Prenups And The "Suits" Impact On Clients' Expectations With Jared Wood, Esquire

Prenups lawyer expectations collide with pop culture perceptions in this grounded look at how media influences real family law decisions. In this episode, Consilium Practitioner Jared Wood, Esquire of Egloff & Wood, LLP, shares his expertise on prenuptial agreements and how shows like Suits shape what clients expect before they ever step into a law office. Jared breaks down how those expectations compare to real-world legal processes, especially in Massachusetts probate and family court, and why misunderstandings about prenups often lead to frustration during negotiations. Together, we explore how attorneys manage client perception, the role of education in early legal planning, and why clear communication is essential when emotions, assets, and relationships are on the line.

—

Listen to the podcast here

Prenups And The “Suits” Impact On Clients’ Expectations With Jared Wood, Esquire

We are here for another episode where we, through the Consilium Institute, bring in experts from around the country who have expertise and knowledge to share with us and many of whom are Consilium practitioners who have implemented the better way to and through divorce in their cases. We are honored to feature Jared Wood, who is one of the first adopters of the Consilium process. He took the initial mastery course with us with the Consilium Institute. Jared has a lot to share about his extensive experience with families and with family law and the work that he does. Jared, we’re very honored to have you here. Let me just share a little bit about your background, if I could.

Please, thank you. I appreciate it.

Jared graduated from Boston College Law School and served as a law clerk for the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court. For the past several years, he’s been in private practice working almost exclusively in family law. His practice is broad but most frequently encompasses cases involving disputes over custody, complex asset division, and child support or alimony in families with atypical forms of compensation.

Jared really is the person to go to if you have those challenging questions. He also focuses on prenuptial agreements before marriage. He’s got a lot of experience dealing with families of all kinds in the Massachusetts courts and in the Boston area. Jared, we’re just so thrilled to have you here from your offices at Egloff & Wood. Thanks for joining.

Thank you for having me. I really appreciate this.

Let’s just start. You’ve pointed out and asked us to note your experience with prenuptial agreements. Here it is May, it’s almost wedding time, June, wedding season. Is there a higher demand for prenuptial agreements this time of year?

Prenup Season: The Evolution Of Marital Guardrails

There is. If they decide they want a prenup, and a prenup is not for everyone, if someone decides they want a prenup, typically they start working with a lawyer ideally six months before their wedding. That is oftentimes very aspirational. I’ve gotten the call of someone calling saying, “We’re getting married this weekend.” Oftentimes, you can’t do a prenup that quickly. With weddings happening in June and July and May, I’ve got a lot of prenups on my desk right now. It is prenup season.

Have you seen an evolution or change in what people are asking for in their prenups, how they’re approaching them? What have your observations been since you’ve been in that terrain for a little while?

I think they fall into two categories. One is a lot of prenups are instigated by someone’s parents. Someone’s getting married, their parents are concerned either because they’re divorced or they’ve heard stories or they’re thinking about inheritances, they’re thinking about gifts, and they want to preemptively try to address that through a prenup, which can be a good reason to get a prenup.

Oftentimes, there are parents in the background who are pulling the strings and that poses some challenges, but it’s common. That’s one group. The other group is people that are getting married a little later in life, who have already established their careers, who maybe have a nest egg they’ve saved, maybe this is their second marriage, maybe it’s a gray marriage. They are thinking about what may have made sense for a financial partnership if they were getting married in their 20s doesn’t make as much sense in their 50s or 60s. They want to go into it with some guardrails around it.

A prenup is not for everyone. Share on X

Speaking of gray, which I can relate to, obviously, I think you maybe could define that term for people who may be reading and not familiar with a gray marriage or a gray divorce for that matter.

A gray marriage or a gray divorce typically is people getting married in their later 50s or early 60s. Approaching more the traditional retirement age. I’ve done a number of prenups this year with people that have been together for a long time and decided in their 60s, “Let’s tie the knot.” That presents its own challenges.

Yeah, and I think reciprocally, it’s interesting when people talk about gray divorce, I think they’re people are living longer. It used to be I can just suffer for the next eight years, we probably won’t live longer than that once we retire, to this could be 25 years and do I really want to stay in this marriage that is not thriving.

Jared, I’ve had the good fortune of working with you many times over the last number of years. One of the things I think that really, many things distinguish you, but one of the things that I think for people who are consumers of family law that really distinguishes you is the fact that you work, you’re Jared Wood, you’re it.

Unlike going to a large firm where maybe there would be an associate and you as a partner and then maybe a paralegal on a case and some other support staff working on a case. I think people don’t always understand the pros and cons of those differing models. Could you talk a little bit about how you approach a case and how you think that impacts what you do?

The Solo Practitioner Advantage: Continuity And Cost

Sure. A great question. When someone is looking for a divorce attorney, getting the right fit is really one of the most important things they need to consider. Part of the right fit is finding out what is the dynamic of this professional and how they work and who they work with. When I started my career, I was at a firm with a senior partner. I was a junior associate.

On every case, there was a senior partner and at least 1, sometimes 2 junior associates and a paralegal and a secretary. For some cases, that can be the right fit. You’ve got your senior partner who’s the person who goes to court, who is the primary face of the case when it’s time to have a settlement discussion, when it’s time to depose an opposing party, when it’s time to appear in court.

The associate is more handling the day-to-day phone calls and teeing things up. There is a team approach and one of the benefits of that approach, which is not what I do, but one of the benefits of that approach is if you want someone on the phone, you can call the firm and you are going to get someone who picks up the phone. That can have a benefit.

Sometimes it helps to have a team approach and to know there are multiple people who are thinking about this, who are working collaboratively on this. The downside to that I think is cost. I remember when I was working at one of those firms, when we’d have a meeting and talk about a case, the last thing we would do at the end of that conversation was say, “Now let’s all make sure we write down that we spoke about this case for half an hour so our bills are consistent,” and the person gets charged for 2 or 3 attorneys to talk about a case. It can get very expensive.

Sometimes a team approach helps — knowing there are multiple people thinking about and working through the issue collaboratively. Share on X

In contrast, I work alone. I don’t have a paralegal, I don’t have an associate. One benefit of that is that it does minimize cost. No one ever pays me to have a conversation with someone else in my firm. It also means that there’s only 1 person keeping their eye on the ball and 1 person familiarizing themselves with the details of the cases. I have to know all my clients’ cases pretty intimately. I’m the one reading every email, reading every letter, doing every phone call with opposing counsel. There’s a continuity there, which I think adds some value.

The downside to that is that I can’t always be available. If I’m in court one day, if someone reaches out, they’re going to have to expect I may not be able to get back to them until the next day. That is the trade-off. For me, I have no desire to hire an associate. I don’t care to delegate and I like every aspect of my job.

I like doing that myself. There’s a lot of things I can’t charge for. I put together my files. I frequently have to make copies and I can’t charge a client for that. Overall, my approach works for me and it works. I’ve had people call me who really it seems like it would be a better fit if they went to a firm where there was going to be a team handling it. “I am not the right fit for you. This is the model that you’re probably looking for.”

One follow-up question for that, Jared. One of the benefits maybe to the attorneys who are in that a model is that they have other people that they can look to to bounce ideas off of, to have conversations with about hard issues. Is that something that you find an outlet for and if so, where is that and what does that look like? How do you get that reflection and input?

Yes, I need that. I still use that and I get that from several different ways. I have a law partner. She and I don’t typically work on the same cases together. Every once in a while, we’ll help each other out, but we are constantly saying, “I’ve got this situation. How would you handle this? What do about this judge? I have a new opposing counsel. Have you ever had a case with her? What is she like?” I have good relations with other divorce attorneys, even though we are adversaries.

There are some exceptions, but for the most part, the family law bar is a friendly group of professionals who respect our craft, even when we have difficult cases. We pick up the phone and we talk. We see each other at events and we talk. We see each other in the hallways of courthouses and we talk. I have my trusted friends in this profession as well. I am frequently answering questions and asking questions of other professionals about scenarios, the law, what certain judges are doing. How to handle situations, guardian ad litems, accountants. There’s a lot of professionals that we end up working with.

Holistic Advocacy: Beyond The Legal Silo

Can you talk about a little bit about how the Consilium model may have played into that collegiality that you’re describing?

Certainly, it’s been beneficial to meet other professionals who are similarly trained because it creates the web of professionals who are Consilium trained in the greater Boston area has grown significantly. I had a case with two attorneys who were trained and it does a couple of things. One, it allows there to be some trust. Trust is something that with non-Consilium attorneys, we cautiously build over time. If I know someone has gone through this process, if I know someone understood this training and sought it out, that speaks to their character and it also makes it easier to trust them. That has been very beneficial.

Separate from that, one of the things the Consilium process has done that’s enhanced my practice is made me realize that I wasn’t talking to enough non-lawyer professionals. That my clients’ needs were more holistic than just needing an attorney. Speaking with financial advisors, speaking to mental health providers, speaking to trusted confidants. The web has expanded of whom I now speak to that previously, I was really only interested in my relationship with my client and that’s changed.

I love that. To see our profession as lawyers as being so siloed that it can just attend to legal needs discreetly as if you can just bottle that up I think is something people often do, but I think it’s unfortunate.

Siloed is a good word. That’s an accurate word for what has been historically part of my practice and that is changed. That’s a good description.

You were one of the early adopters, as I said, of the Consilium process. Why did you seek out Consilium as a model that you wanted to learn from through the mastery course?

A couple of reasons. I had known Heidi for years and had developed a real appreciation in her craft and the way she approached. It was novel. I didn’t know anybody who did before meeting Consilium, I didn’t know anyone who did what Heidi did. I was very suspicious of other professionals that were adjacent. I had a lot of appreciation and trust in what Heidi had done. Also, I am not a mediator.

I have no desire to be a neutral. On the occasions a judge appoints me to be a neutral, I hate it. I have no desire to ever be a judge or an arbitrator. However, even though I’m a litigator, I appreciate that traditional litigation frequently is messy and can create more harm than it needs to. I think litigation is oftentimes necessary. It wouldn’t be my plan A if I was facing a family law challenge, but it’s but sometimes it’s a necessary plan B.

Traditional litigation is often messy and can create more harm than necessary. Share on X

I was looking for a way to make the impact I had on my clients’ lives and the outcomes I get for my clients to be better than what I have seen happen. I appreciate that especially people getting divorced who have children that even though their marriage may be ending, their relationship is not ending. They are going to be co-parents for life. My husband and I were at a wedding where one of our friends was the bride and the bride’s parents were divorced. The bride’s parents could not sit at the same table. They did this awkward exchange where the mother walked the bride half the way down the aisle and then there was like a throwing it to her ex-husband.

The ex-husband took the bride down the rest of the way. The entire wedding, people were talking like, “They’re divorced and it was really ugly.” All people could do was gossip and talk about how terrible this was years after at their daughter’s wedding. I just remember thinking somewhere, an attorney helped screw this up. Somewhere an attorney did something that made it palpable at their client’s daughter’s wedding a decade later. That made me appreciate that I want to do this in a way where I’m forward looking, not just for my clients’ kids but also for my clients. I don’t want them hating their spouse when this is over. I want them to move on to the next chapter of their life.

The Long-Term Impact: Avoiding The “Wedding Pass-Off”

I think that tenet of people carrying the weight of anger with them takes a toll on people. I think even when people are divorced and they’ve had a contentious divorce, there can be respect. I so hear what you’re saying in terms of attorneys fueling the fires and fueling what does that mean for that family and for that daughter that day on her wedding? How did it feel to be passed off? I’ve got to believe it felt like the pass off she did for years as a kid between her mom’s house and her dad’s house.

Take another step back with me. When you first started your practice. You clerked for probate and family court right after law school and then you’ve been doing family law since. At what point did you decide, “I want to do family law and why? It’s not often the first go-to for folks that go to a law school as prestigious as Boston College.

I knew my 2L year. Family law was the first elective class I got to take. In the first year of law school, they choose all your courses for you. My first semester of my second year, I took family law and I loved it. There were a few things about it that were appealing. I knew that I wanted clients that were human beings and not corporations. Not to take a dig at corporate attorneys, but that wasn’t going to be me. That didn’t interest me.

I liked that family law, there is an intersection of different areas of the law. It involved contracts, it involves property, it involves trusts and estates, it involves taxation. I liked that early in my career I got to go to court. If I was doing corporate litigation over patents or trademarks or something, I would be buried looking at boxes of discovery for years before I ever got the opportunity to go to court.

One of the things that gives me a high is going before a judge and making an impassioned case. I don’t do rollercoasters or any extreme sports, but that is what I feel. When I go before a judge and I think, “I’ve got to win this. I’ve got to try, I’ve got to sell this, I’ve got to be concise, I’ve got to make an argument and try and win this.” Family law involves really doing the meat and bones of what attorneys do.

I do a lot of writing, I do a lot of negotiating, I do a lot of appearance before judges, I take depositions. I do a lot of different skills that many attorneys never get the chance to do and other attorneys have to wait years or decades before they’re in a position to do it. Also, it’s compelling work. Sometimes it’s dirty. Sometimes people come and they and they bring to you their stories and it’s hard. It is always compelling. That is really appealing.

Court As The Wild West: The Risk Of Litigation

You said earlier in our conversation there are some times that people need to go to court, that they need to litigate an issue. What do you tell people when it’s clear to you that that’s the path that needs to happen? What’s your counsel to your clients in that context?

One of the first things I do is make sure they appreciate that the probate and family court, at least in Massachusetts, is the Wild West and that if you choose to go to court, you don’t know what the outcome is going to be. Judges are they vary significantly. Family law is one of the areas where judges have a lot of discretion.

Family law is an area where judges have a lot of discretion — there usually isn’t just one rule that applies. Share on X

There isn’t usually one rule that gets applied and for situations where there are rules, they have lots of exceptions. If you go to court, what I let clients know from the beginning is there is a range of outcomes and it will probably fall within this range. It might be a wide range and there are outliers where cases decisions come down and they are out well outside of that range. Even though I am good at what I do, if I can be a little immodest, there are cases that I should have won where the facts and the law were on my side and there were cases that I had no business winning.

The facts and the law were not on my side and I won those and I lost some of the ones I should have won. If you put your fate in the hands of a judge, there’s a real risk that it’s not going to go where it feels like it should. It’s also an expensive process. It takes time, it can take months to get a hearing. I had a case that went all the way to trial and we waited for a year and a half for the decision to come down.

We litigated over the custody of some teenagers that when the decision came down, it was too late because they’d already turned eighteen. Judges are inconsistent and judges get you might start a case with one judge, it goes to another judge, it gets assigned to another judge so there can be a real problem. There’s not a continuous audience or decider that you’re going before. There’s very little certainty and that has to be what you accept from the beginning.

In your mind, do you have a hierarchy of decision making when your negotiations turn to this is going to court? What are the there are many variables that might make you decide that you say to your client we’re just not able to settle this piece or this is something that I think we’re just it’s going to be better off going to court. Can you describe a little bit for people who are reading what that process is like for you and what the factors are that you consider?

Sure. My preference is always to try to make an agreement if one can be reached. Always try to make an agreement and if you can’t reach an entire agreement, are there smaller things you can reach an agreement on. I learned early in my career judges get annoyed, if you come before them and say, “We could not agree on a single thing.” It is much better to say, “We agreed on A, B, C and D, and E and F we really need some guidance on.” Trying to get as much done as possible also sometimes helps you cross the finish line if you begin ticking off things.

There are some people that will not or cannot negotiate until the pressure is on them. Unfortunately, a number of times, I’ve gotten cases ready for big hearings or even cases ready for trial thinking, “We’re going to go do this.” The other side caves in the hallway before the hearing starts. Some people just are incapable of compromise until the stakes are high.

Usually, I try to be direct with my clients that if they’re taking an unreasonable position. If I think I’m going to lose, I let them know that this is not a fight I think I can win. It’d be better to make an agreement now. Many attorneys don’t give that advice to their clients. Many attorneys aren’t very good at giving a candid, respectful but honest evaluation to their client saying, “This is the range of outcomes, we’re most likely going to fall in this range, it’s not worth it, it’s not worth the money, it’s not worth the risk, it’s not worth the aggravation to go there.” I try to.

There are just some personalities too. There are also some personalities that cannot get to yes is what we say. They cannot reach an agreement. Even if you say yes to all their demands, there are some people that even if you agree to what they want that isn’t enough, they come up with something else. Unfortunately, I’ve negotiated against enough of those types of people to learn that it’s a fool’s errand sometimes and that you’ve got to let a judge decide. It is infrequent but sometimes there is a legitimate disagreement about the law. That doesn’t happen as much as one might think where the law could really go either way on this or we just need a judge to decide a legal question. That’s usually not why we’re in court, but it sometimes does happen that way.

Judicial Preparedness And Feedback: The Ideal Bench

What do you like to see in a judge? What’s a good day in court? You’re walking into a courtroom, what gets you relieved, excited, comforted by what you see in the judge? What characteristics do you think a judge should have? Asking for a friend.

Most court hearings involve submitting things in advance that are written. Motions or a memo. Most of the time, you’ve given something in writing to the judge. I want to just acknowledge that judges are overworked, they have huge caseloads. They cannot get to read everything that is put before them in advance of a hearing. I love it when a judge reads what I’ve submitted before I get to the bench. When my client and I have spent a lot of time making sure that what we put forward is truthful, that it is concise, that it’s well organized, that the there’s a reason behind what we’re asking for.

When I get before a judge and the judge says, “Attorney Wood, I’ve read your memo. I don’t want to hear you repeat anything that’s in writing. Is there anything not in your memo that I need to know?” That doesn’t happen very often, but I love it when that happens. I also love judges that give pointed direction that even when I don’t like what they’re saying, if they let me do my tap dance for my client and say, “Let me tell you why I think you should do what you should do,” and they let me make my argument and then they say, “Attorney Wood, I am not inclined to do that because of X,” that’s helpful.

That helps my client understand why. It helps me understand so the next time I have a situation like that, I can say to my client, “I completely understand your situation. I believe that argument. I’ve made that argument before and it didn’t work. The judge explained why. It’s a different judge. We can try it or we can pivot our approach and try something else or I don’t think I can win this one for you. If you want to pay me to go up there and do that, I can try but I don’t think I’m going to win it. A judge that gives pointed feedback is also appreciated.

Finally, and your Honor, I cannot imagine this would ever apply to you. I’ve seen judges who who’s temperament can be impatient, who can be mean. I’ve seen judges who can be very mean. I can take a scolding from a judge. I’ve got thick skin. I do I’m an attorney for a living. I can do that. I’ve seen judges berate individuals who are there without attorney. Sometimes people need a little scolding. I’ve seen judges though really cross a line, which is unfortunate. I’ve seen judges be kind. I’ve seen judges be kind and respectful and wear the robe and sit on that bench with some grace and some dignity and authority. That is commanding. That is really cool when it happens.

I had a judge once in my career. I was representing a parent. These two parents were at each other’s throat. We’d been in court like 4, 5 different lawsuits, like problems. The judge during the middle of a hearing stopped it and she said, “With attorneys’ permission, I’d like to clear the courtroom including attorneys and just have the parties sit here and I’d like to talk to them.” Of course I wasn’t going to say, “Sorry, your Honor, I need to be here for this.”

The judge cleared the courtroom, attorneys left. I didn’t see it happen, but she came down off the bench and sat at eye level with these people and explained to them politely how they were screwing up by getting caught up in being right. I was so impressed by that. She didn’t make a decision. She explained the position she was in and that their son was in crisis and what he needed from her perspective and it wasn’t something she could deliver and how they needed to change. I’ve only seen it once, but it has stayed with me.

Teaching People How To Treat Us: Establishing New Boundaries

Yeah, that’s incredibly powerful. Jared, we asked you to share one of your favorite quotes with us and you shared a couple that are related and I would just like to ask you about that and about those and how that impacts your work that you do with families every day.

Thank you. I am a little embarrassed about the source of my quote and maybe this is me being a snob. There is a Dr. Phil quote that resonates with me. He and he says we teach people how to treat us. In preparing for this, I googled and I thought maybe it’s not really Dr. Phil. Maybe it’s someone else.

I think Dear Abby said that too so we’ll attribute it to her.

I found an expanded version by Tony Gaskins who I admit I don’t know who Tony Gaskins is but Tony Gaskins said you teach people how to treat you by what you allow, what you stop, and what you reinforce. The principles from both quotes though, it’s helped me personally in my life. I explain especially to clients who are beginning a divorce and especially when someone feels like they’ve been belittled and bullied by their spouse. They’ve had a marriage that didn’t work because they were constantly compromising.

Some marriages don’t work because people are constantly compromising. Share on X

One of the things I try to explain to clients is that they are beginning a new relationship as a divorced co-parent. That when they separate and they begin having to do things as a divorced co-parent that they are from the beginning teaching their spouse a new way to treat them. It’s not as simple as it sounds, I appreciate that.

If they made mistakes during their marriage, if they made mistakes as a co-parent while their family was intact, that a divorce provides an opportunity to say, “Things are different now. Moving forward, these are my boundaries. Moving forward, this is how you can and cannot communicate with me. Moving forward, these are the decisions I am making.” Divorce people get to set up their own households and there are different rules for kids in different households. You don’t have to suffer the relationship problems as a divorced spouse that maybe you felt you were obligated to suffer when you were married. That quote sticks with me. I think it’s really applicable to a lot of people who are going through transitions with their families.

I think that’s beautifully said and it’s a new set point, new opportunity and that’s really well said.

Thank you, Dr. Phil. Can’t believe I said it.

The Importance Of “Fit”: Seeking Multiple Opinions

I’m going to ask the question that that you so appreciated from the judge which is there anything else that you haven’t already said that you would you would like to share, that you would like people to know about you, your practice, your approach, your philosophy, how you work with families in as a passionate family law litigator?

I mentioned the word fit and that finding someone who is the right fit is really important. Every time I give a consultation to someone, one of the things I ask is, “Am I the first person you’ve spoken to?” Oftentimes, I am. When that happens, I’m pretty good at initial consultation. A lot of times, people are saying, “I just want to go with you because we’ve gotten along well during this conversation, you picked up the phone, you sound like what you’re talking about.” I always say, “You really need to go kick the tires on a couple of cars.”

Someone that’s looking for an attorney, first of all, they should get a second or third or fourth opinion so they can hear what the range is of potential outcomes that someone that attorneys are giving them because all of our experiences are different because every case is different. Two, part of fit, my relationship with my clients, we frequently disagree. I frequently tell clients, “I don’t think that’s a good idea.” I have clients who frequently say, “I hear you. This is my marriage, my divorce and this is what I want to do.” I say, “I work for you.”

There are also potential clients who will say, “This is what I want to do,” and I say, “I can’t do that. I’m sorry, you’re going to need to find someone else.” Finding someone that you can have respectful, productive disagreement with, that is something that is beneficial to have in a relationship with an attorney. There are some of us who are very good at pitching ourselves in that initial conversation and less good at follow-through.

It’s important to find an attorney you can have respectful, productive disagreement with. Share on X

There are attorneys that talk about their success rates and conveniently overlook the losses that we all in this industry have. The reality is in at least in most family law there isn’t a winner or a loser. In most cases, everybody loses some and everyone gains some. Finding an attorney that can talk about the range, that’s a good way to find someone who’s the right fit.

Are you inclined to participate in lawyer-assisted mediation or consult with people who may be mediating and having you as outside counsel? Is that something you would ever do?

That’s something I do a lot of. For a lot of people, I think that’s a good option. Mediation doesn’t work for everybody. There’s some cases where I don’t think mediation is an appropriate fit. For most, mediation can be a really good way to resolve a family law dispute. There are a lot of people that, frankly, could benefit from a couple of meetings with an attorney. One to explain generally this is the universe of what the law is and what your likely outcome is going to be.

Before the first mediation, to sit down with that attorney to buy an hour of this attorney’s time and say “Here are your talking points, these are the subjects you should avoid, these are the traps that you could fall into, this is the order in which you should address custody first and then support because you don’t want support driving the custody conversation.” Ideally, only have to have a few conversations or the mediator drafts a divorce and they say, “Can you please can you spend an hour going over this agreement with me?” It can be the most economical way to utilize the services of an attorney and benefit from the process of a mediation.

Not all attorneys do that because candidly, that’s not where attorneys make money. Like I do it but the majority of where my living comes from is from the protracted long full day in court, full day in depositions, litigating for a year and a half and then going back. Unfortunately, that’s where most family law attorneys that’s their bread and butter. I do consultations with people who are going through mediation. I do a lot of initial consultations. Some range from, “I just got served divorce papers and I need to find the right attorney now,” to, “I’m thinking about leaving my spouse and I want to know what it would be. I want to make up my decision as to do I stay or do I go based on what you tell me it’s going to be.”

The Holistic Fit: Prioritizing Authenticity And Support

The big takeaway I have from being a Consilium trained attorney is that a good consultation takes a little time. It involves more questions than how old are your kids, how much money do you make a year, how much do you have in assets. Based on your kids’ age this is what custody’s going to be. This is what support’s going to be and this is how the assets are getting divided. It’s taking time to understand, what is the parenting dynamic like? How are your kids? How do they get along with both do are both of you good parents? In what ways are you good parents? What goals do you have for when you separate?

How might that change over time? Realistically, how is this going to work? Who else is involved here? You’ve never spoken to a financial planner? Who’s on your team? Who do who do you have for emotional support? Are you seeing someone? Have you thought about maybe talking to someone? I’m hearing a lot of stress here. You’re going through a lot. Do you have someone on your side who you can talk to about this who’s cheaper than an attorney and more skilled in helping you understand what’s going on? Appreciating that there is more to a person and their life than just what could be put on one page about the demographics and money that someone has is helpful.

People are more than what can be captured on a single page of demographics or financial information. Share on X

Who is your ideal client? You talked about a good fit for the client with the attorney and the client should look for a good fit with their lawyer, but for you, who would your ideal client be?

They’re responsive so I can get a hold of them and most of my clients are responsive. Every once in a while, I have one that’s not but it the who’s responsive, who’s honest and who will push back. I like a client who will say, “Jared I don’t like that. I don’t want 50-50 custody. I’m hearing you say that’s a likely outcome, but that’s not what I want. I am not comfortable, I hear you, I appreciate the risks, but I’m going to push back.”

Someone who also at the same time will value my guidance. Who will say, “I hear you on this. You’re the expert on this. I hear you.” Someone who can really balance that and knows how to to be thoughtful about what they want and not be a pushover. I don’t want to bully my clients into an outcome that doesn’t make sense for them. I also want them to appreciate good guidance when they hear it.

Sounds to me like you want an authentic relationship with your clients.

That is the truth. Also, if I could add one more thing onto that. On occasion, I get clients who are turned on by the conflict. While that may be good for a lawyer’s wallet, it’s terrible. It’s terrible to have a client that doesn’t want to settle, that wants to teach a lesson to the other side, who wants to do something out of principle, who feels injustice and is not going to back down. I want a client whose goal is to eventually never have to call me again. I recently started watching Suits on Netflix. I can now tell when clients or opposing parties have watched Suits because they have completely unrealistic expectations of how it works and what a win feels like. I’m just like, “Don’t watch Suits,” or at least don’t apply anything don’t take away anything from Suits and think it’s going to happen.

Maybe that should be in your initial client questionnaire. Do you like the TV show Suits? Have you watched Suits? If not, don’t start. Thank you so much. This has been a great opportunity to talk about who you are and what you do and why you do it. I’m just so inspired by the great work that you do for your clients every day. Thank you for sharing those thoughts with us. Thank you.

I appreciate it. Thank you so much. Both of you.

I will echo Julie Field’s thoughts as well. Always a pleasure and so happy that you joined us.

Thank you.

Important Links

About Jared Wood

Jared M. Wood’s practice encompasses all aspects of domestic relations litigation.

Professional Experience:

Divorce and Divorce Modification actions
Property divisions involving high net-worth individuals, family businesses (including S-
Corporations), complex assets, and trust interests
Custody and paternity disputes
Prenuptial and Postnuptial agreements
Defending and obtaining 209A restraining orders
Contempt actions
Same-sex divorces and related issues

Jared has been certified to provide Limited Assistance Representation for all matters in the Probate and Family Court, allowing clients to engage him for isolated matters. This includes representing clients at motion hearings and pre-trial conferences, preparing divorce agreements, and ghost writing for all types of pleadings and court filings.

Bar Admissions:

Massachusetts, 2007

Publications:

American Journal of Family Law, “The Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act of 2011” (Summer 2012), with Gabrielle Clemens

Massachusetts Family Law Journal, “For Richer, For Poorer: The Evolution of Antenuptial Agreements in

Massachusetts” (2005)

Clerkships:

Law Clerk to the Justices of the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court (2006-07), serving in Suffolk, Essex, and

Middlesex counties

Education:

J.D., 2006, Boston College Law School

B.A., 1999, University of Utah

Professional Recognitions:

Massachusetts Super Lawyer Rising Star, Family Law