One good way to tell if you should divorce is to look at the big picture. Ten years from now, do you see yourself overcoming your problems and putting the past behind? It’s all hypothetical, but the way you picture things in the future says a lot about how they are today. If you can’t imagine either party agreeing to compromise, it shows a lack of willingness to keep the relationship going. And if that’s the case, it’s probably not worth staying.

This approach isn’t all that reliable, however. Your outlook may be influenced by your emotions at the moment—and you know what they say about making decisions when you’re angry. Right after an argument is the worst time to bring up divorce. Give yourself time to cool down—for some people, this can take as long as a week—and then discuss things calmly with your partner. You may feel very strongly about divorce at the moment, but you’d be surprised at how a good night’s sleep can change your views.

Take the time to write down all the things you’re unhappy with. In many cases, relationship problems are the product of several small things that seem insurmountable when added up, but can actually be solved individually. For example, you may be unhappy with the fact that your partner smokes, doesn’t spend enough time with the kids, and spends too much time at work. It sounds bad, but all it may take is some moral support for kicking the habit and good time management.

One thing’s for sure: you should never decide to divorce without trying to fix the problem. You can only make the final call if you’ve tried everything you can to make the relationship work, but still feel like you’re on the losing end. Going to court is a last resort, not a frontline solution. And although divorce can be initiated by just one party, ideally the decision is made by both, or at least discussed beforehand.

This doesn’t mean that a contingency lawyer won’t charge you anything if you lose the case. The only thing you won’t have to pay for is the lawyer’s time. The rest, including court fees, investigative services, medical reports, and expert witnesses, still has to be paid regardless of the outcome.

When you and your lawyer agree on a contingency setup, you set a prearranged fee that’s usually a percentage of the amount you expect to win. Lawyers often agree to this because the percentage is often much bigger than what they would have earned working by the hour. Clients, on the other hand, don’t mind paying the premium if it means lawyers will be more motivated to win, since their fees are at stake—and they have little to lose otherwise. Hiring a contingency lawyer is a popular option in cases that involve heavy damages and compensation, such as insurance or personal injury claims.

Another advantage to getting a contingency lawyer is that you can usually afford more expensive services (i.e. a more experienced attorney) for the same amount of money. Or you can work with a more affordable lawyer, but have increased time for consultations as you don’t have to watch the clock all the time. It also protects you from negative tactics by the defense, who can simply make the case drag on until you can’t afford the hourly rates.

The downside, of course, is the added cost and the little details that can push it even higher. For instance, in most contingency arrangements, the client has to take associated costs out of his share of the settlement. Depending on the complexity of the case, this can gouge out as much as half of what you are awarded—something the lawyer doesn’t have to worry about because his fee remains the same.

A contingency arrangement can be a good idea if you think you have a good chance of winning; indeed, getting an attorney to accept such a setup is a sign that the case is strong. Of course, it won’t hurt to do your research and find a lawyer who has a good track record with similar cases, regardless of how he wants to be paid.

Fees vary from state to state, and even from city to city. Nationwide, large law firms charge an average of $200 to $1,000 per hour, although smaller outfits can charge much less. A common benchmark for courts is the American Intellectual Property Law Association, which releases a survey of members’ hourly rates every two years. Although mainly used in intellectual property litigation, the numbers are widely used for all areas of law. The state bars of Oregon and Colorado are also commonly cited.

Most courts, however, refer to the Laffey Matrix. It is designed for use in the Washington and Baltimore area, but is gaining wide acceptance across the country. The document is updated every year and shows the recommended lawyers’ fees based on years of experience. From June 2011 to May 2012, the rates are $166 per hour for law clerks and paralegals, $305 for lawyers with up to three years’ experience, $374 for up to seven years, $540 for up to ten years, $609 for up to 19 years, and $734 for those in the business for more than 20 years. These numbers must be adjusted locally to reflect legal costs in a particular city, usually determined through the Consumer Price Index of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Besides size, location, and experience, an important factor is a lawyer’s area of specialization. Areas that see a lot of activity, such as insurance defense, can usually charge less in exchange for a steady stream of work. For instance, an associate can charge about $150 per hour on simple cases, but will raise his rates if a larger firm comes along because there’s more at stake. This is why the law firm handling the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy case, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, is able to charge more than $500 per hour for associates and $1,000 per hour for partners.

Alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) have become increasingly common as companies and individuals found themselves in need of legal aid, and often unable to afford it. An AFA can be charged per matter or per book of matters, on contingency (i.e. payment due only if the case is won), a percentage of the winnings, and success bonuses.

Separation: This means that the couple has not lived together for at least one year. Also known as a “no fault” divorce, this is among the most common reasons for divorce in the U.S and the most widely used in Virginia.

Adultery: A spouse can file for divorce if the other is proven to have committed adultery within the last five years. This can be hard to prove in court, however. In addition, for it to be valid the spouse filing the divorce should not have continued to live with his or her partner after finding out about the adultery.

Felony: If a spouse has been convicted of a felony and confined in a federal or state facility for more than a year, his or her partner can file for divorce.

Desertion and separation: This means that the spouse left the home for no rational reason, with no apparent intent of returning, and lived apart for at least a year. This does not include walking out of a marriage because of spousal abuse—this situation is covered in different grounds.

Cruelty and separation: A spouse who has been abused physically, mentally, or emotionally can file for divorce, but as with desertion, the couple must not have lived together for at least one year.

Separation for six months: A couple who has been apart for at least six months can file under these grounds only if they have no children under 18 years old, and if both spouses have entered a property settlement agreement in writing.

The term “separation” here often leads people to think that it requires a special court process. For purposes of divorce in Virginia, a couple simply has to stop living together to be considered separated. A rare kind of divorce, known as Bed and Board divorce, officially separates a husband and wife but does not allow them to remarry. This applies on the grounds of desertion or abandonment, or fear of cruelty (the spouse seriously expects to be harmed). The divorce can be made final and absolute after the Bed and Board ruling has been in effect for one year.

Underage: The marriage contract is void if one or both parties was under 18 at the time and did not have parental or court consent. However, once the underage party turns 18, annulment can no longer be filed. Parents, legal guardians, and “next friends,” meaning other concerned parties, can file for the couple’s annulment. The latter must file the annulment within 90 days of the marriage.

Drugs or alcohol: The influence of drugs or alcohol can be used as grounds for annulment in Texas. If the person filing for annulment (known in court as the petitioning party) was under drugs or alcohol at the time, provided he or she did not voluntarily live with the spouse after getting sober.

Impotence: Under certain circumstances, impotence due to physical or mental conditions can qualify a marriage for annulment. The situation must have been present since the start of the marriage, but the petitioning party must not have been aware of it and must not have continued to live with the spouse after finding out.

Fraud or force: Marriages carried out under these circumstances are considered void and may be annulled. Examples are forged birth certificates, using false names, and a proven lack of consent from either party. Again, once the fraud is discovered, the petitioning party must no longer continue to live with his or her spouse.

Mental incapacity: One of the most common types of annulment in Texas, this applies to marriages in which one or both spouses is mentally incapable of giving legal consent to the marriage. The spouse in question may be underage or have psychological deficiencies that disqualify them from entering legal contracts (such as marriage). The annulment can be filed by the mentally incapacitated spouse, a legal guardian, or a next friend.

Prior divorce: Under Texas law, a spouse can file for annulment if the other party is found to have concealed a divorce that had taken place less than a month before. This can only be done within the first year of marriage, and like the other types, requires that the petitioning party stop living with the spouse after discovering the problem.

It’s not just about avoiding the legal blood alcohol content limit, according to Nick Alcock, a DUI lawyer in Phoenix. For instance, in Arizona one can get arrested for driving with the slightest impairment, even if they’re sober. Alcock says that around the Fourth of July, police patrolling the metro area will pull drivers over for minor violations and look them over thoroughly, watching out for tell-tale signs of impaired driving. This is all part of Arizona’s zero-tolerance law when it comes to DUI. Alcock offers these five tips for keeping your Fourth of July weekend arrest-free.

Check your car for problems. Broken tail-lights and a dent on the trunk may not hamper your driving, but it can catch the eye of the police. Even an innocent-looking bump can lead to a full-blown DUI investigation. Fix any minor problems, including registration issues and expired tags.

Avoid busy areas. Alcock warns local drivers to stay away from downtown Phoenix, especially at night and during public events. The same is true for other big and busy cities, where locals and tourists tend to crowd at the height of summer. Not only are there more people and bars; there are also more police on the lookout for suspicious-looking drivers.

Moderate your speed. This means not driving too fast, but not driving too slowly either. Both get in the way of traffic and are equally strong tip-offs for DUI. Drive naturally, the way you would to get to work, instead of actively trying to avoid police attention.

If you’re on medication, watch out for interactions. Some medications can react with alcohol and affect alcohol test results. Alcock says he’s had clients slapped with DUI cases although they’d only had a couple of drinks, because the prescription drugs they were taking didn’t go too well with the alcohol.

Ask to speak to a lawyer. Most people think the police call all the shots in a DUI investigation, but they can usually ask to be represented before agreeing to take any tests. A DUI attorney can better explain your rights and help you keep the damage to a minimum.

Alvarez & Marsal LLC, who took charge of the firm’s restructuring, received $8.9 million in April, bringing its “interim management” fees over two and a half years to over $431 million. Co-founder Bryan Marsal is currently at the bank’s helm, charging an hourly rate. His plan, according to sources, is to sell the firm’s assets and raise $61 billion to pay off its $322-billion debt. This would give creditors back an average of 18.6 cents per dollar.

Meanwhile, New York-based Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, one of the world’s largest law firms, was paid $7.9 million last month—a hefty cut from the $30-million average it had received in recent months. In November, the firm was said to have made $45 million. Its total earnings now top $293 million.

The bankruptcy has so far cost Lehman over $2.4 billion in administrative costs, including the liquidation of the Lehman Brothers Inc. entity, the UK-based Lehman Brothers International Europe, and the remainder of the brokerage. Of this, $420 million was spent in the first two years of the bankruptcy, and $774 million was paid by the European arm through mid-March.

The American parent, including many of its customers and trading assets, was bought up by Barclays Plc in 2008, shortly after it went bankrupt. By April 2010, its losses had exceeded $757 million, making it the costliest bankruptcy in American history. The post was previously held by energy company Enron Corp., whose bankruptcy lasted three years. It was also the biggest bankruptcy in the country at the time it was filed, with assets reported at $639 billion.

As of its April 30 SEC filing, Lehman and its affiliates had close to $23 billion in cash and investments, down from $23.2 billion the previous month. The losses are mostly pinned on a $957-million settlement with Bankhaus AG, the firm’s German affiliate.

Lehman is also struggling to regain control of its liquidation plan, which is under fire from a group of bondholders including investment firms Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Its other creditors include Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, the New York Giants, a range of financial institutions and hedge funds, and individual bondholders.

Unknown to many Americans, in many states military personnel cannot claim damages for harm and injury caused by a military physician’s or hospital’s medical mistakes. The Feres Doctrine, established in 1950 out of a Supreme Court ruling, classifies malpractice injuries as combat wounds and thus protects doctors from legal liability.

New case proceedings may soon change the rules, however. In 2003, during a routine appendectomy on Air Force Staff Sgt. Dean Patrick Witt, a nurse anesthetist inserted a breathing tube into the patient’s esophagus instead of the trachea, depriving his brain of oxygen for up to 10 minutes and causing irreversible brain damage. After a few months on life support, Sgt. Witt’s family decided to pull the plugs as there was no hope of recovery.

Mrs. Witt’s medical negligence claim was denied in 2008 on the basis of the Feres Doctrine. She then took the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, citing the Federal Tort Claims Act and alleging that the nurse anesthetist committed gross medical negligence that led to the sergeant’s death.

The case was again dismissed in 2009, despite the District Court’s acknowledgment that in this case the malpractice was blatantly obvious and the Feres Doctrine was unfair and “wrongheaded.” Mrs. Witt then took the case to the Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals, arguing that the doctrine was unconstitutional.

Among her main arguments were that excluding citizens on active military duty from the right to fair medical practice directly violates the Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which advocate equal protection. The Feres Doctrine, she added, allows courts to override Congressional views and thus goes against constitutional separation of powers.

When the case was again decided in favor of the Feres Doctrine, with the Court of Appeals noticeably skirting the constitutional claims, Mrs. Witt turned to what is perhaps her last legal alternative: filing a petition for certoriari, which is essentially asking the Supreme Court to review the case.

The Witt case is widely considered a trailblazer for military personnel and their families, and has sparked almost unanimous criticism of the Feres Doctrine. The Supreme Court has already ordered more information on the case and is expected to announce its decision soon, including whether or not to review Mrs. Witt’s other allegations on the constitutionality of current laws.

A little over a year ago, President Barack Obama signed into law the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) in a bid to keep curb residents’ abuse of offshore tax rules. Four new sections were added to the already lengthy Internal Revenue Code, extending the country’s tax collections to financial institutions outside the U.S.

It would set the example for a dozen other countries whose citizens had long used loose tax laws to escape local obligations. The practice was traced back to the Swiss Banking Scandal, where rich Americans were shown to have been channeling their funds to tax havens like Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, and the Cayman Islands.

The existence of tax havens wasn’t surprising; what was unexpected was how common the practice was. Tax evasion was, it appeared, all but standard practice for anyone past a certain degree of affluence—people that President Obama referred to as “fat cats.” And the impact on American and global economy was nothing to be brushed off.

Luckily, it didn’t take officials long to reach a conclusion: that current U.S. tax laws left doors wide open for tax evasion. The laws didn’t just allow residents to self-report their income and assets; they relied on it. For the “fat cats,” it was a simple matter of hiring a foreign banker to move their funds to offshore accounts.

FATCA essentially requires these bankers to submit information on their clients. To be able to do business with U.S. clients, foreign financial institutions must enter a contract with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requiring them to identify and report American citizens, residents, and non-financial U.S.-owned companies.

Foreign bankers will also need to submit information on their clients’ accounts to the government as needed. Depositors who refuse to provide identifying information will be subjected to a 30% tax on transfers and payments, and their accounts will subsequently be closed.

The law applies whether or not the institution serves U.S. customers or holds U.S. assets, as long as they are doing business with the U.S. It also covers more than banks—the government will also demand compliance from insurance companies, investment funds, mutual funds, private equity funds, pension funds, and broker dealers.

Secure Communities, as the program is called, links the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal database to records at the Department of Homeland Security, so an electronic check is automatically performed when someone is arrested.

Illinois and Washington have already made moves against the program. The former is looking at measures allowing communities to withdraw from the program, and the latter is letting its local governments decide whether or not to take part. This week, California voted to make participation optional as well.

Their protests might be in vain, however, as federal officials claim that state governments have no say on what information can be shared between agencies. According to immigration officials, the program will ensure that illegal immigrants accused of or convicted of crime are flagged and sent back.

The ICE issue is one of many that can be attributed to the lack of solid legislation on immigration, according to the Arizona City Independent. Various bills and resolutions have been put forward in the last few years, addressing such areas as drivers’ licenses and employer checks. This also includes the controversial illegal immigration laws in Arizona.

The program has taken off in other communities, where it is seen as a cost-efficient way to track criminal information and ensure that convicted illegal immigrants do not return to their communities. Colorado lawmakers, for instance, briefly considered denying funding to areas that did not participate, although the move was not approved.

Immigrant rights supporters are particularly against the program’s fingerprint sharing feature, which covers witnesses and victims alongside the accused. Of the more than 100,000 deportees since the program’s launch in 2008, less than 30% have criminal convictions, the Independent reported.

Representative Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat, says officials from ICE and Homeland Security may even have distributed false information about the program, which federal officials hope will be nationally enforced by 2013. The program was initially said to be voluntary, but is now mandatory among states, Lofgren said. She has requested an investigation into the matter.

Local law enforcers normally collect suspects’ fingerprints and sent them to the FBI to check against criminal histories. With ICE in effect, they will also be sent to the Department of Homeland Security, where the suspect’s immigration status is verified. If he or she is illegally in the country, the deportation process will begin immediately.