"All's Fair" contains multiple egregious legal inaccuracies regarding California family law and professional ethics that fundamentally mislead viewers about how divorce actually works in the state. Here are the substantive errors:
<-- more -->Contingency Fees in Family Law (Illegal)
The show depicts lawyers offering a witness (a dominatrix) 5% of a $200 million settlement settlement (~$10 million) for her testimony. In reality, this violates California law on multiple fronts. Contingency fees are ethically and legally prohibited in family law cases. Divorce lawyers charge hourly or flat fees only. Additionally, fee-splitting with non-lawyers is explicitly illegal under California law, as is paying lay witnesses to testify—creating both witness tampering concerns and destroying credibility.
Infidelity Clauses in Prenuptial Agreements (Unenforceable)
The episode features a prenup with a clause penalizing infidelity ("if she ever cheated... she would be out on her ass"). This is portrayed as enforceable in California. It is not. California is a no-fault divorce state, and infidelity clauses are completely unenforceable by law. A spouse's infidelity has zero bearing on property division, alimony, or any other outcome in a California divorce. Whether someone cheated is literally irrelevant to the legal process.
Extreme Prenups Waiving All Marital Property (Unconscionable)
The show depicts a prenup leaving one spouse with "nothing at all—just the clothes on her back." California courts would strike this as unconscionable and unenforceable. Community property law presumes that income and assets accumulated during the marriage are shared unless a valid, voluntary prenup with full disclosure alters them. A prenup that leaves one spouse with zero entitlement to earnings during marriage violates public policy.
Jurisdiction Based on Marriage Location (Factually Wrong)
A character tells a distressed potential client: "I need a California lawyer because that's where we were married." This is false. California jurisdiction depends on where you currently reside at the time of divorce filing, not where you were married. As real LA divorce attorney Emily Rubenstein explains: "Even if you got married in California, if you have not lived here for six months, you can't get divorced here."
Gifts During Marriage (Oversimplified and Dangerous)
Lawyers confidently assert that gifts received during marriage become the recipient's "separate property" and therefore the spouse cannot take them back. While the default rule under California law treats interspousal gifts as separate property, prenups routinely define or override this provision. The show's lawyers don't examine the actual prenup language before engaging in self-help (physically removing jewelry from the home), which courts disfavor. Additionally, taking property without an inventory or court order invites subsequent disputes.
Choice of Law and Forum Selection (Ignored)
The episode assumes California law applies because the couple married there. In reality, prenups contain choice-of-law provisions specifying which state's law governs. Sophisticated parties and lawyers would file in jurisdictions with laws favorable to their client—often not California, precisely because California is more protective of spouses' community property rights. First-to-file rules and forum non conveniens motions determine which jurisdiction's law applies.
Criminal Extortion Masquerading as Legal Strategy
The most shocking error: lawyers threaten to publicly release the opposing party's private sexual photographs and information unless he settles. This constitutes explicit extortion under California Penal Code § 518. Threatening to expose private secrets in exchange for money or settlement leverage is a crime. The lawyers have also violated the opposing party's privacy rights and potentially engaged in illegal witness tampering by paying the dominatrix source. In a no-fault state, the information is legally irrelevant anyway.
Partnering with Non-Lawyers (Illegal)
The firm offers to make a non-lawyer investigator a "full partner." This is illegal under California law. You cannot form a law firm, LLP, or legal partnership with non-lawyers. The corporate practice of law doctrine prohibits it. A non-lawyer cannot hold an equity stake in a legal practice.
No-Fault Divorce ≠ Emotional Justice
The show centers on emotional vindication—who "wins" based on infidelity, behavior, humiliation, and fault. California's no-fault divorce system doesn't operate this way. As attorney Rubenstein explains, her clients expect that bad behavior will result in punishment or that they'll achieve "emotional justice," but California law doesn't permit that. The show gives viewers a "false hope of what to expect will actually happen" in court, because infidelity and fault are completely irrelevant to the legal outcome.
Real Divorce Attorneys' Assessment
When actual LA divorce lawyers watched the first three episodes, they rated the show's legal accuracy at 2-3/5. Demetria Graves noted the accuracy might apply only to cases involving the "1% of the 1%," not typical divorce practice. Both attorneys agreed the show prioritizes drama over law and creates misleading expectations for ordinary people going through divorce.
The fundamental problem: The show presents California family law as fault-based, when it is explicitly no-fault. It depicts contingency fees and witness payment schemes that are criminal conduct, not legal strategy. It treats prenups as less binding than they are and ignores choice-of-law provisions entirely. For a show purporting to be a legal drama starring lawyers, the California legal framework is so distorted that it functions as public disinformation about how the legal system actually works.
Comments
Post a Comment