Steven K. Yoda

Steven K. Yoda transitioned to family law after working a decade in commercial litigation. He was introduced to the field by his partner, Christopher Melcher, who convinced him that his background would be suitable for complex, high-asset family law disputes.

“I feel as though family law found me,” Yoda said. “In law school, I had no interest or exposure to family law. However, after working 10 years in commercial litigation (ending with asbestos litigation work), I felt as though I had reached the end of a chapter of my life.”

Yoda, who previously worked at firms such as Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP; Bird, Marella, Rhow, Lincenberg, Drooks, & Nessim, LLP and Orrick, Herrington &; Sutcliffe LLP admitted he was at first skeptical of Melcher’s pitch.

“I took the leap and haven’t looked back,” Yoda said. “The joy of serving human clients is what keeps me interested in family law. The emotional swings between high and low are extreme in family law. As a family lawyer, I feel very connected to my clients. Helping my clients navigate these choppy waters to a safe harbor is extremely rewarding for me.”

In 2022, Yoda received his Certified Family Specialist accreditation. Since then, notable former clients have included Kanye West, whom Yoda represented in his $2.1 billion divorce from Kim Kardashian.

More recently, Yoda successfully represented a psychiatrist against false and trumped-up allegations of domestic violence by his wife.

“The opposing party (wife), in order to gain an advantage on the issue of custody, reimagined normal, mundane, martial friction as ‘abuse,’” he said. “Healthy sexual exploration was reimagined as ‘sexual abuse.’ Encouraging financial discipline was reimagined as ‘financial abuse.’ Setting boundaries with their sometimes unruly child was reimagined as ‘child abuse.’ At trial, the opposing party hoisted herself on her own petard. During examination, she revealed herself as naïve and out-of-touch with a deep-seated victim mentality. The court expressed skepticism at her allegations. She agreed to drop the allegations of abuse. Ultimately, the parties agreed to joint 50/50 custody.”

Yoda said domestic violence laws, as written, are extremely broad.

He said: “Literally, ‘disturbing the peace of the other party’ or ‘destroying the emotional calm of the other party’ can constitute domestic violence. It is unclear where the outer boundaries of this standard are. As such, many litigants (such as the opponent above) feel empowered to press their grievances all the way. Sometimes, there is no choice (as in this case) but to go all the way and expose the allegations as a sham.”

Yoda acknowledged although California’s domestic violence laws are written very broadly, lawyers still should exercise careful judgment regarding what actions they choose to bring.

“This includes considering the merits of the claim itself, its seriousness and severity, and the client’s purpose in bringing it,” he said. “Not all marital friction is ‘abuse’ and alleging abuse willy-nilly undermines meritorious claims of domestic violence, diminishes the judicial process by encouraging gamesmanship, and needlessly inflames passions making settlement more difficult.”