When Kanye West fired yet another attorney in his recent divorce from Kim Kardashian, news sources outed celebrity attorney Christoper Melcher as the most recent legal representative to be relieved of the case. In today's episode of the Modern Divorce Podcast, Christopher sits down with host Billie Tarascio to talk about being a celebrity attorney and what he does to manage situations with high stakes, high emotions, and complicated finances.
While Chris can't talk specifics about clients, like when he represented Katie Holmes in her divorce with Tom Cruise, he does share his philosophy and approach to managing the stars, and how one of his cases ended up as case law for California. His firm, Walzer Melcher LLP, specializes in handling high-net-worth individuals who often have handlers and public relations representatives that can find themselves embroiled in the case itself. It's a fascinating peek into dealing with celebrities.
When Kanye West fired yet another attorney in his recent divorce from Kim Kardashian, news sources outed celebrity attorney Christoper Melcher as the most recent legal representative to be relieved of the case. In today's episode of the Modern Divorce Podcast, Christopher sits down with host Billie Tarascio to talk about being a celebrity attorney and what he does to manage situations with high stakes, high emotions, and complicated finances.
While Chris can't talk specifics about clients, like when he represented Katie Holmes in her divorce with Tom Cruise, he does share his philosophy and approach to managing the stars, and how one of his cases ended up as case law for California. His firm, Walzer Melcher LLP, specializes in handling high-net-worth individuals who often have handlers and public relations representatives that can find themselves embroiled in the case itself. It's a fascinating peek into dealing with celebrities.
Billie Tarascio: [00:00:00] Welcome to the Modern Divorce podcast today. So excited for you. Very special guests. We are talking to a celebrity divorce attorney out of Los Angeles. So it's going to be juicy. We're going to talk about first amendment issues posting on social media, what it's like to represent big personalities. So Chris, welcome to the show.
Christopher Melcher: Well, thanks for having me Billie. This is, uh, you know, an interesting topic to T you know, to go in. We see the social media posting of these big [00:01:00] celeb cases and happy to kind of share my experiences and thoughts about them. Uh, generally speaking, of course,
Billie Tarascio: absolutely generally seeking. So first, before we get into that, how did you find yourself to become the celebrity divorce lawyer?
Christopher Melcher: Well, my practice areas, usually representing business owners, going through a divorce. That's my sweet spot. I really don't like custody cases because their custody cases and they're just awful. And my practice has really been focused on, um, business valuation, dealing with big financial issues.
I've I've enjoyed. And, but through that work, I have attracted some, some big celeb cases and one that I represented Frankie Valli from the four seasons for 10 years. And that was. Was a great relationship that, that I had with him, uh, and, and getting to know him. And he really helped me a lot. I think just personally, [00:02:00] uh, and just spending so much time with him in that case, went all the way to the California Supreme court and helped define law on, on what's community and separate property.
So he has this a little bit of a legacy in California law as well. But as a result of that case, then there were other large celebrity cases that I handled that that's kind of not my preference actually, to handle those cases, which we can get into. Um, I just liked the business valuation cases and I'm sure as a fellow divorce lawyer, you could appreciate the, uh, uh, lack of drama is, is something.
That I, I like, uh, in, in the practice that's not easily found.
Billie Tarascio: I know what you're saying personally. I think really, if you are a family law attorney, you sort of have to like the drama. You have to be willing to like go there because it is dramatic and emotional, but I know exactly what you mean, that it really takes a lot out of the divorce attorneys and clients may not understand.
It's not that we thrive in conflict ,we can go there with you, but it's, it's a lot [00:03:00] so I can understand why. You know, try to shy away from that as much as possible. So how do you find that you have that you handle or work with these big, huge personalities?
Christopher Melcher: Well, it's just like any other person when it comes down to it.
And that's, to me the key, because we're all people and we all have the same problems. The, so some people have larger problems, more zeros at the end of them, but when it comes down to it in a family law dispute, it's the most personal thing that we could go through. It's probably the most awful or one of the most awful disputes that we could have.
And, um, so this is highly personal. And, um, we're dealing with our kids, our lives, our future, our income, everything is on the line. And so for me, I'm, I, I'm not impressed by celebrity. I don't know, like if I was walking down the street, I wouldn't [00:04:00] probably even know who most of these people are. It's just not my thing.
And so I treat people just as regular people, because that's the way I see them. And. Certainly there are some differences in, in representing a celebrity that you don't have in a, in a regular representation. You may have a lot more handlers and levels of people and complexity involved, but ultimately I treat people, um, As, as just normal humans and have to develop a relationship with them.
And, and that's, that's my approach.
Billie Tarascio: Because you're dealing with handlers, it can affect both attorney, client privilege and confidentiality. So how do you deal with that?
Christopher Melcher: That's a great question. And it's been tested in some cases in California, where a one lawyer was representing a client and was also dealing with the public relations manager for that client.
And the other [00:05:00] side went and said, Hey, I want all your communications with the PR person. And ultimately those were revealed because there's no, there's an attorney client privilege, but there's no attorney public relations privilege. So what we're careful to do, uh, in, in our representation of clients is to ensure that these other third-party, that we're introducing into the conversation is necessary for the client to access representation.
And that's a key because there are times when a client, um, just really cannot receive the advice. From the client from the attorney without having somebody else involved. Typically that's like a business manager, accountant, somebody to help translate this information or to access legal representation is going to have to involve somebody else.
A lot of times you ask a celebrity. Um, or even very, very wealthy person what they own. And they don't really know exactly what they have. It's it's, um, they may have a hundred [00:06:00] LLCs, one for each individual purpose or asset that they're holding. Um, so honestly, a lot of times we ask them, like, what do you own?
I gotta fill out this financial disclosure. And they're like, well, I really don't know. And so we do need to access then the accountant or business manager. And then sometimes with the public relations person, they are a key player in the team because their case is evolving in legal time, which is glacial pace, like really long months or years to get through a divorce.
But on social media, it's happening. Instantaneously. So it is nice when a client has a public relations person, so we can interact with them about messaging and being consistent with what we're saying in legal papers. So the newspapers say the same thing.
Billie Tarascio: Another question, I'm glad you brought that up.
Because one question I have is why are some of these documents, [00:07:00] public? Why aren't celebrity divorce lawyers asking to seal all of these cases?
Christopher Melcher: Well, I mean, we are a pub, at least in California. Um, our divorce proceedings are public and, uh, that's the way I think it should be. I'm I'm pro court access. Uh, I know other, other folks are not and want to keep stuff private, but, um, it, you know, in California we have strong protections and also under the first amendment, just nationally for state court cases, these are supposed to be open proceedings.
There can be some, uh, proceedings that are closed when. The, uh, it's necessary to protect this information and it overrides the public's right to know sometimes with like children's testimony or child custody, evaluation stuff. But, you know, to me, I think it's important that the public have access to this information and the media have access to this information because if these are celebrities or high [00:08:00] profile people, there is a public right to know and need to know.
Um, and, and, and hopefully this would inspire people not to have their laundry out there in a court proceeding for most celebrities that works because it's like, Hey, if you go forward with this case, this is going to be handled publicly. You know, I would think for any of us, we don't want our stuff out there publicly.
We don't want our children, um, who were the subject of the divorce growing up and then going through the court file and looking about how awful their parents treated each other. So I kinda liked that it's public because that would hopefully keep people. On their better behavior. I haven't seen a lot of that.
Um, but that, that would, hopefully it would, I know it would me, if God forbid I went through a divorce, I just would, would not want any of that stuff in court. And that would really inspire me to settle. Oh, I
Billie Tarascio: have to say, I disagree with you. [00:09:00] I think it's awful that these, I don't understand why lawyers don't file to seal the cases.
I think it's awful that the public can go through the worst time in your life and put it on social media and make it part of the. And then basically throw gasoline on your litigation, which is already hard, but it is the system that we have. So does California not allow you to seal cases or people just not ask.
Christopher Melcher: Well it's there, there are requests that are made and sometimes granted, but many times those, those grants, uh, of the sealing orders are unconstitutional. So that that's the problem is, is that I understand, uh, for the children's sake or the party's sake that they want to keep the information private, but, uh, at least, you know, under California law, that.
That is, is, is rarely, uh, appropriate, um, because of our state and federal. Protections for court access to [00:10:00] seals. So the, um, we have seen some courts grant sealing orders, and then those be challenged. I've seen them, uh, granted by the judge that's presiding over a case. And then the PR then the supervising or presiding judge just overruling those on her own after just reviewing them because, uh, Again, I understand from the party's sake that they want to keep it private, but we do have the first amendment.
And so, um, that, uh, you know, like I say, we, we have seen cases where sealing orders have been granted. I think that, that, um, and, and we've also seen them challenged. So I think if I were going through a case or advising somebody, I would say, I would expect that this is most likely not going to be sealed.
Billie Tarascio: Wow. That is good to know.
I think Arizona is much more lenient with sealing cases. So, uh, there's, it's very interesting to look at all of the different, um, [00:11:00] ways that states handle these issues. Let's talk about social media and gag orders while we're talking about constitutionality. I have seen, and you've seen judges order parents not to post online.
Yeah. So what have you seen in your career?
Christopher Melcher: Yeah. Th this is an area that it's of interest to me because when we talked about this, uh, in, you know, in lawyer groups, uh, we, you know, and I've raised like, well, Hey, you know, there's a first amendment, right? The speak. And here we have these boiler plate court forms, standard language that's inserted in many custody orders, even custody orders, templates that have been developed by, um, courts in California says you shall not post on social media or a more typical one.
You shall not make any disparaging comments about the. Parent. Um, and [00:12:00] you know, Hey, I understand from a child's perspective why those orders would be made, but there has been no thought given to the right to speak. And that's a fundamental, right. And we have case law in California. That have dealt with this issue, uh, even in, in family law matters where the courts have found that, that the right to speak does outweigh the need to protect the child.
And particularly in cases where we're prohibiting speech before it occurs. So that's, that's a big issue under our constitution is, is that we may sometimes be able to punish speech after it occurs, maybe through a defamation suit, but, um, or to take the speech into consideration and making a custody orders saying, Hey parents, you, you got all these things.
And now I'm going to consider that in a best interest assessment, but to punish [00:13:00] to prohibit speech before it occurs is almost always unconstitutional. There's only been a few cases where that's been permitted and that's where like national secrets are at stake. And if the speech occurred, the secret was revealed.
Our, our, our safety would be at risk. So in those cases we've had, um, those, those types of orders declared constitutional, but generally speaking courts cannot order parents not to speak and can only maybe consider it afterwards.
Billie Tarascio: And what about gag orders and gag orders are, tend to be like blanket. You know, I've had a case where a judge was literally like tried to shut down a Facebook group and did order the Facebook group be shut down that somebody who's not a party to the case shut down the Facebook group. And then nobody is allowed to talk about the case.
Christopher Melcher: I mean, it's. We have seen judges try to do things like that. And, um, what [00:14:00] I'm trying to do is bring awareness that, um, Hey, we do have this fundamental right under our constitution, state and federal, and, you know, judges have enormous power and unfortunately they don't always know the law and.
Billie Tarascio: It is a big deal.
Christopher Melcher: Um, and I understand where it's probably coming from, Hey, we want to protect kids. And that's super, certainly very, very important, but, but the right to speak is a fundamental, right. And when we have judges that are violating that, I mean, they're taking away constitutional rights of people, uh, maybe without even thinking about it and just saying, well, I'm making the order.
And it's like, okay, well that's just not valid. So, um, we, we do have issues of, uh, pre-trial publicity. Yeah. And those triple good comes up in a, in a criminal case where we don't want the prosecution or [00:15:00] defense talking about a case that would end up poisoning a jury pool. So if there's a lot of attention about the case, a lot of statements being made that may make it difficult for the defendant to get a fair trial, because all that information is out there or the prosecution can't maybe get a fair jury pool, because they've already received all this information. So in some cases, you know, for, for that, uh, the court can issue some gag orders, but generally speaking. Um, we don't have, um, many states that allow for jury trials and family law. Texas is one, but California, they're not. So there's no real concern as much that the court would be influenced, um, by what's in social media.
And in fact, the court cannot look at social media and an active case. That's called an extra judicial investigation that the court doesn't have authority to go out on its own and investigate and develop facts. It can only consider the facts that are presented to it in court, by the [00:16:00] attorneys or parties and admitted into evidence.
Um, but we have seen some judges say like, Hey, I looked on social media and I saw this and it's like, you know, that's, that's inappropriate again, another violation by the court. So. Seeing more of these cases develop and beginning a lot more public attention. I'm hoping also that that courts are going to be looking at their first amendment obligations and following those a little bit.
Billie Tarascio: So it sounds like you've got, uh, you've in California there is a, your constitution says that courts and public records must be available to the public.
Christopher Melcher: That's right. And the, and the media is part of the public. So their rights are fairly identical. And so we have strong, constitutional provisions in our state constitution for open access to, um, court records and for, uh, the right to free speech.
But we also have that, um, right under federal law under, under the first amendment to the U S constitute. [00:17:00]
Billie Tarascio: Are you advising that your clients participate in arbitration or collaborative law in order to keep their matters private? Or how are you shielding people from having to reveal their personal details and their personal financial details?
Christopher Melcher: So we, we have, um, we really don't have arbitration and family law. There, there, there may be some authority for that, but I've rarely seen it invoked in a family law proceeding. Uh, most of the cases in California progress with a mediation, which, uh, you know, obviously for the listeners is a neutral party we'll, we'll help discuss the issues. Doesn't have any power to make a decision and everything that's discussed in the mediation is confidential and can't be used in court if they don't settle. And that's, that's my preferential approach because it gives a safe place for parties to talk through their issues with the assistance of a neutral, um, if that [00:18:00] doesn't work, it's going to go to litigation.
And some have used private judges where they call them private judges, but technically it's a privately compensated temporary judge. So this is a person, typically a retired judge or an attorney who has been appointed by the superior court in California to hear and decide the matter. Um, but those matters are not private.
They are still public proceedings, they're treated just like any other public proceeding. The court must um, the judge, this, this private judge, uh, cannot consider, uh, papers that have been filed with the court and the proceedings are open. So there is some misunderstandings, I think, by some attorneys and some even temporary judges to think that that's private proceedings, they're not. And so there's been abuses there that are, that are being addressed now. So really, uh, when it comes down to it, I think like I said earlier is that we, if, if we [00:19:00] surrender, uh, an issue to be resolved by our courts, it is a. Public proceeding and open for everyone to see.
And, uh, you know, if we had two reasonable people, they would not want to go there. Nobody should want to go to court and resolve, you know, have that done. Um, but if we have one or both parties are not willing to settle at a mediation, then it's going to go to court and it's going to be public.
Billie Tarascio: Do you think that the court of public opinion has an impact on the outcome of cases.
Christopher Melcher: I think so. Um, the, you know, and we don't see a lot of public opinion on in cases unless they're very high profile individuals, but we have seen, uh, high profile issues. So there may be somebody that's going through a court case that no one's ever heard of, but the issue itself is extremely important.
And. [00:20:00] So we'll see people on social media rally around them provide support to that litigant because the issue that they're facing is so important that again, the judge should not be reading any of this stuff. So it shouldn't technically get into court. But I think that the, when we have big issues that are being played out in social media and through the traditional media, that it does affect the behavior of the parties and the lawyers on how they're going to shape the issues.
And at some point the pressure may become overwhelming that they just say, look, we're we're out. Because there, there could be lots and lots of people on social media, rallying behind one side and, um, putting tremendous pressure on, on the lawyer, on the litigant to basically stop what they're doing.
Billie Tarascio: Absolutely.
I mean, we can certainly see in, in Britney Spears case [00:21:00] how the public had an enormous effect on the judge who knew that they were being watched every moment was being, um, reported. And that certainly had an outcome in her case. It seems like there's a good guy and a bad guy, at least from our perspective, that's what it looks like.
So it looks like it's really easy, but if you look at people like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, that gets a little harder, you know, where in the media, they're both, they've got both camps, they've got team Brad make that team Angelina. And, um, how do you think that that has affected the case?
Well, I mean, that case has gone on for a long time.
I think it was filed in 2017 and, um, I've gone back and forth on that. I've done a lot of commentary on that case. I've looked at all the papers that have been filed, um, and. You know, it's just, I it's just so unnecessary, I think for a case to go on that long and there can be criticism on both [00:22:00] sides. And certainly there has been, you know, uh, people rallying around each side of it.
Um, but I think I could make a case against either one of them. It's sort of like, especially when they're fighting about the custody, which is like, what really is at stake here to make this worthwhile, to make that fight worthwhile, um, because it is being handled publicly, their children are seeing it, or we'll see all of this information out there.
Um, their parents fighting and that's very toxic. And so if they're fighting over the difference of 10% of the time. How could that 10% be worth it to either side to justify the damage that's done through having that fight? And like I say, I could have criticism on both sides. Maybe it's Angelina. Why are you.
Why do you want that again? I'm just making it up 10%. Why are you, why do you want the 10%, so much that you're willing to [00:23:00] proceed with this litigation, but I can also make the same argument against Brad. Why is this 10% so important to you that you're going forth and fighting her over it? Because who's really, who's really using the 10%.
I mean, we have two parents in that case that are working a lot. I got imagine they have childcare. And so is it a fight over which nanny's going to use the 10%? And, and so what we see in a lot of these cases, and I, I know, you know, this. Is that the, the object that they're fighting over in a family law dispute is probably not what they're really fighting over.
There's something more that sourcing this thing, uh, power control, resentment, revenge, just inability to move forward. And that's really, what's driving the dispute. And we're only seeing a symptom of that in what they're fighting for, whether it's the house or the extra day with the kid.
Yeah [00:24:00] absolutely.
Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you have received threats or you felt unsafe because of your representation?
Christopher Melcher: No. Um, I mean, it, I'm trying to stay out of this. This is not my dispute. Um, and I look at myself as. Uh, I mean I'm almost like a janitor is, is how I view myself. Um, I'm a highly compensated janitor that takes care of or cleans up messes that my clients have gotten themselves into.
So, um, I'm not part of the dispute. I don't want to be part of the dispute. I don't want my name attached with the dispute. I I'm just there to serve the client. And, um, because I've taken that, I do comment publicly on other people's cases all the time. Like I just did Brad and Angelina because I'm not involved in that case, but my own cases I don't talk about.
I don't want [00:25:00] my it's not about me. It's about the client. And because I've taken that approach. I've so far been able to stay out of the fray.
Billie Tarascio: That's fantastic because, you know, you hate when you become the, uh, I've been in cases where the opposing party has hated me and thought I was the spawn of Satan.
So the fact that you've been able to avoid that is it's very, very impressive. Um, I've never heard the janitor term before. That's a good run.
Christopher Melcher: Yeah. I don't want to, you know, I mean, it's kind of what we are. I mean, as lawyers, I know it's, you know, we're professionals, but, but ultimately we're, we're helping people through get through a difficult time and we're in and out of their lives.
And what, what, and I think also with the, the other side of a case, I've I use empathy. I try to really understand. The case from the other side's perspective, not necessarily cause I care directly about them, but it's [00:26:00] because I want to know what they're facing and why they're fighting over this or what they need to resolve that.
And I use that information then to help my client come up with the resolution that would be attractive to both sides. So because I, I'm not just going and attacking viciously the other side, I. I have been able to avoid a lot of hate from, or really any hate from the other side.
Billie Tarascio: Oh, that's magical. You've got magical powers, which is good.
Are you a parent?
Christopher Melcher: Yeah, I have a twelve-year-old .
Billie Tarascio: a twelve-year-old. Okay. So, um, you may or may not have had this happen yet. So I've got, I've got four kids and the tool, my two oldest kids are 17 and 15, and I haven't often thought of myself as a janitor, but certainly we're professional problem solvers. Like people bring us.
Big fat, messy problems. And we, we try to help them, you know, figure out how to get out of their problems. [00:27:00] And I have found that that happens with my teens, where I might, you know, see them in a big mess. And my instincts are to immediately be like, how are we going to clean up the mess? Like as opposed to being like, you're grinding me or phone you're in big trouble.
And I was just wondering if any other lawyers have that experience as a parent? I dunno. Have you had that come up yet?
Christopher Melcher: No, fortunately, not yet. I'm sure it's coming up soon. And, and now that you're mentioning it, I'm hoping I will use my kind of professional demeanor when I deal with that. Because the way I came up with the janitor analog in my mind was there's really for my own protection, because like you say, these are very personal disputes and we've seen a lot of family, lawyer colleagues get into them as it, for their own dispute or own relative or somebody going through this and they lose objectivity.
Billie Tarascio: So you were saying how you came up with the janitor [00:28:00] analogy.
Christopher Melcher: So I started thinking of myself. As, as a janitor because the clients would have this big mess, I be cleaning it up and then they would create another mess. And it was frustrating when I first started doing family law. Uh, I moved in from criminal.
So criminal, there was one mess, and the whole litigation was about that mess. There was really nothing that happened afterwards. Cause the whole case is based on the one incident that's being charged. But when I went into family law, there would be an incident and we'd be working on it. And then all of a sudden there would be like every day, some new incident that would happen.
And it was very frustrating to me to saying, look, I'm spending all my time and energy trying to help you on this issue. And it was frustrating. So I kinda redefined how I think about this and it's like, okay, uh, I'm paid to clean up that mess.
And just like, if you hired me to clean your garage and [00:29:00] if the next day you messed it up and hired me to clean it up again, I would say, okay. And I. I saw this through actually seeing a janitor cleaning up, um, in a restaurant. And I thought like, wow, if they really took to heart, how I'm taking to heart, my family law cases at that time.
They would have a horrible job. They would be, you know, throwing stuff. And I can't believe somebody just spilled something on the floor here and I got to mop it up and it's like, no, he's just there mopping it up. That's his job. And so that's how I changed my mindset. Of course, I don't want my clients to create messes and I want them to move forward successfully with their lives, but it doesn't always happen in a family law dispute.
So again, I'm trying not to internalize the dispute and saying, Hey, okay, this happened. Let's address it. Well, can we learn from it, but I'm not gonna, you know, lose my composure over it and start yelling at them or getting upset internally.
Billie Tarascio: I love it. [00:30:00] That's really, really valuable. It's something that I'm going to share with all of my attorneys.
Chris. Thank you so much for being here today. If you've enjoyed this episode, make sure to like it, give a review, let us know what your questions are. And Christopher, how do people reach you if they want to
hire you?
Christopher Melcher: Well, you can just Google me Christopher Melchor M E L C H E R, and you'll come up with all my contact information.
Um, you know, always happy to answer questions and or if you need referrals for the right fit in California, uh, you know, happy to be a resource for folks, uh, if they need it.
Billie Tarascio: Awesome. Thank you so much and have a wonderful day.
Christopher Melcher: You too, Billie.