678

MEMORANDUM
Attorney Work Product

From: David Greaves

To: Sophie Diehl
RE: Maria Durkheim
Date: March 16, 1999
Attachments: Divorce Work Sheets
Narragansett Code, Sections 801ff., Title 33
Divorcing USA excerpts

Data: There is a Divorce Work Sheet. I am attaching a copy to this

memo. It asks about income, deductions from income, assets, liabilities,
and monthly expenses. If you think she’s up to it, send it home with Mrs.
Durkheim to fill out. It’s long—four densely packed pages—but a divorc-
ing person needs to think about all these things, especially if she doesn’t
have any independent savings or income, which I suspect is the case here.
The first page, Income & Deductions/Assets & Liabilities, is a snapshot
of the marriage’s wealth, the resources to be divided by the couple. The
next three pages itemize monthly living expenses, providing a basis for
spousal and child support. Other things to do in preparation:

(i) Get from the library copies of the Divorce Work Sheet: Summary
Biographies, and fill one out for both Durkheims during the interview.
(ii) Take a look at a negotiated settlement; I recommend the Haberman
divorce; it will give you an idea of how the upper-middle classes divide
the spoils.
(iii) Cast an eye over Sections 801ff., Title 33, of the Narragansett
Code, the Narragansett divorce and custody statutes. I’ve made a list
of the most relevant sections. I’m assuming you took a course in Fam-
ily Law at law school, yes? And you must have taken Civil Procedure.

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 18)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 18 11/1/13 3:10 PM

 Intake: As to what to expect at the intake interview, in my experience,
women who’ve been left or betrayed (and I’m not being sexist, merely
­observant) spend the hour venting—he’s the most selfish man in the
world (or New Salem)—or crying. The wives who do the leaving are an-
other story; they’re racked with guilt. They’ll offer to give up everything
but the children. I’ve attached a handout, excerpts from an article in
­Divorcing USA (awful name) that Fiona has given to clients on the psy-
chology of divorcing. It’s basic but accurate. (I have vowed I’ll never get
a divorce no matter how awful things get; I’ll shoot myself—or Mary—
first. I have no interest in finding out how loathsome I can be. Or Mary,
for that matter.)

Your job is to think and listen like a lawyer but talk to her as a kind ac-
quaintance, someone who doesn’t know her well but is nonetheless warmly
disposed toward her. (You’ve got to drop the criminal lawyer’s skeptical
demeanor.) Prompt her, encourage her to answer your questions, but don’t
press. It may take an hour; don’t let it go much beyond that. Nothing new
will be said after that. (Shrinks stop after 45 minutes, on the same basic
theory, I believe, and they do it with a level of ruthlessness that is the envy
of appellate judges.) Take notes, of course; there’s no other way to remem-
ber the details (wherein God and the Devil reside). Then write it up. Or
you can tape it. You’ll be off the case after that.

Fees: You’ll need to talk money with her, not something you do with your
clients. The usual retainer for a divorce with children is $6,000, which
covers the first 40 hours (at $150/hour), not including costs. She may wish
only to consult, in which case you should bill her at $150/hour for the time
you actually spend with her. If she decides to sign on, we’ll add the write-
up to the bill; if she’s just shopping, we’ll eat it.

Client Conduct: Yes, find out if there’s another man or woman, for both
Durkheims. We’re a no-fault divorce state, but if the case goes to trial,
the judge can consider fault, and in custody fights, even the kitchen sink
comes in. It’s always better to know what they’ve done—though of course,
they always lie to you.

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 19)

Rieg_9780804137447_5p_01_r1.indd 19 12/11/13 12:08 PM

 You might see if she has been acting out. It’s not unusual for one or both
of the divorcing parties to misbehave, create scenes in public, make ex-
travagant purchases with the joint credit card, slash tires, bug a phone or
bedroom, in short, do things they’d never do in normal life. Judges don’t
like really really bad behavior, and if it’s going on, it’s good (if possible) to
nip it in the bud.

One last thought, which is not, strictly speaking, relevant but is none-
theless interesting. You might find out if Dr. D’s parents are dead. I’ve
found that people are more likely to seek divorce—and do it more cold-­
bloodedly—after their parents are gone. I get the sense that Dr. D is the
one pushing for divorce. Meiklejohn didn’t say this outright, but he men-
tioned his daughter’s reluctance to speak to an attorney. She felt it was too
soon.

VIP Clients: The Meiklejohns and the Mathers (distaff side) are long-
time clients of the firm. Proctor’s grandfather was the executor of Mrs.
D’s great-grandfather’s will, and Proctor is the executor of her mother’s.
Mrs. D’s mother (née Maria Mather) died more than 20 years ago. Ten
months later, her father remarried. The current Mrs. Meiklejohn, Cindy,
is, as you know, Society (if you can say there is any Society left in New
Salem. Everyone—except you, of course—belongs to the Cricket Club
these days: no more inherited memberships). She’s a good deal younger
than her husband but more than ½ HA +7. My guess is she doesn’t care
what happens with the Durkheims—except insofar as their behavior up-
sets her husband. She doesn’t like to see him unhappy. I’m with her on
that. Good luck—and again, thanks.

Miscellany: Gentleman’s Agreement is a movie about anti-Semitism from

the late ’40s, with Gregory Peck playing Jewish. You need to bone up on
your movie backlist, Sophie. You have seen The Third Man, haven’t you?

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 20)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 20 11/1/13 3:10 PM

 Narragansett Statutes
Title 33 of the Narragansett Code, Sections 801ff.
Dissolution of Marriage, Annulment, and Legal Separation

Table of Contents [Redacted]

Sec. 801. Grounds for dissolution of marriage; legal separation;
annulment.
Sec. 804. Service and filing of complaint.
Sec. 805. Stipulation of parties and finding of irretrievable
breakdown.
Sec. 806. Paternity establishment.
Sec. 807. Orders regarding custody and support of minor
children.
Sec. 808. Counsel for minor children. Duties.
Sec. 809. Parental fitness.
Sec. 810. Best interests of the child.
Sec. 811. Psychiatric or psychological evaluation of the child.
Sec. 812. Joint custody. Definition. Presumption.
Sec. 813. Presumption regarding best interest of child to be in
custody of parent.
Sec. 823. Parenting education programs. Required.
Sec. 830. Equitable distribution.
Sec. 832. Alimony (also known as maintenance or spousal
support).
Sec. 833. Temporary alimony and support and use of family
home or other residential dwelling.
Sec. 834. Parents’ obligation for maintenance of minor child.

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 25)

Rieg_9780804137447_7p_01_r1.indd 25 1/17/14 2:01 PM

 DIVORCING USA
Breaking Free Without Breaking Down:
A Psychological Portrait of Divorce
Patricia Lahey
April 1997
Excerpts, pp. 37–39

People who get divorced are still attached. Separating is hard, even
when husband and wife agree it’s the right thing. And usually they
don’t agree on that any more than they agree on custody, alimony,
or child support. They have to despise each other to go through
with it. Otherwise, they can’t do it; they don’t have the stamina.
They demonize the other person so that they can justify their de-
linquencies, their selfishness. And every party’s the injured party.
Often the person who initiates the divorce is the angrier, the more
self-righteous, the more vindictive. Not in the beginning necessar-
ily. Guilt has a part but usually only in the early stages. People want
to be right but never so much as when they’re divorcing. . . .

In my experience, men rarely leave, no matter how unhappy they

are, unless there’s another woman. They find someone, then they
leave. They don’t like being alone; they don’t do it well. The woman
may not be someone he wants to marry; she may simply be a tran-
sitional object, someone to get him over the hump. The obverse
doesn’t hold. If the woman is the one who is asking for a separation,
there may not be anyone else. A lot of women simply want out; they
fantasize about being alone, sitting in a white room with no phone.

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 26)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 26 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
N E W S A L E M , N A R R AG A N S E T T 0 6 5 5 5
(393) 876 -5678

MEMORANDUM
Attorney Work Product

From: Sophie Diehl, Divorce-Attorney-For-A-Day

To: David Greaves
RE: Matter of Durkheim: Intake Interview Cover Memo
Date: March 17, 1999
Attachments: Fee Agreement
Intake Interview Transcript
Divorce Work Sheet: Summary Biography:
  Maria Meiklejohn Durkheim
Divorce Work Sheet: Summary Biography:
  Daniel Edward Durkheim
Domestic Relations Summons
Complaint for Divorce

You won’t believe this. Mrs. Durkheim’s husband’s lawyers (K&B! Get
out the shovels) had her served with the divorce summons while she was
having lunch with a friend at Golightly’s. I almost fell off my chair. I would
have been less surprised if one of my regular clients told me he had offed
someone during lunch at Golightly’s.

Down to business. I met with Mrs. Durkheim this morning at 10:30. I

think I did okay; at least I didn’t bungle it, which was a possibility given
my deficits, legal and human. Mrs. Maria (Mia) Mather Meiklejohn
Durk­heim has retained the services of the firm (but not me, as I explained
to her) to represent her in a divorce action against her husband, Dr. Daniel
E. Durkheim. She signed the Fee Agreement on the spot, barely glancing
at the terms. I advised her against this but met stubborn resistance. The
interview took an hour, the discussion of the laws and the retainer another
hour, and the form-filling a half hour. (I billed her account $375, for two
and a half hours of work, a first for me. Not my usual $50 plus costs.) I
taped the interview and asked Hannah to transcribe it so Fiona (Felix?
you?) won’t have to start all over again. It gave me a taste of how your
generation of lawyers works, dictating into a machine and then having the

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 27)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 27 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 secretary transcribe it. Associates type their memos and their briefs, too,
and even do all the formatting. (I’m not being ageist, merely observant.)

My box of tissues went unused. Mrs. Durkheim did not vent. She was
composed, collected, articulate. While she answered questions willingly,
easily, she expected me to take the lead in the interview. She asked me to
summarize the law and explain her options. I came clean early on and told
her I was pinch-hitting for the firm’s ace divorce lawyer, who was out of
town. She seemed fine with that.

I asked her questions about her marriage, the family’s finances, her daugh-
ter. She was very knowledgeable, no baby-wife she. I was able to pull to-
gether a rough chronology, synchronizing salary history and marital
history. (See the Divorce Work Sheet: Summary Biographies for both
Durkheims.) I explained Narragansett’s no-fault/fault statute and the
principle of equitable distribution in dividing property and awarding sup-
port. I told her she could not effectively contest the divorce or refuse to
cooperate. The parties do not have to agree to a divorce; if one of them
wants out, she can get out. (“Not like a get,” she said.) I said it was in her
interest to cooperate. A divorce, I explained, is simply a civil action which
dissolves a civil union and allocates property, obligations, and progeny; it
does not provide “closure” or any other cathartic function. (“I get it,” she
said. “It’s all—it’s only—about money.”) I gave her a brief rundown on
custody (best interest of the child) and explained the difference between
joint and sole, legal and physical. I told her that most divorces were settled
by negotiation, not trial, and that the parties could make any agreement
they wanted so long as it wasn’t against public policy. I did my reading
but reading isn’t experience. (By the way, I didn’t bill for the 2+ hours I
spent doing homework last night; it didn’t seem right. A real divorce law-
yer would have known it all.) If anything I said was incorrect, Fiona can
set her straight.

I told her she had two options: she could wait until her husband made her
an offer, or she could make an offer to him. I gave her a copy of the Divorce
Work Sheets and told her to take a stab at pulling together a projected an-
nual budget, post-divorce, for herself and her daughter. She said she would
do whatever was necessary.

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 28)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 28 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 She was wonderfully clearheaded throughout. She’s very smart and she
understands what she needs to do. She had even called a Realtor before
coming in to get a new valuation on the family home. Can you believe
she had the presence of mind to do that? The rich are different—and she
knows it. She’s angry at her husband but her anger hasn’t clouded her
judgment. She’s not out to fleece him. For one thing, she has, if not money
of her own, then access to money; for another, though money is not noth-
ing to him, he wants success more. And on that point, she doesn’t wish
him well. She’s put a proper Sicilian curse on him.

Mrs. Durkheim has acted out a bit, though nothing too extreme. She con-
ducted a brief, unpleasant correspondence with the woman she believes is
her husband’s new lover. She brought copies with her and gave them to me.
I’ve put them in the file, along with the note she wrote her husband after
she had been served the summons at Golightly’s. Her epistolary style, as
you will see, is very much to the point.

Mrs. Durkheim is 41 years old but looks younger. She’s tall (my height)
with blond hair, straight black eyebrows, and eyes that look black. Al-
though her Christian name is Maria, she goes by Mia and always has. She
was named for her mother, who was called by her full name. Since her
mother’s death, her father sometimes calls her Maria. She doesn’t think he
does it out of sentiment, only carelessness.

I like Maria Durkheim. She still has a sense of humor (which was the first
casualty of my parents’ divorce), and she loves her child. She probably
sounds harder in the interview than she actually is. I don’t think her brave
talk is all bravado—maybe half. She is determined not to feel sorry for
herself, at least not publicly. Good for her. Dr. Durkheim’s father died in
1992, his mother in September, 1998. He inherited a small amount of cash
and a 10-year-old car.

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 29)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 29 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
N E W S A L E M , N A R R AG A N S E T T 0 6 5 5 5
(393) 876 -5678
AT T O R N E Y S AT L A W

FEE AGREEMENT

I, Maria M. Durkheim, the “Client” of 404 St. Cloud Street, New

Salem, NA, hereby retain the firm of Traynor, Hand, Wyzanski, the “At-
torneys,” in connection with: divorce proceedings and such other work
as may from time to time be performed by the Attorneys on the Client’s
behalf.

1. The Client shall pay to the Attorneys $6,000.00 as an initial retainer

in this matter, and, in consideration of this payment, the Attorneys
agree to perform legal services as herein provided.

2. The initial retainer paid by the Client shall be applied against legal
services actually performed for the Client by the Attorneys (as well as
any attorneys working under their direction). There shall be no mini-
mum fee. The services shall be charged at the hourly rate of $150.00.

3. Hourly time charges for legal services performed include but are not
limited to: court appearances; office conferences; telephone con-
ferences; legal research; depositions; review of file materials and
documents sent or received; preparation for trials, hearings, and con-
ferences; and drafting of pleadings and instruments, correspondence,
and office memoranda.

4. The Client shall in addition pay for all out-of-pocket disbursements

incurred in connection with this matter, including but not limited to:
filing fees, witness fees, travel, sheriff’s and constable’s fees, expenses
of depositions, toll calls and faxes, and investigative expenses. The
Attorneys agree to obtain the Client’s prior approval before incurring
any disbursement in excess of $150.00.

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 30)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 30 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 5. The Client shall pay the initial retainer to the Attorneys no later than:
April 1, 1999. The Attorneys shall provide the Client with an item-
ized statement of services and out-of-pocket disbursements on July 1,
1999, and every three months thereafter. In the event the time charges
and/or out-of-pocket disbursements of the Attorneys exceed the ini-
tial retainer, the Attorneys shall submit additional itemized billings
on the first business day of the month, payable by the Client within 30
days of the billing date.

6. Accounts not paid by their due date shall be subject to interest at the
rate of 1.5% per month until paid. Failure to pay billings promptly will
permit the Attorneys after notice to the Client to terminate the Attor-
neys’ representation of the Client, and the Attorneys shall be entitled
to file a notice of withdrawal in any pending judicial action.

7. If the total cost of the legal services performed by the Attorneys shall
be less than the amount of the initial retainer paid by the Client, the
balance shall be refunded to the Client.

8. The Court may award counsel fees to one party and order the other
party to pay the amount awarded. Alternatively, the parties, to avoid a
contested trial, may agree by settlement contract to provide that one of
the parties will contribute an agreed amount toward the other party’s
legal expenses.

a.  No representation is made in this Agreement that any contribu-

tion by the other party will be obtained toward the Client’s legal
expenses.

b.  In the event a contribution is obtained from the other party for
the benefit of the Client, the amount in question shall be credited
against the Attorneys’ final bill to the client.

9. This Agreement represents the full and complete agreement between

the Attorneys and the Client as to the terms of the Attorneys’ repre-
sentation of the Client in the matter described. There are no excep-
tions.

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 31)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 31 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 this is a legally binding contract. if the client does not
understand the terms and conditions of the contract, the
client is urged to seek independent counsel .

We, the Client and the Attorneys, have read the above Fee Agreement
and understand and accept its terms. Both have signed it as their free act
and deed, and the Client acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Agreement.

Signed this 17th day of March, 1999.

Traynor, Hand, Wyzanski

By:

Client Maria M. Durkheim Attorney Anne Sophie Diehl

___________________________ ____________________________

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 32)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 32 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 1 Traynor, Hand, Wyzanski
2 222 Church Street
3 New Salem, Narragansett 06555
4 (393) 876-5678
5
6
7
8 Intake Interview
9
10 Interview Subject: Maria Meiklejohn Durkheim
11 Interviewer: Anne Sophie Diehl
12 Date: March 17, 1999
13 RE: Legal Separation and Divorce
14
15 Transcription by: Hannah Smith
16 Date: March 18, 1999
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 33)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 33 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 1 Q. Good morning. I’m Sophie Diehl. David Greaves, your
2 father’s lawyer, asked me to meet with you this morning. I am
3 an associate with the firm.
4 A. Hello, I’m Maria—Mia—Durkheim, née Meiklejohn.
5 Thank you for seeing me on such short notice.
6 Q. Not at all. I would like to tape this interview, if that’s all
7 right with you, to have an accurate record.
8 A. That’s fine.
9 Q. How can I help you?
10 A. On February 15th—here are the papers—my husband,
11 Daniel Durkheim, Dr. Daniel Durkheim, had his lawyers,
12 the scumbag firm of Kahn & Boyle, serve me with a summons
13 for divorce, I think that’s what it’s called, while I was having
14 lunch at Golightly’s on Cromwell. I can’t believe that’s
15 standard practice, no? The University Club perhaps, maybe
16 the Plimouth or the New Salem Cricket Club, but Golightly’s?
17 Your grandmother’s restaurant. That cozy bastion of linen
18 tablecloths, padded booths, hotel silver plate. I was with
19 a colleague, not even a friend, when this damp, cringing
20 person sidled up to me and asked if I was Maria Meiklejohn
21 Durkheim. I said I was. He handed me the summons, then
22 backed away. I thought at first, stupidly, it was the wine
23 list. When I saw what it was, I almost fell into my Niçoise.
24 I thought I’d black out. Pulling myself together, I realized
25 my colleague was staring at me. Other people too. I sat up
26 straight, called the waiter over, and ordered a bottle of Pouilly-
27 Fuissé. “I feel like celebrating,” I told my colleague. “My
28 treat.” It was an extreme test of my savoir faire. Even now it
29 makes me catch my breath. Can you believe it?
30 Q. I can. I’m a criminal lawyer. Bad behavior doesn’t
31 surprise me. But I’ve never heard of anyone else being served
32 at a restaurant.

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 34)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 34 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 1 A. I got served at a restaurant. Ha. I suppose I should return
2 service on a squash court. The Cricket Club. I wouldn’t
3 mind smashing him—or those scumbag lawyers. What do
4 I do now? It’s been at least a month. I didn’t say anything
5 to my husband for several days, then I wrote him an acid
6 note, threatening to have him served during a speech he was
7 planning to give at the annual Pediatric Oncology conference
8 in Boston. I have a copy. Would you like it?
9 Q. Yes, I would. Did you actually carry out the threat?
10 [Note to Hannah: I’m placing the letter in the file.]
11 A. Oh, no. It’s been my experience that there’s no need to
12 carry through on a well-crafted threat with upper-middle-
13 class types. The purpose is to wrong-foot them, raise their
14 blood pressure, gin up their anxiety level. I kept imagining
15 him looking up all the time as he was reading his paper, to see
16 if a sheriff’s deputy was closing in on him. I thought I had a
17 good chance of ruining the conference for him. I think I may
18 have. Of course, he never said anything. Nor did I.
19 Q. Is it only on the upper-middle classes that threats alone
20 work?
21 A. I can’t say for everyone, but with the rich, you have to
22 carry through or they don’t take you seriously. My father
23 would tell you that.
24 Q. Other than the threats, have you done anything?
25 A. What do you mean by “done”?
26 Q. Have you responded more formally?
27 A. No. That’s why I came in today. I’m guessing I need to
28 make some sort of response. What should I do now?
29 Q. Ah. The usual next step is to retain a lawyer to represent
30 you. You may wish to consult more than one, to determine
31 who will provide you with the services you need for a fee you
32 judge reasonable.

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 35)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 35 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 1 A. When it comes to lawyers, I trust my father, and he says
2 Traynor, Hand is the best there is. Consider yourself retained.
3 Tell me what your fee is. I’ll pay it.
4 Q. Oh, I am not the lawyer you want to retain. David asked
5 me to fill in this morning for Fiona McGregor, who’s on
6 holiday. We have terrific divorce lawyers in the firm. Besides
7 Ms. McGregor, there’s Felix Landau, who is in court today,
8 and David, too, because he can do anything. I’ve never done
9 a divorce.
10 A. Somehow, I find that reassuring. It’s my first divorce too.
11 Q. But I’m a criminal lawyer.
12 A. Just what I need for Ray Kahn.
13 Q. Don’t worry about him. 90% blowhard. Let’s look at
14 these Divorce Work Sheet: Summary Biographies. We can go
15 over them together, and I’ll explain Narragansett divorce law
16 as best I can. But why don’t we start by my asking you some
17 questions about you, your husband, your marriage, and your
18 daughter, yes?
19 A. Shoot.
20 Q. How old are you? How old is your husband? How long
21 have you been married?
22 A. I’m 41. Daniel is 52. We’ve been married for 16 years,
23 since 1982. But we lived together for 2 years before that.
24 Daniel was married when I met him, to Helen Fincher. They
25 were married in 1974, separated in 1980—there was a bit of an
26 overlap, I’m afraid, with Helen and me, tacky, I know—and
27 divorced in 1982, a New York record, I believe. She has so
28 much family money, it wasn’t an issue, and then she couldn’t
29 stand him. I didn’t understand that; I thought he was the most
30 wonderful person I’d ever met. Our opinions are probably
31 more aligned now.
32 Q. Were there any children from your husband’s first marriage?

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 36)

Rieg_9780804137447_5p_01_r1.indd 36 12/11/13 12:09 PM

 1 A. Sorry, yes, a son, Thomas Maxwell Durkheim. Tom.
2 He’s 22 now. He was born in 1976. An Amherst grad.
3 Lovely boy, much easier, kinder, sweeter than his father, or
4 his mother for that matter. Bad asthma, bad lungs since he
5 was a baby. Premature. He’s working now on Wall Street, at
6 Fincher & Morgan, his grandfather’s firm. Daniel paid no
7 alimony to Helen, only child support, $15,000/year, until
8 Tom was 18. It stayed the same throughout. Then he paid for
9 college. Theoretically. Mather pays 50% of college tuition for
10 its employees, which with Amherst, I think its tuition was
11 $24,000; he only had to pay $12,000, plus room and board,
12 another $8,000. Not much for a man making $300,000 plus
13 a year. [Pause] I’m sounding bitter—and common. I’ll pull
14 myself together.
15 Q. Did Thomas live with his mother? Or with you and your
16 husband?
17 A. He grew up in New York City and lived with his mother.
18 When we lived there—we moved to New Salem in ’91,
19 when Daniel was appointed Chair of the Pediatric Oncology
20 Department here at Mather Med—we saw a lot of him. We
21 saw less of him after we moved. He was 14. Daniel is a bit
22 rough on him. Tom wants his dad’s good opinion, but also
23 thinks Daniel can be a prick. Can I say something like that?
24 You don’t mind, do you? You must have heard worse. I don’t
25 think they’ve seen each other since Christmas. I don’t know
26 what Daniel has said to Tom about our separation. I asked
27 him last week how Tom was taking it. “Taking it?” he asked.
28 “You’re not his mother. What difference should it make to
29 him?” Eighteen years, since he was three, and his father
30 thinks it means nothing. [Pause] I don’t know what Tom
31 is thinking. I’ve spoken to him twice now. He doesn’t give
32 anything away. He doesn’t want to talk about himself, only

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 37)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 37 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 1 asks how Jane and I are doing. He’s stoical and doesn’t expect
2 too much of his parents. Helen’s got a leg up on Daniel. She’s
3 already married to her third husband.
4 Q. Can you give me some financial history of the marriage?
5 A. When we met in 1980, I was working as an assistant
6 editor at Femina magazine. Do you remember Femina? It
7 believed in good clothes, good haircuts, and good books. I was
8 making $28,000, which wasn’t bad for that kind of job. Daniel
9 had finished school; he has an M.D./Ph.D. from Columbia
10 but was only making $23,000, as a resident, working 90 hours
11 a week at Presbyterian Hospital. All of his salary, after taxes,
12 went for child support. But at least he had no med school
13 debt. M.D./Ph.D.’s are fully funded. Our rent was $325;
14 we had a Columbia apartment, on baja Claremont. It was a
15 serious comedown for him. When he was married to Helen,
16 they lived off Central Park West on West 69th. But he was
17 never home, and I didn’t mind it. My father might have given
18 us some money, but his money always comes with strings;
19 I didn’t think it was worth it. Except, he did give us each
20 $10,000 a year as a gift once we married. And then after Jane,
21 our daughter, was born, he gave her $10,000 a year too.
22 Q. Tell me about Jane.
23 A. She’s perfect. She’s 10 years old, almost 11. She goes to the
24 Peabody School, where I went and everyone in my family went,
25 back to the egg. My mother was a trustee and her mother and
26 her grandmother were trustees. We are old, old New Salem.
27 My mother was a Mather and Granny was a Peabody. I don’t
28 remember what Great Gran was—I never knew her—but
29 she was a Maria. We are all Marias, from mother to daughter,
30 back to my Great Great Great Gran, whose mother’s first
31 name was Humility. The family was, is, horribly ingrown. Up
32 through my mother’s generation, you couldn’t marry outside

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 38)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 38 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 1 the magic circle. My father didn’t really belong; his family
2 were latecomers, upstart 19th-century immigrant Scottish
3 merchants, but they’d gone to the right schools and weren’t
4 Catholics. My mother’s full name was Maria Maple Mather
5 Meiklejohn. Her family nickname was 4M. My full name is
6 Maria Mather Meiklejohn. [Pause] Durkheim. I need to ditch
7 that. In school, I was called 3M or Scotch, for Scotch Tape.
8 Daniel used to say my family went back to the Mayflower and
9 his to the ark. I never imagined I’d be back in New Salem. I
10 thought I had escaped. I was working on becoming—rather
11 successfully, I thought—a New York Jewish intellectual. Here,
12 I’m seen as part of the cotillion crowd.
13 Q. Are you working?
14 A. I’m a writing tutor at Mather. I decided to get my Ph.D.
15 in American studies when we moved here. The only publisher
16 in town is the Mather Press, and I wasn’t interested in
17 publishing foreign-language translations, which is what they
18 mostly do. Their big project now is a complete translation by
19 a French/American couple of Remembrance of Things Past.
20 Did you know no one has ever finished translating all seven
21 volumes? They all die mid-series; it’s like a curse. Have you
22 read Proust?
23 Q. No. My mother is French, and if I ever read it in English,
24 instead of French, which would do me in, she would be very
25 disapproving. So I don’t read it at all. You?
26 A. I’ve read the third book, The Guermantes Way. Bill
27 Pritchard, Tom’s English professor at Amherst, said to start
28 there, then go backward. But I couldn’t.
29 Q. Are you making progress with your Ph.D.?
30 A. I finished my course work in 1996. For my thesis, I’m
31 working mostly on Jacob Riis but also on other late 19th-/
32 early 20th-century American journalists, photojournalists,

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 39)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 39 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 1 muckrakers. This divorce thing has thrown me off. I can’t see
2 making much progress this year. Some days, getting out of
3 bed is a serious challenge. I do manage to do my job, but it’s
4 a struggle, and it’s only four afternoons/evenings a week, 16
5 hours altogether.
6 Q. Do you make a living wage as a writing tutor?
7 A. Oh, no. I make $14,000, which is a scant $1,000 more
8 than Jane’s tuition. Last year Daniel made $370,000, 25 times
9 as much as I. These are things I think of when I think about
10 divorce. My lack of resources. I don’t worry about it exactly—
11 my father won’t let Jane and me starve—but I would hate
12 having to ask him or Daniel for money. Too humiliating to
13 have to keep going back to the trough.
14 Q. You said your husband was in oncology?
15 A. He’s chair of the Department of Pediatric Oncology,
16 which is one of Mather Medical School’s great departments,
17 and Dowling Professor. He’s a big star, both as a clinician and
18 a researcher, and he’s very ambitious. He won the Freeman
19 Prize, and was nominated for the Lasker. I’d guess he’s
20 gunning for a MacArthur and, in his late-night fantasies, a
21 Nobel. His specialty is brain tumors. He’s the best there is,
22 even though most of his patients don’t make it. They just
23 make it longer than other docs’ patients. It’s given him a Jesus
24 complex. He’s so used to being admired, starting with his
25 parents, that he expects it from everyone, even Jane and me.
26 Mather recruited him very heavily; so did Harvard, Stanford,
27 and Yale. He’s been generously funded by NIH for the last
28 13 years, and his current grant has 4 years to run. When
29 he left Columbia, he brought his grants and lab with him,
30 including four researchers. I was wretched about the decision.
31 Who with any sense would live in New Salem when they
32 could live in New York? I had close friends, a nice social life,

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 40)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 40 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 1 a good job. I didn’t want to be a chair’s wife. I didn’t want to
2 be unemployed, I didn’t want to come back to New Salem. In
3 ’88, I’d left Femina and gone to work for Monk’s House as a
4 nonfiction editor, and I loved it. I wanted him to turn it down,
5 but he said the offer was one he couldn’t refuse and I thought
6 he’d never forgive me if I didn’t go along. As it turns out, he
7 didn’t forgive me anyway. Though he’s not said so outright,
8 he’s not happy at Mather. Too much management and not as
9 great a variety of cases as in New York. So my unhappiness, of
10 course, is intolerable, a reproach.
11 Q. Who looks after Jane most of the time?
12 A. I look after her. It’s one of the reasons I’m a writing tutor.
13 It’s part-time. I can be home with Jane after school and on
14 holidays. We do have a housekeeper, Luz Garcia. She comes
15 in every day. We need someone full-time; she works 40 hours
16 a week for us, though not on an 8-hour-a-day schedule, and we
17 pay her Social Security—in case Daniel wants to head NIH
18 someday. Just kidding; I’d pay it anyway. This is being taped,
19 right? Luz is a resident alien. We helped her get her green
20 card. She’s wonderful. I have a younger sister, Cordelia, who
21 has Down’s and lives in Philadelphia, in a halfway house. I
22 visit her twice a month, sometimes more. I stay over in Philly,
23 Tuesday to Wednesday—that way I see her two days on each
24 visit—and Luz stays over in the house with Jane. It’s too
25 hard to rely on Daniel, though he makes a huge effort to have
26 dinner with her every night, and especially on Tuesdays when
27 I’m away. He works 90 to 100 hours a week, resident’s hours.
28 On weekends, which look like weekdays for him, he always,
29 or almost always, spends part of Saturday or Sunday doing
30 sports with Jane. Right now, he’s teaching her squash. Jane’s
31 a great athlete and Daniel’s a dogged one. Very competitive,
32 needless to say. He won’t fight me for custody—if that’s where

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 41)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 41 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 1 you’re going. He doesn’t have time, and he thinks, I think, I’m
2 a pretty good mom, or at least a devoted one. Since she was
3 born, I’ve loved her more than anyone else. [Pause] Well, that
4 says it all, doesn’t it. Well, maybe not all. In some way, it’s
5 been self-protective. Daniel has always needed “his children,”
6 those terribly sick and dying children, more than he needed
7 me or Jane. [Pause] But I’m not being fair. He adores Jane. He
8 calls us, or used to call us, the Three Musketeers. If we were
9 going somewhere, out to dinner or maybe a movie, the two
10 of them would go through this silly ceremony of departure,
11 a kind of Monty Python changing of the guard. I was the
12 audience. It started when Jane was about 3. He’d stand at
13 the side door and shout out, “Musketeers on the forecastle.”
14 Hearing those words, from wherever she was, Jane would fling
15 herself down the stairs to join him. When she got there, he’d
16 hold out his right hand and say, with a very solemn face, “All
17 for one.” Jane would high-five him and answer with an equally
18 solemn face, “And one for all.” Then he’d scoop her up, throw
19 her over his shoulder, and carry her out to the car. Jane was
20 in heaven in those moments; I think he was too. [Pause] The
21 Musketeers have disbanded.
22 Q. Was your husband’s decision to start divorce proceedings
23 a surprise to you?
24 A. No. Yes. He told me on January 3rd, three days into
25 the New Year, that he wanted a divorce. It threw me into
26 a tailspin. I thought we’d live unhappily ever after. I never
27 thought he’d go through with a second divorce. I asked him
28 if there was another woman. He said no but I don’t believe
29 him. I know his modus operandi, after all. I think he’s been
30 messing around with Dr. Stephanie Roth, a dermatologist
31 with a private practice in New York. They were in med school
32 together, and they’ve been intermittently in touch since.

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 42)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 42 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 1 She’s apparently the person to see for wrinkles in the City.
2 Her bread and butter is rejuvenating work, Botox, dermal
3 abrasions, and the like. She had a write-up once in Harper’s
4 Bazaar. Her face looks like it’s been ironed. [Pause] Do you
5 remember that scene in A Man for All Seasons, when More
6 confronts Richard Rich for betraying him in exchange for
7 being made Chancellor of Wales? More says to him, “I can
8 understand a man giving up his soul for the world, Richard,
9 but for Wales?” That’s how I feel. I can understand Daniel
10 leaving me, but for Stephanie Roth?
11 Q. You seem very composed now.
12 A. Xanax. I took 3 mg. before I came. I’ve been seeing an
13 analyst from Northeastern Psychoanalytic, for 6 years. Isabel
14 Stokes. Over the years, she’s prescribed for me a variety of
15 antidepressants. Right now I’m on Wellbutrin. I’ve been
16 depressed since I was 10. I’m a pretty high-functioning
17 depressive, but a depressive nonetheless. Daniel hates it; he
18 takes it personally. I can’t blame him altogether. Depressives
19 are downers. Dr. Stokes gave me Xanax back in January. I
20 was so anxious, I couldn’t read, I couldn’t sleep, I couldn’t
21 eat. I took it pretty regularly in January and February, but
22 now I only take it when I think an occasion calls for it. Like
23 this. When I was given the summons at Golightly’s, I almost
24 passed out. Since then, I never travel without the Xanax. I
25 still haven’t gotten over it. I can’t believe Daniel would have
26 agreed to that, but maybe I’m being naïve. He might say in
27 his defense that I had provoked it. It was all my fault, as was
28 everything.
29 Q. What do you mean by provoking it?
30 A. I had a brief correspondence with Dr. Stephanie, which
31 may have stirred the pot.
32 Q. Could you be more specific?

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 43)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 43 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 1 A. I brought copies. I wrote to her; she wrote back; I wrote
2 back. Here.
3 [Extended pause. Note to Hannah: I am placing the three
4 letters in the file.]
5 Q. I see. Anything else?
6 A. Yes. About a week after he told me he wanted a divorce,
7 I asked him to rethink his decision or at least consider
8 mediation or counseling. He wasn’t interested. I then asked
9 him to hold off doing anything definitive, such as hiring a
10 lawyer, until I had gotten more used to the idea. He agreed.
11 He saw how upset I was. We talked about telling Jane. I asked
12 him if we could consult a therapist to find out the best way of
13 telling her. He agreed very quickly, and two days later we had
14 an appointment with Dr. Rachel Fischer, a child psychiatrist
15 at the Mather Child Study Center. I don’t know where he
16 found her; he’s very anti-shrink, thinks psychiatry is voodoo.
17 He believes in willpower—it’s the Ayn Rand in him—and he
18 disapproves of mental illness. Also obesity. He thinks of them
19 as mental slovenliness. Anyway, we went to see her on January
20 25th. She gave us some pointers, nothing surprising. She said
21 we should speak to her together and reassure her that we were
22 only divorcing each other, and not her. She advised holding
23 off telling Jane until I could talk about divorce without crying.
24 Even Xanaxed up the wazoo, I was a wreck the first two
25 months, on or over the verge of tears all the time.
26 Q. Have you told Jane?
27 A. There’s a story. Two days after I was served at
28 Golightly’s, when I was in Philadelphia visiting my sister, I got
29 a call at 8 p.m. in my hotel from Jane. She was sobbing. Daniel
30 had told her we were getting a divorce. He got it into his head
31 that she knew somehow, and he thought he should reassure
32 her. I drove home immediately. Jane was a mess. And I didn’t

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 44)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 44 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 1 get to see Cordelia the next day, which was her birthday, and
2 which was very upsetting to her and to me. What a prince,
3 what a perfect prince. [Pause] The next day I told my father,
4 who encouraged me to consult his lawyers. A month later,
5 armed with meds, here I am.
6 Q. Are you both living in the same dwelling?
7 A. Dwelling, I like that. Yes, we’re in separate bedrooms
8 in our house. It’s a new house, 404 St. Cloud. We built it two
9 years ago, probably to ward off divorce. Isn’t that what people
10 do? They have a baby or build a new house. It’s a nice house,
11 modern, horizontal, clean-limbed, wood and windows, very
12 un–St. Cloud, which is a stew of English Tudor, American
13 Craftsman, and Tuscan Villa. Neighbors objected at first, but
14 we planted some full-grown trees in the front, and they subsided.
15 Daniel worked on the designs with the architect. He had thought
16 of becoming an architect at one point; in college, he went to
17 Columbia, he double-majored in chemistry and art history.
18 Q. Do you have a mortgage? Do you know its value?
19 A. I’m good about money. I pay the bills, I keep the tax
20 records. The house cost $375,000, more or less, including the
21 land and our very expensive Mather School of Architecture
22 architect. Its current value is about $525,000. I called a
23 Realtor, Laura Bucholtz, yesterday, to get a quick estimate.
24 She was the agent on the land sale and knows St. Cloud Street
25 from Germyn Street to Allerton. We have a 30-year mortgage
26 for $250,000 at 8%. Carrying costs, including local taxes but
27 not utilities, are about $3,500 a month. Daniel will want to
28 keep the house. I suppose that gives me some leverage?
29 Q. It may. Is there any other real estate?
30 A. My father and I own a house on Martha’s Vineyard,
31 on the water in Aquinnah. It was my mother’s house, and
32 she left it to us in a trust; the survivor gets it all. There’s a

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 45)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 45 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 1 special name for that. This creates problems for my father. Of
2 course, he doesn’t want me to predecease him, but his wife,
3 my stepmother, Cindy, would like to be able to use it and to
4 decorate it. The house is a wreck. Nothing’s been done to it
5 since 1920, except the bare minimum to keep it from falling
6 down, and the Vineyard in those days wasn’t what it is today.
7 It has no inside toilets, only an outhouse with a row of 4 WCs
8 off the back porch. And my father and I have to agree on any
9 changes because we own it together, and we can’t so we don’t.
10 [Pause] We don’t agree on much, except Jane.
11 Q. Do you know what it’s worth?
12 A. When my mother died in 1979, it was valued at $90,000.
13 It’s probably worth $3 million now. Maybe more. The land,
14 not the house. The site is spectacular.
15 Q. Do you use it? Does your father?
16 A. My father never goes up. He finds the toilet situation
17 unacceptable. Oh, and there are no showers, only bathtubs.
18 I go up at least once a year with Jane, who loves it. When
19 she was smaller, she thought the outhouses were great fun,
20 but now she’d like a proper inside toilet. I think she’s been
21 lobbying my father. My father wants to fix the whole place up,
22 make it an Edgartown kind of house. That or nothing.
23 I want inside toilets and a shower and a dishwasher and cable,
24 but I want to keep the house’s essential character. It’s all I
25 have left of my mother. Daniel went up once, never again. He
26 is hugely resentful that I haven’t put him on the deed. I keep
27 explaining that I can’t, but he refuses to understand, seeing it
28 as a deliberate act on my part. And he, too, hated the toilets.
29 I think in some ways men are more fastidious than women.
30 Q. Any other property?
31 A. The usual detritus of middle-class acquisitiveness. The
32 only things I think we’d argue over are a Persian rug, which

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 46)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 46 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 1 was a wedding present from my grandparents, an early Cindy
2 Sherman photograph, and a Jenny Holzer sign, “Abuse of
3 power comes as no surprise.” They’re the only things we’d
4 both want.
5 Q. Are you likely to inherit any money, property?
6 A. I suppose I’m likely to inherit money from my father
7 when he dies, if he dies, but I can’t count on it. For one thing,
8 I might easily predecease him. My mother died young, 46,
9 and so did her mother. For another, he’s only 68, and the
10 Meiklejohns live forever. He’s got a brother who’s 87 and
11 still sits on the federal bench. Both his parents died in their
12 90s. For a third, he’s controlling. And he’s always rewriting
13 his will. Ask his lawyer, Proctor, as in The Crucible. He’s a
14 member of your firm. I think he does a new one every three
15 months. He recently said he created a trust for Jane and me,
16 but he’s the trustee. What does that mean? He won’t tell me
17 anything else. This may change with the divorce. He doesn’t
18 like Daniel. He doesn’t exactly think he married me for my
19 money, but he doubts he would have married me without
20 it. But that could be said for my looks as well. Daniel likes
21 tall blondes with irregular features, bluestockings with trust
22 funds. Helen, his first wife, had serious money. Do you know
23 the Fincher Galleries at the Fine Arts Museum? A gift of her
24 grandparents. Dr. Stephanie is a bit of an outlier, not a WASP,
25 no family money, too short. Her dad was only a doctor, also a
26 dermatologist. But he was frugal and he believed in real estate.
27 He left her, free and clear, two apartments in the Beresford.
28 She lives in the smaller one, eight rooms. [Pause] I’m not sure
29 she’ll get to walk down the aisle. [Pause] You shouldn’t think I
30 was brought up to talk about money. I wasn’t. My mother, who
31 was a rigorously honorable, straightforward person, imposed
32 an absolute embargo on money as a subject of conversation;

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 47)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 47 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 1 she thought talking about money was common. It offended
2 her, the way Nixon’s hate list and anti-Semitism offended her,
3 as a sign of bad breeding. I was never allowed to say how much
4 anything cost. I must have looked an idiot. I went to school
5 with the children of professors and lawyers. They knew what
6 everything cost, including their parents’ psychiatrists. [Pause]
7 I don’t talk about the price of things, that lesson has stuck,
8 but I am prepared to acknowledge certain obvious facts about
9 my life and my upbringing. I was brought up rich and I have
10 the exaggerated sense of entitlement that money confers. I
11 don’t always get what I want, but not because of money. That
12 makes me very different from most other people, including my
13 husband. He never had money until recently. He likes it, having
14 it and spending it, but success is more important to him.
15 Q. What about other assets? Savings and the like?
16 A. Daniel makes the money, and he handles the
17 investments. I don’t think he’s hiding anything. He has
18 retirement funds with TIAA-CREF in the neighborhood
19 of $600,000. He also has a 401(k) plan with approximately
20 $300,000 in it. Other assets include about $700,000 in stocks,
21 $90,000 in treasury bills, and $80,000 in a savings account.
22 He does a quarterly accounting; I got the figures from the one
23 he did in early October.
24 Q. Any insurance policies?
25 A. Daniel is insured for $1.5 million; I’m insured for
26 $200,000—to pay Luz’s salary in case I conk. He’d need
27 somebody.
28 Q. Could you provide a salary history? And a few other
29 particulars? [Note to Hannah: I handed Mrs. Durkheim
30 copies of the Divorce Work Sheets: Summary Biographies for
31 her and her husband.]
32 A. Of course.

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 48)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 48 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 1 Q. Does your husband have any separate assets? Any
2 inheritances?
3 A. Daniel’s an orphan. His father died in 1992, his mother
4 in 1998. He inherited a 1989 Honda Accord and $16,000.
5 His parents owned a printing business. They never made
6 much money, but they saw that their son, their only child,
7 was well educated. And praised, praised for everything
8 he did, every bowel movement, every report card, every
9 titration. They didn’t much care for the grandchildren. They
10 couldn’t hold a candle to their father. And they certainly had
11 no use for me or Helen. We weren’t worthy of him; we didn’t
12 appreciate how extraordinary he was. If I made them dinner,
13 they thanked Daniel; if he didn’t visit them, it was my fault.
14 They made sure they didn’t die in debt. They were fierce
15 about not saddling Daniel with nursing home costs and the
16 like. They had long-term-care insurance for nurses and that
17 sort of thing, and they belonged to burial societies and had
18 prepaid their funerals, coffins, headstones, plots, even the
19 cantor. God, my father never prepays anything. You lose the
20 float.
21 Q. Have you begun to think about what you want out of this
22 divorce?
23 A. I will need support for a while, but I don’t want to take
24 him to the cleaners. I don’t have bag-lady fears, at least not
25 acute ones. After all, I’ve got the Bruce Meiklejohn safety
26 net. My wishes are personal, not financial. I want to come
27 out of this with my ego intact. And I’d like it if Daniel’s took
28 a beating. I don’t want anything really bad to happen to
29 him. No fatal diseases, no malpractice cases, no accusations
30 of scientific fraud. He is, after all, my daughter’s father. But
31 I don’t want anything good to ever happen to him either.
32 I want nothing to happen to him. I want him to die of

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 49)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 49 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 1 disappointment, after a long, lonely, cheerless life that ends
2 with bedsores and tubes up the nose, in a nursing home.
3 Q. You have thought about it. Your husband seems to want
4 to move quickly. Will you be able to do that?
5 A. I don’t know. He’s got a mean temper. He blows up easily
6 and horribly if he feels thwarted in any way. He thinks he’s
7 always right, and when people disagree with him, he invariably
8 regards them as stupid or envious or malignant. He was
9 arrogant when I met him, but tolerably so; then, it seemed to
10 me he just knew how good he was. Now, he’s too important to
11 take out the garbage, or telephone when he’s going to be late,
12 or remember my birthday. I think the Freeman Prize did it.
13 He was the youngest recipient ever. That’s a long answer. I just
14 don’t know how awful he’ll be. Of course, I can be awful back.
15 I’ve learned how to do that. God, I hope Jane survives us.
16 Q. Do you have any questions for me?
17 A. Could you tell me about Narragansett divorce law?
18 What next?
19 Q. Let’s fill out the Divorce Work Sheet: Summary
20 Biographies. Then I’ll tell you what I know about the law and
21 show you a copy of our retainer agreement. I’ll also set up an
22 appointment right now for next week for you to meet with
23 Fiona McGregor.
24 A. I was dreading this unnecessarily. Thank you. Thank
25 you so much. Is it really true you’ve never done this before?
26 You’re a natural.
27 [Note to Hannah: I set up an appointment with Fiona for
28 Tuesday, March 23, at 10 a.m.]
29 [End of Transcript]
30
31
32

THE DIVORCE PAPERS (Page 50)

Rieg_9780804137447_4p_01_r1.indd 50 11/1/13 3:11 PM

 Pur
chaseacopyof
THEDI
VORCEPAPERS
atoneoft
heser
etai
l
ers: