Law in the Family

The episode focuses heavily on networking benefits, meeting logistics, and organizational management of the PBA section rather than substantive insights about family law practice or emerging legal issues. While there are some useful points about alternative dispute resolution and communication techniques, these are introduced casually without depth or new frameworks that a practitioner wouldn't already understand.

“you use their words. Like if they don't want to call something the marital residents, they want to call it the house or whatever, you use that word because that makes them less anxious”

“you have to meet people where they are and speak to them in their language”

The episode recycles well-worn platitudes about mediation, settlement, and workplace wellness without offering fresh frameworks or contrarian thinking. The discussion of alternative dispute resolution, though referenced as a focus area, relies on conventional wisdom (parties need to feel heard, prepare thoroughly, maintain open mindset) that circulates widely in family law discourse.

“it's not really about that piece of property, is it? You know, it's about something else”

“the training that I have gotten in the alternative dispute space has greatly assisted me in my regular practice”

Candice Komar is an experienced practitioner with genuine credentials (founding partner of established firm, 40+ years in family law, incoming PBA section president), but the episode is structured as a career retrospective and organizational update rather than a deep-dive interview with a practitioner discussing their specialized expertise or recent wins. She discusses her work at a high level without engaging substantively on complex cases or novel legal challenges.

“I've only practiced in family law my entire career. I started in a small boutique firm that was called Wilder and Miller”

“I am with the firm of Pollock Bay. I'm one of the founding members of Pollock Bay. We started in January 1, 2001”

The episode lacks concrete examples, case studies, metrics, or specific legislative proposals discussed in detail. References to legislative issues (50/50 custody bills, PFA statute amendments, pets in divorce) are mentioned in passing without specifics. Cost inflation at meetings is noted generally (AV went from $1-5K to $10-20K, food from $60-80 to $200+) but without supporting data or analysis of why.

“Over the years we had a certain price point that the meetings were. And what was happening is, is they were subsidized by the PBA mostly from membership dues and some sponsorships”

“audio Visual for between 1 to 5,000 are now all of a sudden outsourcing it and it's 10, 15, 20,000”

The hosts ask reasonable questions about Komar's initiatives and background, but the conversation lacks sharp follow-ups, productive pushback, or deep exploration of complex issues. Questions are largely softball invitations for Komar to expand on planned programming rather than probing challenges or testing assumptions. The hosts themselves acknowledge 'we sound like a commercial' without attempting harder questioning.

“Do you think that the education that you're talking about, because that sounds fantastic, is going to be part of the winter and summer meetings”

“And who are your program chairs going to be?”