In the second episode of our “Jury Trials in Family Law” series, our managing partner, Jake Gilbreath, and CEO, Sarah Gilbreath, discuss the jury selection. In detail, they examine the importance of the jury trial selection process and how this intricate and strategic step can impartially weigh a case’s evidence and render a fair verdict.
Your hosts have earned a reputation as fierce and effective advocates inside and outside of the courtroom. Both partners are experienced trial attorneys who have been board-certified in family law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.
Jake Gilbreath: All right, thanks for tuning into the For Better, Worse, or Divorce podcast. This is Jake Gilbreath and today I’m joined by Sarah Gilbreath who is the CEO of our firm and also my wife. We’re bringing her on because we’re talking about a very important process, jury trial. As part of our jury trial series, we’re going to be talking about voir dire. Sarah, thanks for being here. For clarification, we just want to point out that while you’re not an attorney you’ve worked as a paralegal before, you’ve been COO and then CEO of our law firm.
To this day we still bring you to the process that’s called voir dire in our jury selection and have you participate in that. I think you tell it better than I do, let’s start off with why we’ve discovered over the years it makes sense to involve you in that process. Then we’ll go through talking about what the process is.
Sarah Gilbreath: That was the longest intro you’ve probably ever given me in your life as your wife, but I’ll take it. You probably bring me because I am judgmental, or I have very keen skills in assessing someone’s character. And I am good at relying on my gut instinct.
Jake Gilbreath: I think I’ll add to it, and this will make sense when we talk about the process. We’ve discovered over the years that when it comes to actually making the final decision about who we’re going to use strikes on, that you have had a much greater success rate than I have – as far as anticipating who will be a positive juror for us. That’s been pointed out several times. I think we’ve had juries where when we’ve figured out who we’re going to use strikes on, or who we’re going to leave on our panel, I’ve gone one direction and you’ve gone the other.
Like we often do, we sort of defaulted to your decision and each time it’s worked out tremendously well for us. There have been times where I’ve been stubborn about my selections that have not particularly worked out. Even though we were still successful in those juries there have been potential jurors that I thought were going to go one way, and to be frank, I did not have the read on it that you did.
Sarah Gilbreath: We select based off who’s good for us or maybe who’s bad, but I think I’m good at assessing who is going to be the leader in the group. Who is going to have the most pull and then figuring out are they good for us or are they not?
Jake Gilbreath: Let’s talk about the actual process to help people understand what we’re talking about. First of all, we’re talking about jury, what people call jury selection. We’ll talk about why this is in a second, but it’s actually not jury selection. It’s actually jury deselection because what we’re doing is we’re picking who is not going to be on our jury. So, let’s start talking broad picture. In a family law case, like we’ve talked about in other podcasts, a jury can decide some very important questions.
The main one being for property. They can decide character of properties. If it’s separate or community and they can decide the value of property. That can be a very important question. They can decide the calculation of some reimbursement claims. They can actually decide fault or grounds for divorce. And then various fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud claims. They can also make decisions on some other things if there are torts involved that could affect property.
On kid issues, they can decide are the parents sole managing? Is one parent sole managing conservator or the parents joint managing conservators? They can decide which parent has the right to determine the primary residence of the child. In other words, who has custody and they can determine geographic restrictions. Those are some major decisions that a jury can make. Like we’ve talked about in the prior podcast episode with Brian, talking to other family law practitioners in other states, it kind of blows their mind that we let juries decide that in the state of Texas.
But our experience has been that it’s s a very positive part of our judicial system. And oftentimes it makes sense for our clients to ask for a jury to decide. So, let’s talk about how somebody ends up on a jury. Some of you may have gotten this in the mail, but ultimately what’s going to happen logistically is that people are going to get a jury summit. It’s going to say that you have to come down to the courthouse and you could potentially be on this jury.
Then the court administrator will take from that jury pool, and they’ll assign a particular number of jurors. Potential jurors that are coming up will being assigned to this case. The Smith case in front of Judge Meacham in Travis County for example. Eventually what will happen is there will be between about 45 and 60 people that are in Judge Meacham’s courtroom in this example. Then the jury will come from that pool of people.
So, we’ll talk about what that looks like. But first of all, let’s talk about the process in preparing for that. We get what’s called jury cards. When the jury gets assigned and we get assigned to a particular judge, there’s jury cards that are provided to the attorneys. They give some background information on the potential jurors and they’re numbered. This is juror number one, Joe Blow. This is his gender, this is his age, his race, whether or not he’s married, divorced or single. This is his educational background. Does he have children? Has he served in a jury before? Any involvement with law enforcement? What are his hobbies? What his kids do for work?
A lot of information is on this one card that you get. Religion, what religion does he or she identify as, if any. Depending on your court, it may be the day of jury selection, or it may be days before, we’re receiving all this information about somebody. That’s the first step in sort of trying to take notes on these strangers to figure out who could potentially be on the jury.
What does that process look like for you when you’re first getting these names, and you don’t know who these people are? You have all this information about them, what are you trying to capture?
Sarah Gilbreath: I probably have a different first step from you because I’m not working on the cases day to day. For me, I look at it first from the perspective of what is the case about – what is the conflict, what’s in controversy. On a bench trial, so trying it to a judge, typically it could just be we have a disagreement, and we need somebody to help us make a decision. But on a jury trial, for us at least, usually what I see is there’s something bigger and controversy. Something kind of controversial, a move, some big change to the kid’s schedule, something really dramatic happened in one of the parents’ lives. It could be drug use or whatever it is, something very controversial. It’s beyond just “we can’t agree, and we need help.”
So, the first thing I do is take a step back before I look at any of the juror’s information. I don’t want to see any of it. I first want to get the scoop on the case. What is it we’re asking for? What’s the other side’s position? How is everything teed up for trial? From there I try to think about what the ideal juror would be before I start looking at who our candidates are because I don’t really want to cloud my judgment. I think “what’s the best thing we can look for with what we have?” I really try to narrow it down. If we were picking the ideal foreman for our jury panel, what would that look like?
That’s the first thing I do. Once I can figure out what the lay of the land is with the controversy on the case, then I’d look at the perspective juror’s cards. I have a whole spreadsheet that I use. There are certain things I look at and track. For me, I look at their background and I try to tailor it to whatever is in controversy. For example, we had one where a mom was using drugs in the home and also allowing the kids to use drugs in the home. The dad was like, “Whoa, whoa, whoa, not cool. The kids need to come live with me.” So, on that one in particular I was looking for people that maybe had more of a traditional background and family structure. People that would maybe list something for their religion. It didn’t matter what it was, but maybe somebody that would list something.
I kind of tailor what I’m looking for based on the controversy of the case. Then the most important thing to me is initially trying to determine just from these bare bones info that we get on these people on a sheet of paper – do I think they have a really strong personality, or do I think they’re going to kind of go along with the process? And the next question I ask myself initially, and this is one that I allow myself to change, are they on our side or not? And so that’s how I kind of start to filter through people and figure out where they land.
Jake Gilbreath: I think the terminology is leaders and followers. That’s what you are looking for. Or you at least want to know who is a leader and who is a follower. We’re looking at these cards trying to think what our sense is of this person. Again, having never met them and sometimes we’re right and sometimes we’re wrong. Sometimes we actually meet and talk to this person face-to-face and the read from their background is wrong. That’s why we don’t typically use stereotypes or want to use stereotypes in our day-to-day life because it’s often proven wrong. But you got to start somewhere in jury selection and that’s the way we do it.
I know you do this, Sarah and I do it too. I try to look at background, their occupation, what they’ve been through, have they been on a jury before for example. Or you can sometimes read between the lines if somebody is kind of willing to participate in the process. Maybe they’ve been pretty verbose on their card and then some people kind of intentionally leave them blank on everything. You can kind of assume that person is not the happiest camper of having been asked to fill this out for potentially being on a jury. Then I list them on my little spreadsheet, and I know you do the same. I list them either as a leader or a follower. Then I think “Is this person is a positive leader? Do I think this person’s a negative leader, positive follower, negative follower?”
Then for me it’s also just trying to capture as much relevant information that I can on this spreadsheet. I obviously want to know their age, gender, race, and then I put that in one column. But then as far as notes that really stand out on their card, I then want to put that in the next column. If somebody has a postgraduate degree, something that usually jumps out and is on the card. If somebody’s a lawyer, that’s a big one that jumps out. If they’re a medical professional or if they are a school teacher. Those are the types of things that sort of jump out. You’re sort of trying to capture as much relevant information as you can before you even meet these folks.
I guess I’ll just give a nod to this for those that really want to nerd out on jury selection. Once given the cards you are also given an opportunity by the district judge to request a shuffle, usually with a deadline. We’ll talk about why this matters more in a second.
These jurors are given with numbers. You have numbers for the potential jurors 1 through 45 or 60, or whoever’s in your pool, and we’ll talk about why this is in a second. The ones at the beginning are more likely to be on the juror than the ones at the later numbers. You have a right to ask for a shuffle, but only one time. You basically ask for the judge to mix up the numbers and reorder who’s at the front and who’s at the back, and there’s a strategy behind that.
If I think there’s a bunch of people that’d be positive for me towards the end and they’re not likely to number on my jury, then I should shuffle this up. If I see a bunch of bad ones or what I think are going to be bad ones for me at the beginning, I will shuffle it up. Or maybe I’m fine with it because I don’t usually shuffle. That’s kind of a side note. It’s not a big issue in jury selection but that is something out there for those who really want to kind of know how the process works step to step. So, after the shuffle (or not) and you have your final list of your jury pool then we do with a fun starch. We’re going to do what’s called voir dire, which our district judges usually tell the pool.
Voir dire, which is either Latin or French and it means to speak the truth. Voir dire is the opportunity that these jurors come in and come into the district court. They’re all sitting on the benches, they’ve all got their numbers, and they’ve been given in most counties a little paddle that corresponds with their number. Then the lawyers get to ask questions. As the person that gets to do the voir dire, which is what I am good at, the actual process of voir diring. The process of trying to figure out who’s positive or negative, that’s Sarah’s strength. The actual voir dire that’s what I concentrate on as far as this process.
As part of the voir dire, the lawyers get to ask questions of these potential jurors and the questions cannot be specific. They can’t be what we call ‘commitment questions’. In other words, if I’ve got a custody case and I’ve got mom, I can’t sit up there and say, “well, here’s the facts of the case and here’s what the evidence is going to be. So, who here would vote for my client of having custody?” I don’t get to do that. I get to ask more general questions about their background. We’ll talk about what those questions are in a second, but now it’s the time to talk about why we’re doing this and why we call it jury deselection and not jury selection.
The way a jury is empaneled is there are potential jurors, usually 45 to 60 depending on what court you’re in and if it’s county court or district court. Let’s just use district court for all these examples. So, you can have 12 jurors and you got 60 people out there. Let’s say it’s 60 people out there that potentially could be on the jury. At the end of voir dire, having asked questions, having read their jury cards, having done all the background work that we do, ultimately I get two types of strikes. I get what’s called a strike for cause and those are limitless. And I get peremptory strikes. I only have 6 of those in district court.
Strike for cause is I’m striking somebody because they have a bias that they cannot put aside and that is going to impact their ability to serve as a juror. By way of example, if I represent dad and out there there’s a juror, they’d never say it like this, but out there’s a juror that says, “Hey, at the end of the day, I think mom should have custody. I just think that’s the way it’s supposed to be. Mom’s supposed to raise kids, so it doesn’t matter what you tell me.” Again, they’ll never say it this explicitly, but “it doesn’t matter what you tell me, mom should have custody.” Well, we’re gender-neutral in the state of Texas. The law is that we don’t take into account gender in determining custody cases.
That person has a bias that’s going to impact their ability to follow the law, and so that person could be struck for cause. That you just can’t, you’re not allowed to serve on the jury. Or somebody stands up and they say, “I know the wife in this case. I know the husband in this case” or “I know this critical witness” that person could be struck for cause. And again, those are limitless. Each side has 6 peremptory strikes that they get to use and really for whatever reason. They can’t strike somebody based off race, but otherwise I can use my peremptory strikes for any reason.
If somebody told me something about their background, or their card gave me information that I just think this person’s not going to be a good juror, I can use a peremptory strike for whatever reason. I don’t like the shoes you’re wearing. I’m using my peremptory strikes on this person. I don’t have to have a reason. Again, it can’t be race-based, but I can use my peremptory strikes. That goes back to what we said as far as how the jury comes about. We have a jury trial and I use 6 peremptory strikes. The other side uses their 6 peremptory strikes. Their strikes for cause are people that are just let go because they’re biased.
Some people are a no-show, and some people have medical reasons to why they can’t be there. Some people have economic reasons, and they can’t be there. After all that is sorted up and those who are remaining after we’ve done cause, peremptory strikes, medical leave, and economic leave – those who are left standing, the first 12 left standing are going to be your jury and there may be an altar. That’s what we call deselection. At the end of the day, I’m not looking out this jury pool and telling the judge, “Judge, I want jury number 3, I want juror number 10, I want juror number 15, 37, 52, etc.” I’m not doing that. I’m saying, “Judge, I don’t want these 6.” And the other side says, “Judge, I don’t want these 6.” By the way, we don’t compare notes before we come up with our 6, and then who’s remaining is who’s on the jury.
If you think about it sort of mathematically, back to that point I made about those at the beginning are more likely to get struck. We actually have something that’s called a strike zone. If you think about it mathematically, once you know who’s out for cause, once you know who’s out because they’ve been excused by the judge for medical or economic reasons and you’re looking at who’s left – those who are left mathematically, the jury pool can only come from the first 24 remaining. Even if I use 6 peremptory strikes on somebody completely different than the other side uses their 6 peremptory strikes, 6 plus 6 is 12. So, at a maximum 12 are out.
So, at a minimum 12 can be remaining and then that’s where your jury comes from. That’s a lot of information to say that’s why we’re doing voir dire. So Sarah, what would you add to that until we talk about the actual process of voir dire and what we’re looking for there?
Sarah Gilbreath: I would back up a little bit to say voir dire is French, and it means to speak the truth or tell the truth. So, when you were talking about that as your strength, I think that’s true. This is hard, but it’s to connect with people individually and collectively. The hardest job that you or any of the attorneys trying the case is to connect with these people, get them to speak the truth, to get them to say something so that we can get more information than what we have from the cards. Because you’re right, what we have we can read it one way and probably about 40% of the time I am like, “Well, I was completely wrong about that one” once we get them engaged in communicating. I think there’s two reasons you’re really good at that.
Number one is you have an innate ability to connect with people, again individually and collectively. I think you also have allowed yourself to step back from the process and just do that. Just asking the questions and connecting with people, listening, and following up to things that they’re saying is really important, but it’s a lot. There’s a lot of people and they’re all raising a paddle. For someone that’s never been to one of these before, you may ask a question, “How many of you lived in another state from one of your parents?” And we’re going to have paddles all over the room. Could be 40 people that raise their hand or more.
We’re writing all of those down. We’re also tracking those with the question to figure out how that works with what our position is in the case, and who’s going to be favorable for us. What is their response? Just because they’re saying yes to a question doesn’t mean they’re in favor or against. Then we watch people to figure out how they’re responding. We are giving you that information in real time, so you know who to follow up with. How to do all of that and to track everybody is a big job.
Again, taking a step back. I think having the ability to connect with people and to really listen, understand, and then follow up with who you need to is the key. It’s the key to getting the information you need to make good choices on who you’re deselecting. Which is what people always ask me, “How do I not get on a jury?” The answer to that is really to say nothing. But we’re going to do everything we can to get those people to engage. The other thing I will say about that is when I see you do it, I don’t see a lot of other people do it. I help a few other people in town, but people generally enjoy the process more than they think they will. Once they get in there and they hear the kind of questions you’re asking and their ability to kind of feel like they’re contributing. I see a lot of people open up and speak a lot more than maybe what you might expect.
So that’s the kind of things that I’m looking for in doing while you’re asking the questions. I’ll let you talk a little bit more about the questions you ask, but it’s not just listening to the answers. It’s also how that interplays with our case. Looking at people’s body language and figuring out how do they feel about you because you and I have had differing opinions on that as well.
Jake Gilbreath: Yeah, and we default to yours. I guess in fairness to me my job is to kind of follow up and ask the questions and stuff in voir dire. I can’t ask questions, intake notes, read how they are reacting and stuff like that. My job is to elicit information as much as I can. We say that when we’re talking to the potential jurors before we even start. We say, “Look, at the end of the day, most people don’t love the idea of speaking out in front of other individuals.” That’s just how we are as humans. Most of us don’t like public speaking.
I tell people when I’m doing voir dire that I’m not a huge fan of public speaking and social interaction. I always tell people I’d prefer to be on a Zoom call with somebody than in a courtroom. In front of 60 people talking about my personal life or their personal life and what have you. But once we get into it, people do tend to enjoy it. But the goal is to get folks to share as much information as possible. My voir dire, the other side’s voir dire. We are going to make a decision if we think we should use a strike on this person or not.
To Sarah’s point too, frankly the more you share the more likely you’re going to be to be struck. If you share a lot, you’re going to say something that probably is going to ring a bell on their side and they say, “maybe I don’t want this person.” If you sit there silently and just kind of sulk, well you’re probably a follower and you’re probably not going to sway the panel one way or the other. I may not use up a strike on you. Again, the overall goal is that you’re trying to get people to talk and share as much as possible. I’m searching out there, Sarah, the associate, any paralegals that are helping are searching and trying to find the jurors that are bad for us.
That’s the counterintuitive part that you see a lot of people that haven’t done jury trials before. One of the many mistakes that they make. We’ll talk about this towards the end and why it’s so important to have this experience, because there’s lots of mistakes that you can make in a jury trial. You can make devastating mistakes in voir dire if you don’t know what you’re doing, they’ll just tank your case. But a mistake that people that haven’t done them before is they use voir dire as trying to find jurors that for what they view as positive for their case.
I’m not trying to find jurors that are positive for my case. If I do that and if I illuminate that then I’m just highlighting to the other side who they want to use their strikes on. I’m trying to find all the people that are bad for my case. Again, it’s an easy sort of stereotypical example. If I’ve got dad, I want to find every single juror out there that deep down thinks that mom should have custody, all things being considerate. I want to find those people and I want them to feel comfortable sharing that. I don’t want to hit them over the head with a mallet and say, “How dare you! How could you think that the law is that’s supposed to be gender neutral. You need to follow the law? Judge, I moved to strike this person for cause right now, right here.”
Well, if I do that, everybody watching what I just did to juror number 12, raise my paddle and get screamed at by Jake. So, they’re hidden. What I want to do is find the people that agree. If I represent dad in this example and juror number 12 said, “Hey, I think moms should get custody. All things being considered.” “Okay, who here agrees with that?” I want to know everybody that agrees with that because I want to find those people so they can be excused. That’s the counterintuitive part and that’s where I see a lot of people mess up.
So how do we do all that? That just sort of depends on your issues. I have sort of standard questions that I ask every single potential jury, for example, “who knows the parties, who knows the witnesses.” If there’s mental health professionals involved, “does anybody have experiences with mental health professionals” and what their feelings are about them are. In move cases you talk about people’s background where they grew up. In custody cases, you ask “who’s been through a divorce” sort of standard questions. Again, we’re trying to get people to share and figure out their background.
Then each case is going to have kind of tailored questions. Again, not commitment questions about the case specific. But to the example you gave, Sarah. For example, drugs. A lot of times we see marijuana being an issue where maybe one parent uses marijuana, both do or kids have experimented with it. Then you voir dire on what are people’s thoughts about that?
Sarah Gilbreath:That’s what I was going to say too. It’s nuanced. So, it depends on the county. We are primarily in Travis County. Travis County is contiguous to Williamson County and Williamson and Travis are two very different jury trial settings for us. We are going to approach a case typically very differently when those kinds of issues come up based on the county. I think that’s a huge mistake people make is they kind of fall into this trap of this is how you try a jury trial, and this is how it’s done. You really need to know so much more about the nuances that go into how people make decisions and how they kind of think about things.
Jake Gilbreath: Ultimately it comes down to why all this is so important because we’re all human. We can have two perfectly capable, competent people, exact same facts, and it just strikes them differently. It just does. Something in their background, something about their moral fiber, how they view the world that it’s just going to strike this person differently. It’s so important. There are studies and people will tell you that a case is won and lost in voir dire. I don’t know if that’s totally true, but it’s a very big impact.
And if you don’t know or you don’t take care in preparing, then you really could accidentally tank your case before it’s even started. Or you can put yourself at a serious disadvantage when that doesn’t have to be the case. There is a science and an art form behind all of this, and it takes a while to get used to. Sarah, you and I have done countless voir dires. But the way I do voir dire now is very different than the first voir dire I did. You learn as you do it and you get more comfortable doing it.
I sometimes think that’s one of the reasons why we get called in a lot by colleagues to co-counsel and help them with that process or the entire jury trial. We help them with that process because we have the ability to. We’ve done it before, we can do the voir dire. We can have you come, we can have staff members come and give that assistance even in situations where it’s not our case from start to finish.
Sarah Gilbreath: Well, two things. You have to always be willing to evolve and you have to be willing to let go of your personal opinion about something. It’s so easy to get locked into the idea of this is what the juror should look like, and so this person is that person – and no matter what they say, I think they’re good for me. You have to be really flexible in your thinking and realize you’re talking to a group of people that have very different experiences. They come into this with all different perspectives from all over the world. Having that flexibility in your thinking, which can be particularly hard to do in our profession, where we look at things as black and white, right and wrong. I think that’s a muscle we have to exercise.
Then on the point of evolving, I’ve been in this industry now for 19 years and I would say that cases today are in many ways very different from how they would’ve been 19 years ago. The laws have changed, and family structures look a lot different, thankfully. I think over time there’s lots of things that are different now. Things look very different than they would’ve 20 years ago and so I think it’s important to have experience and expertise. I think it’s also important to always be willing to look at how you do things and continue to improve them.
You can see lawyers that have done it for many, many, many years and they’re going to do it the way that it’s always been done. I see that not really work so well with today’s jurors. Particularly at a time when people are coming into it with a lot more access to information and understanding about the process.
Jake Gilbreath:Yeah, absolutely. And each one looks different. You have to be willing to pivot. I had this person listed as a leader, triple positive before we started the voir dire process. Then at the end of it I thought this person is not going to be good for our case. The last thing I’ll say and then we’ll wrap up is it really is a team effort too. I’ve done voir dires earlier on in my career where it’s solo and it was just me doing it. I’ve seen people do that and that’s a big challenge. Doing it just by yourself and not having assistance, a good staff or being able to bring somebody else in to help out is a big challenge. It’s a challenge because there’s so much information and so many balls up in the air in the voir dire process.
As a client, I’d be really nervous if my lawyer’s plan was to roll into voir dire solo without the assistant. I mean I think I’m very good at the process and I wouldn’t do it solo. I don’t like doing it solo. I don’t think it’s as good a product. I think I contribute something to the process and then Sarah contributes something very different to the process. Staff contributes something different to the process, even the client contributes to the process. But that teamwork is really what gives you the best product on it.
So, to wrap up for those that are thinking about, or have discussions about what their current counsel or whatever the situation is. And they may be headed to a jury trial, it really is important to kind of one, educate yourself as a client, but two, have the frank discussion with your lawyer. It’s just no different than if I had a doctor operating on me. I’d probably want to know if this is her first time doing this operation, is she going to have any help with the operation or are we winging it for me on the first time? And then what’s the plan. What’s the plan to bring in help and bring in some experience to the process because it is difficult.
For me, the most enjoyable type of case is jury trials. I know Sarah, you’ve sort of had the same experience as far as all the various trials that you’ve helped out over the years. I think that jury trials have been your favorite as well, correct me if I’m wrong.
Sarah Gilbreath: Yeah, I think so. And to your point, I mean we’ve talked a lot about how jurors come into this with different perspectives and different backgrounds, but we do too. So, your point about needing it to be kind of a team environment I think is really well taken. Because one person has one set of experiences, one perspective, and just like the jurors come from all walks of life and have different experiences so do we. I think it’s important that your team look like that too and have those different varied experiences.
You and I are married to each other. We have kids together and we’ve built a life and a business together. We probably disagree as much as we agree when we look at these things and talk about our perspective on things. So, I would just think about that if I was a client. I wouldn’t want people with all different levels of experience, expertise and different walks of life looking at my case and looking at the people that are going to be making a decision for my life.
Jake Gilbreath:Absolutely. Well, I’m sure there’s tons more that we could talk about. Again, it’s a very complex but interesting process. But we’ll sort of leave that as the overview and wrap up with that for today. So, thanks again to Sarah for joining us today. And then our third and final episode in our jury trial series will be in a couple of weeks, so stay tuned for that. As always, if you have any questions about this or follow-up questions, you can contact our law firm. You can reach us at podcast@waltersgilbreath.com. Please leave us a review, that’s very helpful. Suggestions are helpful. All our links are out in the bios so feel free to reach out in any way. And thanks for listening.
For information about the topics covered in today’s episode and more, you can visit our website at waltersgilbreath.com. Thanks for tuning into today’s episode of For Better, Worse, or Divorce, where we post new episodes every first and third Wednesday. Do you have a topic you want discussed or a question for our hosts? Email us at podcast@waltersgilbreath.com. Thanks for listening. Until next time.
Your hosts have earned a reputation as fierce and effective advocates inside and outside of the courtroom. Both partners are experienced trial attorneys who have been board-certified in family law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.
Request a Consultation
Request a Consultation