Mary is a dedicated and experienced family law, domestic relations, and divorce attorney in Grand Rapids, Michigan. She offers her clients patient, thoughtful counsel coupled with steadfast advocacy to help resolve all manner of divorce related issues with the most family-friendly outcomes possible.

From full-time working professionals to stay-at-home parents, Mary represents each with equal care and concern. For these clients she provides services such as pre- and post-nuptial agreements, divorce, property division, child custody, visitation, grandparenting time, spousal and child support, and enforcement. She has over a decade of experience successfully representing individuals before courts across western Michigan.

Mary understands that her clients often have questions that need immediate response. She is readily available via e-mail and telephone and returns all messages within 24 hours. Mary's clients also appreciate the appropriate use of her team, including a paralegal and secretary with decades of experience in family law.

In her spare time, Mary enjoys reading and outdoor activities. She lives in Newaygo with her husband, Steve.

Education

• Western Michigan University (B.B.A., 1992)
• Thomas M. Cooley Law School (J.D., cum laude, 1997)

Admitted to Practice

• State Bar of Michigan, 1998

Previous Professional Experience

• Attorney – Day & Sawdey, PC
• Law Clerk – Law Office of Thomas J. Heiden
• Extern – Kent County Public Defender’s Office

Client Successes for Mary R. Pigorsh

• 11/1/2007
  Following a series of short trials and evidentiary hearings throughout this year, Mary Pigorsh spent 12 days in trial in Ottawa County wherein her client the husband was awarded full physical custody of his six-year-old son. At the beginning of the divorce process, the client's wife had been granted an Ex Parte Order for physical custody and was given a Personal Protection Order against him which greatly tilted the playing field in the wife's favor. Despite the initial disadvantages, Mary and her client demonstrated through both expert and lay witnesses that the client was the most appropriate parent to have custody. Regarding the parties' property, the wife wanted more than 50% of everything regardless of when the parties acquired it. Mary identified for the Court what items were her client's separate property before the marriage and thus should not be divided. However, the wife requested to invade the husband's separate property for her own support. Her efforts were unsuccessful because Mary demonstrated for the Court that the separate property should not be invaded given that the wife had not met her statutory burden to justify invading the assets. Thus, the husband was able to keep his assets, most importantly his family Trust, intact.

Smith Haughey Publications

News for Mary R. Pigorsh

12/20/2007
Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge Names New Shareholders

7/11/2005
Pigorsh Joins Family Law Group

Professional Affiliations

• American Bar Association
• State Bar of Michigan
• Grand Rapids Bar Association (Member, Family Law Section)

Community Affiliations

• Board Member, Fountain Hill Center