Back in college I used to tutor Notre Dame football players in math. I explained things like probability and statistics. I was a chess player, after all. Looking back on it, I find that I'm approaching cases in a similar way today - what are the right moves in a divorce case, what are the odds of success? Is the other side's offer in the probable range of a settlement? My approach is always strategic: When the offer is out of the range, I have no problem taking the case to court.

Unlike most of my colleagues, though, I don't think a divorce case needs to go on and on, a year or more. I don't think of a domestic situation as a case unless and until it has to be. From the first conversation, from the first exchange of information, I try to get right away from both parties a comprehensive package documenting all the marital assets. And from that, I try to settle the case, if possible, within the first few months. I'm not as interested in the fight as I am the result. In that respect, I feel as though I win my cases before even going to court. I've gauged the probability of outcomes. I'm always thinking about the next move. And I think that's served my clients very well. I've never felt that I was superior to anyone. But I've always - always - hated to lose, I think even more than my competitors.

Equitable distribution is easy to analyze if one has the right documentation; what is marital; what is separate; what makes tax-sense; what is feasible and fair? You want to reach a resolution - but not at any cost. I always define the reasonableness of our position against the last offer. Is the last offer in a reasonable range?

Custody cases, too, are straightforward to analyze - judges and experienced lawyers have heard 1,000 different arguments for custody, so we can fairly easily anticipate what the judge's ruling is going to be. The point is to tell your client what you would want to know if you were the client.