Marilyn Chinitz — whose clients have included Tom Cruise, Michael Douglas and Wendy Williams — was urged to write a book by her friend, the late crisis PR maven Howard Bragman.
But the legal eagle has always been so busy, she hasn’t yet found the time to finish the manuscript, potentially titled: “Shut Up and Settle, and How to Stay Out of a Divorce.”
“Howard begged me to do a book,” Chinitz recalled from her Manhattan office at Blank Rome.
Even in the course of a casual chat, Chinitz has more than enough material to fill a tome and numerous rom-coms and dramas. One recent divorce case had an adventurous twist straight out of “National Treasure.” Though Chinitz herself has been successfully married for 40 years, thank you very much.
We asked the star lawyer what she thought about one current divorce proceeding that’s making headlines: The breakup of Lululemon billionaire founder Chip Wilson‘s marriage to his wife of 20 years — with no prenup.
If you haven’t followed the case: Wilson, whose net worth is valued at $6.1 billion, and his wife Shannon “Summer” Wilson have called it quits and filed for divorce, according to Bloomberg. The couple wed in 2002 and were longtime collaborators in business, too. Shannon, 52, was one of Lululemon’s first hires — and served as founding lead designer. Chip, 71, who founded the brand in 1998 before its first store opened in 2000, has publicly credited Shannon for helping grow the yoga pants behemoth into an $11 billion company.
“It’s interesting. We see a multimillion business empire colliding with matrimonial law,” Chinitz said. “The company exploded between the marriage [in 2002] and 2007 when it went public. [Shannon] played a major role in the company. She was the founding leading designer, and played a role in building the brand.”
They both left the brand years ago. But Chinitz predicts that Shannon will wind up with a major payday in the case, which is playing out in Canadian court.
Meanwhile, Chip never moved for a post-nup, even when the company took off. “He didn’t do that either, he enjoyed the ride,” Chinitz said. “He had the opportunity [for a post-nup]. He could have structured it in a business way, he had business attorneys. [Or] they could have taken the shares and put it under a trust [for their kids]. He didn’t take any of [those options]…. so why should she not benefit?”
Turns out Canadian law is similar to New York State law, with a few minor differences when it comes to marital assets: Canadian law doesn’t distinguish between “passive” and “direct” appreciation of an asset during marriage — as in the difference between a property investment and a functioning business.
Either way, hard-charging Chinitz — who is not trying this case — had to go. She was getting ready to leave town for… a wedding.
