How to Manage Working with Difficult Colleagues Around Valentine's Day

Summary

Love is probably the most talked about emotion in the world. While many cherish and celebrate it, there are those who may take a more objective view of matters of the heart. In this article, the author looks at how the law views the whims and mandates of Cupid's arrows, and the consequences of their actions.


The law in some jurisdictions considers romantic relationships, including marriage, as contractual agreements between two people. This means that just as in any other contract, when one partner breaches the terms of the agreement, the other has the right to take legal action. Unfortunately, the law does not recognize love that is lost or abandoned, and instead looks at the financial losses incurred when one partner decides to walk away.

When it comes to matters of the heart, the law sees things a little differently. We all know that love can make people do things that they would not normally do, such as make rash decisions or behave in ways that could be considered irresponsible. However, the law does not recognize this and instead looks solely at the repercussions of the actions taken. The law does not provide special protection for those who may have acted irresponsibly due to love either, meaning that their actions may very well lead to legal proceedings.

The law also does not recognize love as a mitigating factor in criminal cases. If one partner commits a crime, they are still liable for the consequences, even if they were motivated by love. Likewise, the law does not make allowances for those who may have been taken advantage of due to love.

The author of this article points out that, while the law may not be sympathetic to matters of the heart, it does provide the necessary framework to protect people who have been wronged. This means that those who have been hurt or taken advantage of due to matters of the love can still seek redress in the courts.

In conclusion, while the law may take a more objective view of matters of the heart, it does still provide a way to protect those who have been wronged in love. The law may not recognize love as a mitigating factor for criminal cases or for those who have taken advantage of due to love, but it does provide the necessary framework to protect those who have been wronged and to ensure that justice is served.
 

Lawyers, Love and Relationship

In the legal profession, Valentine's Day can be quite a traumatic day for many lawyers. As a result of the high demands of the legal profession, lawyers in many cases find it difficult to maintain a relationship. The stresses that come along with the job, such as late nights, frequent travel, and lengthy court battles, tend to take their toll on a relationship and can lead to the break down of a partner's trust, faith and intimacy.
 

The Challenges of Working in the Legal Profession

Long hours, tight deadlines and demanding clients are just a few of the factors that can contribute to the difficulties of maintaining a successful relationship while working in the legal profession. Lawyers often find themselves working late nights, dealing with contentious clients and battling in court for long periods of time. These demands of the job can prevent them from spending quality time with their loved ones.
 

Consequences of a Skipped Valentine's Day

Missing Valentine's Day can have a detrimental effect on a lawyer's relationship. Not only can it create conflict and mistrust between partners, but it can also lead to a lack of communication. Lawyers are less likely to discuss their feelings and needs with their partners on a day that is meant to celebrate love and affection.
 

Tips for Lawyers on Valentine's Day

To ensure that lawyers don't compromise their relationship, they should take the time to plan ahead and make an effort to celebrate Valentine's Day in spite of their busy schedule. Most importantly, lawyers must understand the importance of communication, compromise and trust in a relationship and make sure that their partner feels appreciated and valued every day, not just on Valentine's Day.

The case involved a suit brought by Maggie against her lover Charles. I have changed the litigants' names to protect the infected. The case number is 040804, decided by unanimous opinion on Jan. 14. Justice Elizabeth B. Lacy spoke for the Virginia court.

The facts are not seriously in dispute. Charles and Maggie, unmarried adults, entered into an intimate relationship in October 2001. For many months they engaged in "unprotected sexual conduct." That relationship ended rudely in November 2003. That was when Maggie noticed that telltale blisters had begun to form. It was a serious case of herpes.

Given today's litigious society, Maggie naturally took appropriate measures. Instead of shooting him, she sued him. In her complaint, she alleged that Charles knew that he had the kind of herpes that may be sexually transmitted, that he knew the virus was contagious, and that he never told her. She sought both compensatory and punitive damages.

Charles filed a demurrer. The bounder asserted that Maggie's injuries were her own fault: She had voluntarily and repeatedly engaged in an act that was illegal in Virginia, to wit, fornication between unmarried persons. The state law, Va. Code Sect. 18.2-344, makes it a Class A misdemeanor "for any person, not being married, voluntarily to have sexual intercourse with any other person." It is hornbook law that recovery will not lie in cases of injury resulting from illegal activity.

The trial court sustained his demurrer, but Virginia's Supreme Court reversed. Whatever weight might once have attached to laws forbidding adult fornication, said Justice Lacy, that weight vanished with the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 decision two years ago in the homosexual case of Lawrence v. Texas. With that decision, the sexual activity between Maggie and Charles became a constitutionally protected liberty. It no longer matters that a majority of Virginia voters may view unmarried fornication as immoral. That is not "a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice."

Justice Lacy emphasized that the court's opinion does not affect the Commonwealth's police power regarding regulation of public fornication, prostitution and other such offenses. These laws remain in effect. But a law that "improperly abridges a personal relationship that is within the liberty interest of persons to choose" cannot be sustained. The Constitution says that no state may deprive any person of "liberty" without due process of law. Voluntary private fornication between consenting adults has become a form of constitutional liberty. As Cato was wont to say, "quod erat demonstrandum."

This may not have been exactly what the framers of the 14th Amendment intended — but that was 1868, and this is now. The Virginia court's opinion in the case of Charles and Maggie takes us one more mile along a course denounced by Justice Antonin Scalia in the Lawrence case in June 2003. That was the case in which the high court, speaking through Justice Anthony Kennedy, nullified all state laws punishing private homosexuality.

In a scathing dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist, Scalia said his brethren had put into question every law against "adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity." He scoffed at Justice Kennedy's assertion of "an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex."

Justice Kennedy, swept away on the tides of his own eloquence, had praised an "emerging awareness of liberty" that develops as time goes by. The framers of the Constitution, he mused, had not grasped "the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities." Later generations understand that some laws "once thought to be necessary and proper," such as the Texas statute, "now serve only to oppress."

Getting back to Maggie's suit against the bounder: Now that Charlie's demurrer has been cast aside, he may have to stand trial on the merits of her case. Ultimately we may learn a little more about the manifold possibilities of liberty. Maggie could testify about one of those possibilities. Its awareness emerged early in November 2003.

(Readers are invited to send dated citations of usage to Mr. Kilpatrick. His e-mail address is kilpatjj@aol.com.)

COPYRIGHT 2005 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
This feature may not be reproduced or distributed electronically, in print or otherwise without the written permission of uclick and Universal Press Syndicate.