This is a rent-a-judge situation. It’s something that can only be done in the state of California.

If a client’s soon-to-be ex-spouse wants to move on with his life

People start screaming at each other, and it becomes a fiasco. Suddenly you’re arguing about personalities rather than issues.

For it to be admissible, it’s got to be a court-approved laboratory and you have to show a chain of evidence, like in a criminal case. But just to know if your husband is making...

The usual fraud is a refusal to have children. Or you see it if somebody is homosexual, or has some kind of disease, or claims they’re from nobility when they’re not.

The basic advantage [to an annulment] is that at a cocktail party when the guy asks if you were ever married, you can say no.

This isn’t Little Big Horn, and I’m not General Custer. I guess I didn’t get the smoke signal.

I guess she went to a different law school than the rest of the lawyers in America. People don’t just throw that term about.

That, of course, is the question. Why buy the cow when you can have the milk? Or the house when you can just rent?

The usual fraud in American law is when the wife claims the husband said they were going to have children, and now he won’t.

All these people talking themselves into being happy about marriage — it’s mass delusion.