LOS ANGELES TIMES AGAIN HONORS DEBRA OPRI,
RENOWNED ATTORNEY AND MEDIA COMMENTATOR, AS ONE OF
L.A.’S ‘WOMEN LEADERS IN THE LAW’
Debra Opri did it again.
After recently concluding the divorce for comedian/actor Kevin Hart in a contentious court battle with his former wife, Torrei, renowned attorney Debra Opri (www.debraopri.com) was again honored by the Los Angeles Times as one of Los Angeles’ Women Leaders in the Law. She previously received the designation in 2010.
Opri, who has become the media’s “Go To” Celebrity Attorney commentator in recent years, now adds this honor among her numerous other accolades, having been honored in December 2011 by the Coalition for At Risk Youth (CARRY) for her longtime work on behalf of abused and at-risk children. Opri also recently received the ‘Clients’ Choice Award for 2013′ from Avvo, an Attorney Service and Expert-Only Legal online forum.
Clearly, Opri continues to prove that her work for social justice, and the needs of the parents and children of divorce and domestic violence, extends to her representation of her clients, both in and out of the courtroom.
As a step towards reaching out to those who want insight into the world of divorce, parenting, and domestic violence, Opri recently launched a new feature on her website, “The Opri Opinion Blog” (www.debraopri.com/opinion.html), which shares her views on numerous family law matters in the news, including high-profile legal cases and issues.
Renowned as a fierce and aggressive litigator in the courtroom, Opri believes in what she does and who she works with. Just ask Kevin Hart. Thanks to Opri’s tenaciousness and strategies, the actor/comedian—whose hit reality show on BET, “Real Husbands of Hollywood” was recently picked up for a second season and album for Laugh At My Pain went five times platinum—got a killer settlement in his divorce from his wife, after seven years of marriage. The successful conclusion allowed Kevin Hart and ex-wife, Torrei, to move forward on amicable terms.
Opri’s roster of celebrity cases includes the Anna Nicole Smith paternity case; representing Michael Jackson‘s parents Katherine and Joe Jackson during the late singer’s 2005 molestation trial; brother Jermaine Jackson‘s divorce; the David Hasselhoff custody battle; the James Brown sexual harassment case; and the David Caruso paternity action.
Opri has been a regular on air analyst on such networks, as CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News Channel, MSNBC and HLN to name a few, and continues to be a go-to legal source for the current high-profile divorces and legal cases in the news, both nationally and internationally.
Opri can be followed on Twitter @debraopri and Facebook.
###
]]>THE OPRI OPINION: AND IN THE MATTER OF ‘PATERNITY’ CASES
Paternity cases seem to be everywhere today. The latest paternity case filing in the media and its subsequent dismissal has many wondering – not whether Michael Jordan is the father of a 16-year-old boy – but what took this child’s mother so long to file a paternity action in the first place. Having handled high-profile paternity cases over the years, I think this is not favorable for either the mother or Michael Jordan.
So a woman has a child 16 years ago, assumedly by Michael Jordan, but we never hear about it. Why? Because a paternity action was never filed. Why? Maybe the woman didn’t want the media attention. Maybe she didn’t need the money; maybe she was independently wealthy, married to someone else, or just plain out of touch with legal issues protecting her minor child’s financial support. Maybe, in fact, she and Michael Jordan reached an out-of-court settlement as to the issue of support. Maybe there was a paternity test taken, and no need by Michael Jordan to air this matter publicly when the only dispute was how much to pay for the child’s support. So, in my opinion, if there wasn’t a filing sixteen years ago, can we assume the mother was being compensated all these years by (probably) Michael Jordan. Perhaps. And, at this point, does it matter?
What does matter is that Michael Jordan didn’t take too well to a court filing now. And instead of making a public statement to the effect of, “a paternity test/DNA sampling will be taken to clear up this paternity filing, to prove I have no connection to this woman,” instead the media announced that this filing would produce a “sanctions request” by Jordan if this matter was not dismissed (i.e. Michael Jordan would be seeking attorney’s fees against the woman for his having to go to court at all, or alternatively, for breaching a ‘confidentiality provision’ which may have been part of any agreement the parties “may” have entered into). Again, we don’t know. But, interestingly, if we consider human nature, would the actions of this woman in filing a paternity action be more revealing of what she may have demanded all these years later that may or may not have been her right contractually to ask for? In clear terms, was there a written agreement between these parties which may have already resolved any and all issues such that a public legal filing was expressly forbidden such to provide that Michael Jordan would be entitled to sanctions at this time due to this filing?
In the eyes of many, the opinion is probably that Michael Jordan may very well be the father of the 16-year-old boy. But we may never know for sure, which is okay. It is his personal life, and he has a right to keep his personal life…well, personal. As the media goes, if they are correctly “reading between the lines” in this filing, factually there was a paternity filing because there was a pregnancy, and someone fathered a child 16 years ago. If, as the media would assume, communication was made with Michael Jordan or his reps way back then, a settlement was engaged in and financial compensation was agreed upon, then what, exactly happened to motivate this woman all these years later to file a public legal document?
Assume that all these years later her compensation either stopped, or it was no longer enough money for the woman, such that she threatened and then filed the paternity case when her demands went unmet. The law states that a paternity filing can be done as long as the child is a minor. In California, the child is no longer a minor at the age of emancipation, which is 18 years old, or no longer in high school, generally. In the jurisdiction where the paternity action was filed, it may be somewhat different, but probably generally the same.
So what is the lesson to be learned here, what the courts are for? Are they to be part of a parent’s demand for money, or in some instances, for more money? Are the courts part of the bargaining chips of a woman who sleeps with a celebrity and gets pregnant? And then again, what about the responsibility of the celebrity? How many women can one celebrity sleep with without protection before the chips fall “unfavorably?” And what about the children conceived from such irresponsibility? If in fact, neither party ever intended that should a child come of this union, however, brief, one or more of them would be willing to engage in the parenting of this child?
If we are to accept the plausibility that Michael Jordan is in fact the 16-year-old child’s father, then didn’t he fulfill his obligations as the child’s biological father and pay his due? And is this enough? Did or does he have a relationship with the 16-year-old? Did he make payments and then stop? Did he feel he was being held up, for lack of a better choice of words, for more money than he thought he should have to pay, or which contractually the mother had no right to ask for?
We may never know, and why should we? But we should know this: the courts should not be used as a bargaining chip in dealing with a celebrity and their personal life. The threat of media exposure, while ideal to some, will always produce a response by the celebrity such that the person threatening an ‘embarrassing revelation’ against the celebrity may misfire.
In my dealings with celebrities the worse thing to do is threaten them. If legal action is warranted, then just do it. But by no means does one have a child and then 16 years later decide to make it public. In the end, no one wins, and there will be one big loser: the child. Think twice before media threats of exposure via the courts, because in the end, you’re only hurting the child.
As for Michael Jordan, and other celebrities like him, think before you embroil yourself in a relationship such to have this kind of possibility, and always, once you do… get a confidentiality clause in there and make sure your adversary knows it will be enforced in a significant financial manner against them if they don’t adhere to their agreement.
###
]]>
THE OPRI OPINION: How to Use a Divorce…
The latest divorce news surrounds Ashton Kutcher/Demi Moore and her recent ‘response’ filing in the court system based upon ‘reports’ that she was ‘unhappy’ with ‘confidential’ settlement discussions. Can we all look at this a bit differently for a moment?
I recommend the following perception: first, Ashton filed for divorce without, allegedly, sitting down with his wife and seeking a settlement in advance of the filing such that this response would never have been necessary perhaps. Second, Ashton only filed for divorce in December, roughly three months ago, which says that the parties have been working diligently to resolve their differences in an expeditious manner. Third, the average divorce [don't think Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes – that was unique] goes over a year+ prior to settlement discussions / resolution.
That said, we can now address the Response and why it was/is going to be filed: a strategy call to remind Demi Moore’s soon-to-be ex-husband-once the six-month period is reached here in California-that it would be counterproductive to air the dirty laundry in the public courts, that the divorce now gets expensive with court appearances, and look to have a dragged out resolution on the horizon.
In my cases, I routinely request confidential mediation between the parties for both my celebrity clients and my non celebrity clients. In this time of budget cuts, and longer waits for hearing dates, going to court has no benefit in my opinion, if it can be avoided. But in some instances there is a party that seems to think the ‘threat’ of public hearings would be enough to warrant a quick resolution. Period. [Now you can think of the Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes divorce].
I don’t think Demi Moore wants a ‘public’ airing of her personal finances any more than Ashton Kutcher does, but I do think there are other alternatives at this point. Certainly, in mediation, if the parties are at a stalemate, then why not have the parties mutually agree to a ‘tie breaker’ arrangement. It is common, and it is certainly something that will take both sides’ ‘line in the sand’ positions into consideration. In the end, it would be no different than a judge making a decision after a long trial, and after the parties have spent millions of dollars with experts, evaluators, and numbers, numbers, numbers.
So, how do these once-in-love people cut their losses – and pain of a prolonged divorce – and resolve their differences? Meet in the middle with a ‘tie breaker’ agreement and sit down in a private conference room with their mediator, and let him/her make the final decision.
In today’s world of relationships gone bad, and marriages ending at record numbers, neither Demi nor Ashton want to be another statistic. Both can be examples of intelligent people who have chosen to move on in a healthy and expeditious manner.
###
KEVIN HART’S DIVORCE ATTORNEY DEBRA OPRI, A HARD-HITTING TV LEGAL ANALYST AND AUTHOR OF ‘THE OPRI OPINION BLOG’ ON DEBRAOPRI.COM,
REMAINS A FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH
* * *
The Go-To Family Law Attorney – Who Has Recently Been Quoted on Major News Outlets about Pauley Perrette’s Divorce, Bethenny Frankel, Kim Kardashian, Diane Lane/Josh Brolin, Dan Marino, and the Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes Divorce to Name a Few– Has Handled Many High-Profile Cases Including Michael Jackson, Anna Nicole Smith, James Brown, David Hasselhoff and David Caruso
At the top of her game, Debra Opri is one of the most powerful and legendary high-profile female attorneys and legal analysts today.
Opri’s current client, actor/comedian, Kevin Hart, would agree. Opri –who unveiled ’The Opri Opinion Blog’ this year on her website www.debraopri.com– resolved Hart’s divorce after a contentious in-court battle, with the parties finally settling their divorce amicably, thanks to Opri’s work on behalf of her client.
This divorce, one of the more combative in Hollywood in recent days, exemplified Opri’s fierceness and case-winning strategies in the courtroom on Kevin Hart’s behalf, along with her ability to keep the media at a distance, which is something most celebrities want (and what Opri delivers).
While Opri will not discuss her clients or their cases, public court records show that, thanks to Opri, Kevin Hart glided through his divorce, winning almost every fight against his ex-wife, Torrei Hart. Kevin Hart, the actor/comedian – whose album for Laugh At My Pain, a 2011 stand-up comedy documentary film about his career, recently went five times platinum, and now enjoys movie and television success, including his new BET “Hollywood Husbands” and is guest hosting on SNL (March 2, 2013).
Kevin Hart is only one of the celebrity cases Opri has handled in her many years as an attorney. Opri’s roster of celebrity cases includes the Anna Nicole Smith paternity case where Opri battled Smith from the United States to the Bahamas until Smith’s untimely death turned the paternity proceedings into a battle for DNA, custody, and burial issues; Michael Jackson’s parents, Katherine and Joe Jackson during the late singer’s 2004-2005 molestation trial, and handling media attacks against their son; Jermaine Jackson’s divorce; the David and Pamela Hasselhoff custody battle; the David Caruso paternity action, and, of course, James Brown’s sexual harassment trial. This was Opri’s first celebrity trial, which ended in a win for Debra Opri and the Godfather of Soul, James Brown, thanks to Opri’s fierce courtroom personality.
Beyond the courtroom, and in the media world, Opri is a go-to legal analyst on all the top stories of the day. Opri has been a regular on air analyst on such networks, as CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, HLN and CBS to name a few, and continues to be a go-to legal source for the current high profile divorces, and high profile cases in the news both nationally and internationally. Opri, who founded her family-based law practice in the late ‘80s, is the family lawyer the media seeks for big breaking Hollywood family related cases.
Debra Opri has also appeared on CNN affiliates including CNN International, commenting on the divorce filing between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. She continues to weigh in and lend her commentary to the Kim Kardashian divorce as well as Bethenny Frankel’s (aka the ‘Skinnygirl Cocktails tycoon’) marital breakup and divorce filing. Having met Frankel during one of her stints at CNN in New York, Opri was quick to assess Frankel. “Frankel has an aura of success. She’s a winner. And she keeps moving forward,” Opri has observed. “Bethenny Frankel, in my opinion, needs a partner to keep up. Evidently, Hoppy couldn’t.”
Opri’s resume is endless: in addition to her many cases, Opri has provided in-depth commentary on Michael Jackson over the years, culminating with news of his death, the Conrad Murray trial, the personal and career travails of Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen, Casey Anthony’s trial and aftermath, Dan Marino’s secret paternity story, and of course, the ongoing Kim Kardashian/ Kris Humphries divorce/annulment battle royale.
As Opri sees it, there will forever be a messy breakup and a legal proceeding….enough to keep her on her game for years.
As a litigator in the world of divorce, Opri has not changed here either. She is still legendary in how she handles each high profile case, from dealing with the media attention on her client to the inside workings of the courtroom. Opri is still one of the only regular media analysts who continues to litigate her own cases. “While I always seek first to avoid confrontation via a settlement that’s fair to both sides, I always make sure I give my clients everything they deserve,” she says. “I don’t quit. When there’s a battle, I’m going to be up for it. I’m going to fight. And I’m going to be fierce, until the battle is won, or the other side surrenders. Clients know this, and they know I do it at an affordable cost. And guess what…even celebrities want their money’s worth. I’ve dealt with enough of them to know this.”
“Celebrities and those who work as I do with high profile media personalities can very easily be accused of things that are not true and which may stay out there thanks to the internet,” says Opri. “But it’s part of the game of what happens in the celebrity world – whether you’re the celebrity or the celebrity’s lawyer.”
Opri continues, “Everyone understands that there are downsides to the ‘media’ and you may be a potential target, whether it’s you or your client. And that’s okay. I can take it. But always remember, eventually the truth comes out. And to those celebrities who try to remain out of the media when it comes to their own divorces, or legal matters, Opri is equally ‘zealous.’ Most of my celebrity clients don’t want the media sitting in the courtroom or in the court hallway with their matters. They don’t want their personal problems in their marriage out there. Period. And there are always ways to deal with this problem. The client’s wishes are always first and foremost. If the client says no press, that’s the rule we go by.”
Opri can be followed on Twitter @debraopri and Facebook.
###
]]>
‘DAN MARINO’S BIGGEST FUMBLE?
LOSING CONTROL OF HIS SECRET PATERNITY DEAL’
SAYS CELEBRITY ATTORNEY DEBRA OPRI
After the New York Post broke the story on Dan Marino’s secret love child, legendary family law attorney DEBRA OPRI, most famous for the Anna Nicole Smith paternity case, the paternity case involving David Caruso, and most recently for her representation of Kevin Hart in his divorce, noted, “Like Arnold Schwarzenegger’s secret child scandal, the media is hungering for yet another lust-filled paternity web of intrigue.”
Opri says, though, that “The big question everyone should be asking is ‘who leaked this confidential arrangement? And if the leak originated with the former CBS employee, did she violate any agreement with Marino such that she now loses money on her million dollar baby?” Opri thinks that’s a distinct possibility. “In instances like this, the written agreement will govern. And if she was forbidden to speak about it, she’s got problems going forward.”
As for Dan Marino, Opri says, “Stories like this are not uncommon but where there is a celebrity, a long term marriage, and children involved there may be serious aftershocks for Dan Marino. But for now, the affair and his being with a woman in the TV world, spells a lot of ‘candy’ for the media on the eve of Super Bowl Weekend and this former NFL Superbowl QB’s dirty linen will most certainly be the ‘sweetest’ topic of the weekend.”
The widely recognized female litigation attorney is famous for her high profile media cases including the Anna Nicole Smith paternity case, David Hasselhoff divorce battle, and for the Michael Jackson molestation trial when she represented the parents of Michael Jackson, Joe and Katharine Jackson, as to their parental interests in the case, and the James Brown sexual harassment trial. Honored by the Los Angeles Times as one of Los Angeles Women’s Leaders in the Law, Opri has for more than 20 years distinguished herself from many other media attorneys in that she actually litigates her own cases, many of which are under the glare of the media spotlight. She is currently representing comedian/actor Kevin Hart in his divorce.
###
]]>