Howes & Howes, Attorneys at Law

Hello World

The shape of things to come:  Howes & Howes to offer divorce mediation

Howes & Howes partner Katherine Howes offers a new service, one founded on nearly two decades matrimonial experience.  As a professional divorce mediator, Ms. Howes will help separating couples settle their divorce in a confidential setting without expensive litigation.  Watch for updates to this website for informative articles on mediation.

Divorce mediation is the way of the future.  Overwhelmed New Jersey family courts do an admirable job to keep up with a very high volume of work, with diligent judges often staying into the night.  The demands on family court judges to handle burgeoning domestic violence dockets and ever-increasing DYFS litigation limit the amount of resources that courts dedicate to divorce trials.

And in the end, 98% of divorce cases settle.

As a result of these trends, many informed couples are turning to private mediation.  In mediation, a professional mediator, usually an attorney, meets with the couple to discuss how to handle the different issues raised by the dissolution of their marriage.  The mediator works with the couple on issues of custody and visitation, equitable distribution of property, alimony, child support, etc.

The couple and mediator work with one goal:  To reach a fair agreement between the parties as to how to divide obth the parental rights and the property rights.  If mediation is successful, then the parties avoid bitter and costly divorce litigation where the only real winners are the attorneys.

Katherine Howes brings nearly two decades matrimonial law experience to the mediation table.  She was first trained in dispute resolution as a law clerk for Assignment Judge Edward W. Beglin.  She served as a municipal court judge for two terms.  She has served for seven years as a member of the Somerset County Matrimonial Early Settlement Panel.  In April 2008, she completed the 40 hour extensive divorce mediation program offered by the New Jersey Association of Professional Mediators.

All mediations will be handled in complete privacy and will be conducted with the highest degree of civility and professionalism.

New Jersey DWI Update:  Alcotest Cases Must Now Proceed

The New Jersey Supreme Court has made a ruling in State v. Chun.  The Alcotest breath testing device used in New Jersey has been deemed to be reliable.  All cases that were previously stayed (placed on hold) while the Supreme Court decided the Chun case must now be heard promptly in the municipal courts, and those special cases must follow a certain procedure outlined by the Administrative Office of the Courts.

Read more...

Dual Representation in DYFS cases and criminal cases:  What is the right answer for parents?

Many times parents face two parts of the legal system simultaneously when they face DYFS litigation and criminal prosecution for the same actions.  Often parents will choose to use the same attorney for both the criminal matter and the family court matter.  DYFS has objected to the practice of dual representation in parallel or companion proceedings, and courts in different counties have made different rulings.  A recent trial court decision out of Bergen County is the latest installment.

Read more...

Constitutional Law Update:  NJ Court expands police powers to run background check

On February 11, 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the case of State v. Sloane.  The high court’s decision expanded police powers to run background checks on the passengers of vehicles involved in a routine motor vehicle stop.  The high court ruled that police do not need a reasonable suspicion to access the NCIC database to check the criminal background of passengers.  This decision has the potential to change how New Jersey police conduct motor vehicle stops.  How will New Jersey police use this new authority?

Read more...

Howes & Howes Client Wins DWI case on appeal

One of the many clients that Howes & Howes represented over the past year was a young man who was facing his third DWI as well as a summons for refusing to take a breat test.  At trial, the municipal court found the client not guilty of driving while intoxicated, but found him guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample.  We appealed.  The Law Division granted the appeal, and found the client not guilty of refusal.

Read more...