The Brief

If you’ve heard about the new Hulu show All’s Fair , chances are that you know it stars Kim Kardashian, Naomi Watts, Niecy Nash-Betts and Glenn Close as high-powered divorce lawyers in Los Angeles. And chances are that you’ve also heard: the reviews are not good .

In fact they're so bad some people are checking out the show just for that reason . And here at LAist, we're some of those people.

But as journalists, we also were interested in the facts. Or “Just the facts, ma’am,” to misquote another law-related TV show set in L.A.: Dragnet, created by and starring Jack Webb (the Kim Kardashian of his day).

To get the facts, we turned to women who really are divorce lawyers in L.A. Attorneys Demetria Graves and Emily Rubenstein had heard of All’s Fair.

“ People are bringing it up a lot, including clients and potential clients," Rubenstein said.

However, they hadn’t yet checked it out for themselves before being contacted by LAist.

Both said they do enjoy a good legal drama, though Rubenstein said she much prefers true crime documentaries to scripted shows. Graves cited Law & Order and the TV One true crime show Fatal Attraction as some of her favorites.

“I love the shows,” Graves said, because she gets to watch someone else handle a case that she’s not actually involved in. “It’s not my case, so it’s a good time for me.”

She and Rubenstein generously agreed to watch the first three episodes of All’s Fair and share their professional assessments of what the show gets wrong and what it gets right (cue the Law and Order gavel sound ).

The L.A. of "All’s Fair"

The series is set in L.A. and there are some scenes set in recognizable local landmarks in the first episodes, including the historic Bradbury Building , the Venice Boardwalk and the Petersen Automotive Museum. So, points for accuracy there.

But Rubenstein said the office spaces — some of them dark and library-like — didn't look like L.A. to her: “No one's law offices in L.A. look like that. No matter what level [of] attorney you are [...] I've not been in many East Coast law offices, but it gives more of that vibe.”

Kim Kardashian in a scene from "All's Fair" on Hulu.

(

Ser Baffo/Disney

/

Disney

)

 “Most L.A. law offices are more airy, and looking out into the hills instead of being such a mahogany cave,” Rubenstein added.

The fashion: Gloves, gloves, and more gloves (plus visible thongs)

As for the show’s over-the-top fashions, which have garnered a lot of attention, Graves said she gets why a TV show set in L.A. would lean into that.

“The clothing is beautiful, the aesthetics are beautiful," she said. "However, I don't know how realistic it is for most attorneys.”

The attention-grabbing, or unconventional, fashion choices the characters make — like wearing gloves — didn’t ring true for Rubenstein, either.

 ”For people who are constantly typing and using pens, gloves are not really that convenient of an accessory,” she said.

As for Kardashian’s character Allura Grant wearing a skirt suit with a cutout to expose a thong, Rubenstein said, “ I've never seen a lawyer ass out in a thong in the office the way that Kim Kardashian was in that scene in the conference room.”

But the inaccuracy also didn’t really bother her: “It’s one of those things that made me kind of giggle, which I think is just part of the show. I think it's supposed to be sort of campy. The fashion is a huge element of that. And yeah, I mean, aside from that one example, it did give me some inspo for my own courtroom fashion, so I'll thank them for that.”

The drama and personal life element? Lawyers say: Somewhat accurate

“What I did like is it did shed light on women having their own practices, women having their own firms,” Graves said. “What happens sometimes when you become very successful, what that can potentially do to your own personal relationships. So some of those things I am very happy people do get to see, because I think that is very realistic.”

The hard work involved, the complicated natures of the cases, the “sisterhood” and support among colleagues or mentors (like Glenn Close’s character) and mentees, all rang true to Graves.

 ”The emotion of the clients, true to that extreme? I don't know,” Graves said. “But the emotion, absolutely all of that is true.”

The storyline where Watts’ character is reluctant to marry her boyfriend, partially because of how many marriages she’s seen end badly in her work, also seemed pretty true to life, Graves said.

“You know how bad it can go, you don’t want to be in that,” but she added, “you try not to let it lead your personal life.”

O-T Fagbenle and Naomi Watts in a scene from "All's Fair."

(

Ser Baffo/Disney

/

Disney

)

The sexism

The premise of the show is that the leading women were not being respected at their male-dominated firm, so they decided to strike out on their own, start a women-led firm and only represent woman clients.

Graves currently works independently and Rubenstein heads up an all-women family law practice, but both represent clients of all genders.

As for the idea that women lawyers may not be taken as seriously, Graves said, “ I will say some of the ‘good old boy’ club [or] network or however you wanna call it, that still exists today. And just in the climate that we're in, it gets really nasty in the world of family law because there's so many emotions, so much going on.”

Both said the reasons that people would seek out a woman lawyer (or not) can also lean on stereotypes.

When people want a lawyer who will really “ fight and throw the book, some people equate that with men attorneys,” Graves said. Women, meanwhile, can be viewed as “softer” and operating with “more compassion.”

Rubenstein said sometimes a sense of female empowerment is important to a woman client, and it is meaningful to them to have a woman represent them. But “on the flip side, men and women can both be sexist, right? And so there are women who are going to seek male attorneys [...] And then men also seek out women attorneys, I think for good reasons and bad reasons.”

“I think some men perceive that if they are represented by a woman attorney, let's say in a domestic violence dispute, that that's going to give them some kind of credibility, or leg up,” Rubenstein said.

“Personally, I think rather than looking at the gender of the attorney, the most important thing is to choose someone that you feel the most comfortable with because it is intimate and vulnerable,” Rubenstein said. “So it's really about being aligned on that more than any of the superficial things, whether it's gender or religion or sexuality. Everyone's an individual, right? So you could end up with a woman attorney who's fabulous or not. Someone being a woman or not is not gonna make the difference. But there are a lot of preconceived notions about that.”

The law, best practices and "emotional justice"

As for the accuracy of how the show presents the law or lawyer terminology, neither attorney we talked to had major accuracy complaints, though to be fair, the show tended to keep things fairly general, at least in the first three episodes, and focused a lot on the characters’ personal lives.

But both pointed to something a client of Watts' cahracter said about needing a California lawyer because that’s where she was married.

“ That's not true,” Rubenstein said. “It's about where you live at the time of the divorce. Even if you got married in California, if you have not lived here for six months, you can't get divorced here.”

Though, if people have second homes and there’s a dispute about where someone lives, that can complicate things.

As for Watts’ decision to fly across the country after getting a distressing call from an emotional potential client in New York, Graves said she would never recommend it.

“It's probably best to let things kind of calm down first before you insert yourself,” Graves said. “And to that client as well, it's probably best to calm down first before you contact your divorce lawyer.”

Graves said she always recommends clients have someone to go to for emotional support who is not their lawyer.

“ I tell my clients all the time, I think it is imperative to have a support system outside of your divorce lawyer while going through this process,” because leaning on your lawyer for that “can get very expensive and we are here to handle the business of all of what's going on,” she said.

Somewhat related to that, Rubenstein said her advice to clients is that  they're “not going to get emotional justice through the legal process,” in part because California is what’s called a “no-fault” state, “ meaning that you don't have to prove that someone did something wrong to get divorced.”

In the show, though, “they do focus on that. I get it. It's better TV. It's so much juicier if you get this emotional vindication and win.”

But she said her fear in watching that as an attorney is “that I do spend a lot of time explaining to people that I understand how painful certain things are that have happened, and that those things are not going to impact the final result. And that's very difficult news to deliver because people are expecting justice. They're expecting there to be some kind of punishment for bad behavior [...] So I think it can give people kind of a false hope of what to expect will actually happen.”

The final verdict!

Asked to rate All’s Fair on a scale of 1 to 5 for both accuracy and enjoyability, Graves said she’d  give her “lawyer answer”: “In terms of accuracy for the average divorce lawyer, I would say about a 2. But for those that represent the 1% of the 1%, it might be actually very accurate. That's just not my experience.”

In terms of enjoyability, just as a TV watcher, she said she’d give the show a 3.

“I love the look, I love the fashion. I love the glitz and glamour of it all. So for those reasons, a 3,” she said.

Rubenstein declined to give an enjoyability score (“It’s just not my genre”), but in terms of accuracy she said she’d say 3, because while there were some legal facts that weren’t exactly right, and she could see some people being “self righteous about the details” and giving it a 0, “the accuracy that at least was most meaningful to me was that lawyers do have lives, and that we're all human.”

The Trump administration is upending its homelessness policy, with deep cuts to funding for long-term housing. Instead, it will shift money toward transitional housing that requires work and addiction treatment.

In a statement, the Department of Housing and Urban Development said the new policies will "restore accountability" and promote "self-sufficiency" by addressing the "root causes of homelessness, including illicit drugs and mental illness."

Critics warn the major overhaul could put 170,000 people at risk of losing their housing again. And they say the timing of this major overhaul is terrible. Normally, funding notices go out in August, but now programs around the country will have little time to start applying for new funding in January. And in many places, it will leave a months-long gap after current funding runs out and before new money flows.

In another change, HUD will no longer automatically renew existing programs — creating the possibility that formerly homeless people who've lived in subsidized housing for years will be forced out. The agency is also opening up more funding for faith-based groups.

The National Alliance to End Homelessness says the new policies could upend life for many people who've found stability in permanent housing programs. "HUD's new funding priorities slam the door on them, their providers, and their communities. Make no mistake: homelessness will only increase because of this reckless and irresponsible decision," CEO Ann Oliva said in a statement.

The funding shift reflects a conservative backlash to longstanding policies

For two decades, federal funding has prioritized getting people into permanent housing and then offering them treatment. That policy is called Housing First and has long had bipartisan support. Backers say the approach has a proven track record of keeping people off the streets.

But critics counter that it has failed to stem the steady rise of homelessness to what are now historic levels.

Those critics include President Trump, who has long pushed cities to clear homeless encampments from streets and parks. The new funding shift reflects an executive order he signed in July , which also sought to make it easier to confine unhoused people in mental institutions against their will.

"The influence of Housing First just became too powerful," says Stephen Eide, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think-tank. He calls it a top-down approach, and says for years it was hard to get funding unless a program followed that policy. Eide says that left out a large group of people who may not need permanent housing or who may want the enforced sobriety it does not offer.

"I think what we're going to be looking for is a reinvestment in transitional housing," he says. That means places people can stay for 18 months or so to get sober or recover in other ways, and then — ideally — move out and succeed on their own.

There's broad agreement that the U.S. needs more of every kind of support for homeless people: permanent housing, rehab and mental illness treatment. But critics of HUD's shift fear this may make it harder for some to get help.

"It is moving away from trauma-informed care, and that's problematic," says Stephanie Klasky-Gamer, president and CEO of LA Family Housing in Los Angeles.

For example, she thinks this will lead more shelters to bar people unless they're already sober or enrolled in recovery or mental health care. But that's a high bar for many people, she says, and it could backfire.
Copyright 2025 NPR

President Donald Trump says he is going to "make America affordable again." It's a pledge he made frequently during the campaign. And now, after dropping it from his lexicon for more than eight months, he's saying it again as polls show voters rank the economy and cost of living as their top concern and blame Trump's policies for making things worse.

A senior administration official tells NPR Trump will soon travel around the country with a message that while some things have improved, there is more work to do to help people feeling economic strain. The official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, added that when it comes to affordability, "there's no finish line."

Thus far, Trump has spent far more time boasting about how great the economy and stock market are doing than acknowledging any economic anxiety.

"Record high, record high, record high," Trump said of the stock market last week at a business event in Florida.

"Costs are way down," Trump said at a late night signing ceremony in the Oval Office Wednesday. "My administration and our partners in Congress will continue our work to lower the cost of living, restore public safety, grow our economy and make America affordable again for all Americans."

Trump's affordability challenge marks a dramatic reversal of fortune for a president who returned to office on a promise to bring costs down and whose greatest political strength was on the economy. Now his approval rating on the economy is severely underwater.

After sweeping wins by Democrats in last week's elections where the cost-of-living was a key issue, Trump suddenly had a lot to say about "affordability." But he has frequently come across as dismissive and defensive.

"The affordability is much better with the Republicans," Trump said last week. "The only problem is the Republicans don't talk about it, and Republicans should start talking about it and use their heads."

But earlier this week when Fox News' Laura Ingraham pressed Trump on rising costs of things like coffee and ground beef, he called it a "con job by the Democrats."

Asked why people are anxious about the economy, Trump responded by questioning whether people really are saying that.

"I think polls are fake," Trump said. "We have the greatest economy we've ever had."

To support his positive outlook, Trump points to the booming stock market, his tariff policy and pledges by companies and countries to invest in the U.S.

Inflation this year has been persistent but not dramatic, at about 3%. Eggs have gotten cheaper since Trump took office, but other staples like ground beef and coffee are up. According to Gas Buddy , the average price of gasoline in the U.S. is $3.09 per gallon, slightly higher than this time last year.

"Consumer confidence is the lowest it's ever been," said Jason Furman, a professor of economics at Harvard. "People are really negative about inflation."

It's a political truth — and a pitfall for presidents — that people don't want to hear that everything is awesome if they are struggling.

Furman, who served in the Obama administration, says the messaging team in that White House was very cautious not to brag about the economy, as the nation emerged from the Great Recession.

"Because they thought anything we said positive about the economy risked people thinking President Obama was out of touch," said Furman. "I didn't see that type of reserve when Biden was president. He bragged about it quite a lot, and I think that [rang] hollow with a lot of people. And President Trump is even less reserved about his bragging."

Trump's insistence that the economy is great earned him a rebuke from Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Appearing on the Sean Spicer Show on YouTube , Greene said she gives Trump credit for holding inflation steady.

"But that doesn't bring prices down," said Greene. "And so gaslighting the people and trying to tell them that prices have come down is not helping. It's actually infuriating people because people know what they are paying at the grocery store, they know what they're paying for their kid's clothes and school supplies. They know what they're paying for their electricity bills."

She called for compassion rather than lecturing.

Former Trump economic adviser Stephen Moore says there are three major cost issues that have to be addressed: grocery prices, home prices and health care costs.

"It is true factually that the average family has more purchasing power today than they did when Biden left office," said Moore. "And yet people don't feel it. You know, they're not feeling the love. And I can't explain why that is except that people tend to focus on things where their prices are rising."

In fact, purchasing power also grew during the Biden administration, because wages rose faster than costs. But voters didn't want to hear it then, and they are in no mood to hear it now.

"People are kind of in a crabby mood right now when it comes to the economy," said Moore.
Copyright 2025 NPR

Maria Mendez walks her little white dog, named Peluche, on a wide dirt path in the city of South Gate’s newest park.

“Me gusta mucho el parque porque tenemos este sembradío de aguacates, limones y venimos a hacer ejercicio en las mañanas,” she said. She loves it for the avocado and citrus trees, and because she can exercise in the mornings, she said.

The park has sycamores and oaks too, a small wetland, a playground and throughout, winding walking paths. Mendez said she and Peluche come here most days. It’s convenient because the park is right next door to the mobile home park for seniors where she lives.

South Gate resident Maria Mendez and her dog, Peluche, walk the paths of the Urban Orchard every day.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

This park, though, is in a bit of an odd location.

“If you look around, you'll see you are in between the 710 Freeway and the L.A. River,” said Steve Costley, the city of South Gate’s director of Parks and Recreation. “Not a natural space to think, ‘Hey, let's go plant a park.’”

The park is called the Urban Orchard — 7 acres of renovated city-owned land sandwiched between the freeway and the river. To get there, you have to wind through industrial businesses. The din of the freeway is constant.

But under the new trees and next to the engineered creek and wetland, there’s the sound of birds and water.

Urban Orchard Park officially opened this summer — a brand new green space for the city and Southeast L.A. as a whole. Two other newly renovated parks also opened this year in South Gate.

So how did the small city do it?

A need for more green

South Gate is home to about 100,000 people, 95% of whom identify as Latino, according to census data. The average household income is less than $75,000 a year. And city residents have some of the least access to nearby nature — just 3% of the city’s land is made up of parks, one-fifth the national average, according to data analyzed by the nonprofit Trust for Public Land .

“We're one of the very high-needs cities in all of L.A. County that doesn't have enough park space,” Costley said. 

Lower income communities of color across the region and the country have disproportionately less access to green space than wealthier, whiter communities.

The constructed wetland at Urban Orchard Park is fed by stormwater from the L.A. River and helps filtrate and clean that water to irrigate the park.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

The new Urban Orchard Park in South Gate is sandwiched between the 710 Freeway and L.A. River.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

“Parks are what we love. Parks are what I think people need. I think parks make a city into a community,” Costley said.

Parks can also boost life expectancy , improve air quality and cool neighborhoods as climate change makes heat waves worse . The Urban Orchard will go even further, helping to address food insecurity as well.

Though the city is still working out the details, a grove of 200 citrus trees, along with vegetable beds and an avocado orchard, will be a source of fresh produce for seniors living in the mobile home park next door.

Dayana Molina, community organizer with the nonprofit Trust for Public Land, which helped fund and design the new Urban Orchard Park.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

“We were really trying to address and bring the vision of the community through this process,” said Dayana Molina, a community organizer with the Trust for Public Land, which helped design and fund the new park. “So we heard about food insecurity. We heard about not enough shade.”

Not only is the Urban Orchard adding green space where it’s badly needed, but it will also recycle stormwater. The 1-acre constructed wetland cleans runoff from the L.A. River and stores water in a large reservoir the city built under the citrus orchard, providing 70% of the park’s irrigation.

Any overflow will return to the river channel, cleaner than before. Eventually, the hope is that native fish can be introduced to the park’s wetland and streams.

“This is not just a South Gate park, it's really a regional project that is bringing benefits to the whole region,” Molina said.

Residents — and wildlife — are already benefiting.

Dale De Julio, a retired truck driver who lives next door to the Urban Orchard, now walks there every day and loves to observe the birds.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

Retired truck driver Dale De Julio lives in the mobile home park next door to the new Urban Orchard. He remembers when the land was an empty dirt lot. He never used to go for walks near his home. Now, De Julio walks the park every day.

“ This has given me an incentive to get out and walk around,” De Julio said. “I need that now that I'm retired.”

He said after years of driving trucks all over the country, seeing countless sights but never having the time to stop and appreciate them, the park is a place he can finally do that.

Just the other day, he said, he even saw a blue heron, a bird he’d never seen in the area before.

How to build a new park

Limited space, expensive land, historic pollution, lack of funding, permitting, other red tape — there are many obstacles to building a new park in Southern California.

The Urban Orchard was no exception, and the process was not cheap or quick. The park ultimately cost more than $31 million and took more than 10 years to complete.

The funding all came through state, county and federal grants, as well as private donors. The project came to fruition via multiple partnerships between the city and the private and nonprofit sectors.

“ South Gate is not a rich community. We don't generate that much revenue on our own, so we're very reliant on partnerships,” said Vice Mayor Joshua Barron.

UCLA research has found that public-private partnerships are essential to the success of greening projects such as the Urban Orchard.

“This really requires, as the proverbial saying goes, a village,” said UCLA professor Jon Christensen, who led that research and studies equitable access to green space.

The Urban Orchard, he added, “is a real testament to the dedication and persistence and creativity that is required to build new parks in Los Angeles.”

That creativity included cobbling together funding from a variety of sources, including $3 million from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, nearly $8 million from the State Water Resources Control Board, more than $4 million from the state’s Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, nearly $7 million from local Measure W funds, $5 million from Caltrans, Proposition 68 funds, more than $700,000 from the Conservation Corps of Long Beach, and private donations.

Joy Chancellor, 19, of South L.A. plants lettuce in one of the vegetable gardens at the Urban Orchard in South Gate. She's a corpsmember with the Long Beach Conservation Corps, which will maintain the park for its first three years while training young people in environmental jobs.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

The first three years of maintenance will be carried out by the Long Beach Conservation Corps, training young people from the area in environmental jobs. The city will have to find a way to pick up the maintenance tab after that.

“It was not a smooth process. It never is when we have complicated pieces of land adjacent to the L.A. River,” said Nola Eaglin Talmage, the Trust for Public Land’s Parks for People program director. “We've got all kinds of different public funding streams, all with different timelines, all with different requirements.”

Eaglin Talmage said a new county motion brought by Supervisor Lindsey Horvath could help streamline the process. And state efforts such as Proposition 4 are also essential to making these types of efforts possible, especially as federal funds for environmental projects dry up under the Trump administration.

“The passing of Prop. 4 is one of the reasons why we'll be able to continue to build green space in Los Angeles,” Eaglin Talmage said.

A bigger reform idea

Places to sit and enjoy nature in the new Urban Orchard Park in South Gate.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

South Gate Vice Mayor Barron said there’s another way for small cities to have an easier time building projects that benefit the public — updating outdated tax revenue laws.

“Last year, our residents and businesses paid over $80 million in property taxes, but yet the city of South Gate was only allocated about $5 million of that,” Barron said.

Currently, South Gate receives just 6.14% of property tax revenue collected within the city — a percentage set in 1978 through Proposition 13. After Proposition 13, the state created a formula to divide that tax among counties, cities, schools and special districts, with each city’s share based on its pre-1978 property tax base – a formula that still governs allocations today and mostly benefits wealthier cities with higher property values. That hurts cities like his, Barron said.

Only the state legislature can update that formula, something Barron is pushing for.

“One of the things that I really wish that we could look at is helping cities like South Gate, like Bell, like Cudahy, Maywood — the Southeast L.A. region — be a little bit more self-sustainable,” Barron said.

“All we're asking,” he added, “is to be able to be self-sustainable and not have to always rely on grant money to be able to get projects off the ground.”