D I V O R C E

This is Dave Young's Forum.
Can you really bridge the gap between reality and training? Between traditional karate and real world encounters? Absolutely, we will address in this forum why this transition is necessary and critical for survival, and provide suggestions on how to do this correctly. So come in and feel welcomed, but leave your egos at the door!
Post Reply
User avatar
Deep Sea
Posts: 1682
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 6:01 am
Contact:

D I V O R C E

Post by Deep Sea »

I stumbled upon the following website a few minutes ago and thought the following link may be of interest to some. It's just a berry to pick if interested, nothing more nor nothing less.

http://divorce.com.18345.fb.dbbsrv.com/
Always with an even keel.
-- Allen
Alan K
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Framingham, MA USA

Post by Alan K »

That website didn't lose one commercial word.

Most of it was pure shlock; next they will probably promote do it yourself surgery.

I am sure that many of the add taking attorneys may be very proficient in their respective jurisdiction, but it is lacking the benefit of a referal whiich is reliable.

Hopefully it will make a reader more aware of the complexity of the procedure and the need for expert counsel.

Alan K
"The Goddess of Justice is Blind"
User avatar
Panther
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post by Panther »

Alan K wrote:That website didn't lose one commercial word.

Most of it was pure shlock; next they will probably promote do it yourself surgery.
Apples and oranges.
I am sure that many of the add taking attorneys may be very proficient in their respective jurisdiction, but it is lacking the benefit of a referal whiich is reliable.

Hopefully it will make a reader more aware of the complexity of the procedure and the need for expert counsel.
While there are many "proficient" attorneys around, the long-standing jokes and attitudes about those in the profession comes from a certain amount of truth. There are some attorneys who can also be called honorable and honest, the fact is that there are way to many who will do anything to win for their client and screw the other guy. They will blatantly lie to the judge, blatantly commit unethical acts of seeing the judge in chambers without opposing counsel present, and make their case with complete disregard for the facts as long as the mullah is paid.

The site posted was about divorce. Certainly sometimes attorneys are needed in divorce situations, but the fact is that once attorneys get involved, a cheap divorce will cost each party in the tens of thousands and rather than benefiting in children of the divorced parents, the money goes into some attorney's kid's college fund! However, if encouraged, the divorcing parties (even if at odds on many issues) can go through a mediation process for ~$1,000 or less, file their own papers and done. Many divorce attorneys tend to lead their clients on about how much they can get and how well they can put it to their ex. It is unethical and done every day. They get rich off of someone else's breakup and in the end, both clients walk away with less while the attorneys benefit.

Tell us something... In the oath that attorneys take when they become a member of the bar, do they swear to do the best job for their client OR do they swear to make the best deal for themselves and opposing counsel? Someone I know who is now an attorney was rather shocked that the latter was the case.

Our legal system was never meant to be so complex that it reguires "expert" counsel. In fact, the Founding Fathers warned against it becoming this way. But it is quite obvious where we're at. I know there are good, honest, competent attorneys around and I don't have a problem with them (generally speaking), but the reputation of the profession wasn't something that appeared out of thin air. Even when there is proof positive of an attorney's blatant violation of the BBO code of ethics, other attorneys circle the wagons and protect their own. And those violations are known to be true and occur frequently by attorneys everywhere, but they all act like that's just the way it is. And when someone does decide to go in pro se or pro per, if the other side has an attorney, that attorney just thinks they have even more latitude to stretch, bend or break the rules and not afford the person representing themselves any legal courtesy at all! Legal courtesies that are shown to other attorneys and are even required by law!

So... Why should people basically be required to hire over-priced attorneys even for minor probate cases? (Ignoring the fact that the judges will automatically let the side that does have an over-priced attorney get just about anything it wants because there's just no way that the courts or attorneys are going to make one of their own look bad or point out the blatant ethical violations commited.) :x

(FYI, my divorce was mediated and cost less than $1k. Also, as previously written there are some good, honest, competent attorneys... it seems that many who fall into that very rare category are contributors to these forums. Nothing in this post is meant to disparage any attorney on these forums, the opinions in this post are about the {in}justice system and the unusually large proportion of attorneys who do not fall into the description of "good, honest, and competent".)
User avatar
gmattson
Site Admin
Posts: 6069
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Lake Mary, Florida
Contact:

Attorney Kunian is one of the good guys!

Post by gmattson »

But Pather is right. . . there are a lot of bottom feeders out there. . .

On the other hand, every profession has this problem. Unfortunately, as Panther points out, the legal profession tends to protect itself and seldom takes action against those who abuse their profession.
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
Alan K
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Framingham, MA USA

Post by Alan K »

Laird,

My comments were merely to warn would be do it yourselfers of the pitfalls of representing one's self.

You have probably heard of the oft quoted statement that if you represent yourself, you have a fool for a client.

I do not disagree with much of what you say, but IMHO you can substitute any profession or trade for attorney and it would fit any class of professional that exists.

The legal profession in Massachusetts is one of the most regulated by virtue of the published ethics approved by the SJC and by the activity of the Board of Bar Overseers.

Your opinions seem to be motivated by your own unfortunate exposure or experience, and I can understand your bitterness. Attorneys who practice in family courts have a great deal of stress in their need to alleviate the constant calls of clients who are experiencing the horror of divorce proceedings.

In my forty plus years of practice, I have observed that a process relatively simple has become extremely complicated, with procedural matters which contribute to the expense and time spent such as discovery procedure and strict and complex practice and procedure and rules of practice.

Then there is always the danger of malpractice which can result in failure to properly represent a client or fail to counsel them properly on matters of taxation or the ability to amend an order and the list goes on and on.

GEM has said in one paragraph what I have hacked out here so as to give you the view of a practitioner responding to your point of view.

Much of the practice of law, once a proud profession, has become just another business hell bent on billable hours.

Some are rude to each other and very rude.
"The Goddess of Justice is Blind"
Gene DeMambro
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Weymouth, MA US of A

Post by Gene DeMambro »

There we go again, bashing lawyers....and using baseless, rank exaggerations to do it.

Here's the Massachusetts Oath of Office for lawyers (it's MGL 221 Section 38, thank you Norm) :

"I (repeat the name) solemnly swear that I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit, nor give aid or consent to the same; I will delay no man for lucre or malice; but I will conduct myself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity as well to the courts as my clients. So help me God."

And the objectionable part is, where, exactly? I don't see "I shall make the best deal for myself and opposing counsel" in there. Maybe someone can point it out?

Where did the Founding Fathers, in the Constitution, state their wish that lawyers not be needed all the time in legal procedings? They did mention "assistance of counsel" for criminal trials once or twice, which kind of tells me they wanted people to have access to a lawyer.

Lawyer's fees going to their kids college accounts? Lawyers getting rich off of someone else's breakup? Lawyers stringing their clients along? This is disengenuous, in as much as it's disengenuous to accuse any number of small business owners of lining their pockets by putting the squeeze on their customers/clients. Without any supporting information, this charecterization can't be relied on as having any basis in fact. And while certain divorces can be handled without too much trouble, I'd venture to guess that in many of them a good lawayer is needed to ensure that the client gets what's entitles to them, and to protect the rights of all parties involved. And I witnessed this first hand with my parents' divorce, where mom needed a good lawyer to fight tooth and nail because dad didn't want to give her a dime. Expensive? Yes, but mom has said time and time again that it was worth every penny. And my parents saga is ongoing still, some ten years later.

So, overpriced for their work or are they a good value?

Yes, there are way to many lawyers who are dishonest, as is mentioned, but let's not make it sound that they are in the majority, or even are a truly significant protion, Every lawyer knows that violating their oath will invite invitations for the bar to find another line of work.

Attorneys circling the wagons, protecting their own even in the presence of proof-positive evidence of wrong-doing resulting in lawyers successfully skirting sanctions by regulatory agencies? Attorneys looking the other way when blatant ethical violations occur, allowing the perpetrators to skip off without nary a punishment? Without any supporting information, this charecterization can't be relied on as having any basis in fact.

Pro se counsel? According to a conversation I had a long time ago with Norm Abrahamson, people who act pro se are afforded a wide latitude to do what they wish in court. And people who act pro se aren't necessarily at a disadvantage, as witnessed by the Home Depot case and others around the country.

The legal profession's reputation? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that for every winner in court, there is usually always a loser. And I noticed the winners aren't the ones complaining.

Gene
Last edited by Gene DeMambro on Fri Aug 22, 2003 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Guest

Post by Guest »

Anyone know of a "bottom feeder" in the Central Florida Area. I know a Sea Hag who owes me 50K and I can't do a damn thing about it.
Gene DeMambro
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Weymouth, MA US of A

Post by Gene DeMambro »

Seriously, Tony, if you need a lawyer to collect a debt, may I suggest you call the Florida Bar Association for a referral?

Gene
User avatar
Panther
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post by Panther »

First of all, I'm not Laird. He's a great guy and I have to make sure that folks don't attribute my post incorrectly.

Second, it seems that nearly everyone missed the part where I said that the rare breed called known as good, honest, honorable, competent attorney did exist and that it was well represented here on these forums.

Thirdly, while I paraphrased what I heard, I also heard about the oath twist from an attorney who told me that there was the "official published oath" and the one they take. I don't think he was yanking my chain, he was rather upset about it.

Fourthly, I understand the premise that the person who represents themselves has a fool for a client. I support people having good advice and representation. And it is true that there are bad ones in every profession. I should have let the fact that an attorney didn't like a website which tried to give some options besides paying members of the bar in probate court drop... But I didn't. I've been on the winning side and the losing side and when both sides acted honorably, I had no problem with the decision. That's the way it goes. But, when I have seen unethical conduct from attorneys and judges, lies from attorneys and G.A.L.s, and bias from all three... when I have studies and reports that show that this conduct and bias is rampant throughout the Massachusetts legal system against certain people (fortunately, not me), and I have obtained the court documents and transcripts to prove part of this unethical conduct... Then I can only call it an Injustice system for those who are hurt by it.

Finally, Gene... You won't see my stack of bins crammed full of file folders that prove what I wrote about the ethical violations. These go against two specific attorneys and two law firms. Not a single attorney, who is currently alive, will testify or take the case. (Unfortunately, the attorney who was ready, willing and able to testify to much of this passed away suddenly in February. He was 63, excellent health, ate right, exercised daily and suffered a massive & rare form of a stroke.) I said nothing disengenuous, so cut the condescending attitude crap with me. You're right. I'm not going to send over a couple of hundred pounds of papers for your perusal to prove my point. You can write that it has no basis in fact all you want, but you just show you don't have all the details.
Gene DeMambro wrote:And while certain divorces can be handled without too much trouble, I'd venture to guess that in many of them a good lawayer is needed to ensure that the client gets what's entitles to them, and to protect the rights of all parties involved. And I witnessed this first hand with my parents divorce, where mom needed a good lawyer to fight tooth and nail because dad didn't want to give her a dime. Expensive? Yes, but mom has said time and time again that it was worth every penny. And my parents saga is ongoing still, some ten years later.
I wonder how you or your mom would feel if your dad's attorney had lied that she was a bad parent and that she should be paying him instead. And then to compound things, what if your dad's attorney had claimed that your mom should be making 2, 3 or 4 times the income she was making. And what if your mom's attorney had laid out the truth of the matter and then found out later that your dad's attorney had gone into the judge's chambers alone. AND, what if your dad and his attorney had gotten a G.A.L. assigned for you and the G.A.L., being a long-time friend of your dad's attorney's wife wrote the report full of lies, innuendo, accusations and slander saying that your mom was the worst mother that had ever graced the face of the earth and should be paying your dad instead. AND having already taking the money when he walked out and leaving you and your mother to fend for yourself, what if the judge then ordered that your mother pay your father child support and that you weren't allowed to use your mother's health insurance (inculding dental), because your father didn't want to pay for it, so you were forced to use a base plan for insurance rather than the top-of-the-line plan that your mother has through work. AND what if the amount your mother was ordered to pay for child support to your father ended up being almost 80% of her actual pay (before taxes!) because the judge bought into your dad's attorney's position that she should be making 3 times as much money... Sounds incredible. I just saw that happen. And in the case I just saw go down, the ex-husband has openly sworn to make the ex-wife "out on the street and destitute with nothing so that you beg me to kill you and then I'll put you out of your misery bi**h!" (Yeah, there were witnesses. There was also proof that he was an abuser, but the woman couldn't get a 209A because the man's attorney lied and got in to see the judge before the hearing ever started! The woman lives in fear, but she has to stay around because there is visitation. The man puts the kids in the middle and sends "messages" to mom about what he's going to do to her when he gets the chance. He is a sick POS. His attorney knows about his abuse because the attorneys had to grab him in a discovery conference when he came out of his chair and started across the table at his ex-wife threatening to "get her", for committing the despicable act of pulling out a document that showed he was lying at one point. Regardless of that, his attorney went into court and lied that his client was never violent or abusive and that she was a paranoid that should be commited to a mental hospital! The only reason that didn't happen was because the woman had her counsellors in court that day to testify that she had battered women's syndrome because of her ex's relentless stalking and threats. Still... with that one exception, the judge found completely in the ex-husband's favor. The woman's attorney, mental health counsellors, friends and family have all expressed their extreme shock at the decision. BTW, the "friends" who started out willing to testify were told by the ex-husband that if they did, their children wouldn't be safe. Rather than contact the police and press further charges, they backed out of continuing to testify 1/2 way through. And the man's attorney, when informed of these threats, merely smiled and said, "you have no proof, that's heresay."
So, overpriced for their work or are they a good value?
Depends. The cost wasn't really the beef. It was the ethical issues. If we look at the BBO oath that you posted, in the first line it states, "...I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court..." It goes even further to again state the same in different terms. The man's attorney and the G.A.L. "friend" attorney both lied, and willingly promoted a false suit and did so with malice for monetary gain. I have court transcripts, court documents, and mounds of other papers that prove this.
Yes, there are way to many lawyers who are dishonest, as is mentioned, but let's not make it sound that they are in the majority, or even are a truly significant protion, Every lawyer knows that violating their oath will invite invitations for the bar to find another line of work.
I simply disagree. I think that there is a significant portion of attorneys that are willing to take the money and say/do whatever is necessary to build their reputation for "winning" for their clients. While that might be good for those that hire such unethical, dishonest people, they leave a wake of wronged and destroyed opponents behind. Without their dishonest and unethical tactics, the courts may have made fairer and more reasonable decisions, but with their tactics, and judicial collusion, the courts can best be viewed as places for the O.J.'s of the world to walk away smiling.
Attorneys circling the wagons, protecting their own even in the presence of proof-positive evidence of wrong-doing resulting in lawyers successfully skirting sacntions by regulatory agencies? Attorney's looking the other way when blatant ethical violations occur, allowing the perpetrators to skip off without nary a punishment? Without any supporting information, this charecterization can't be relied on as having any basis in fact.
Don't dispute what you don't know. The woman is now out of money. She's being forced to borrow money to pay the man an extortionistic amount. So, she doesn't have any money to even pursue the matter currently. She's going deeper into debt weekly, just so she won't be in contempt for non-payment. And when she had some money, she couldn't get another attorney to take this case to the BBO, now that she doesn't have any left, attorneys won't even talk to her about it.
Pro se counsel? According to conversation I had a long time ago with Norm Abrahamson, people who act pro se are afforded a wide latitude to do what they wish in court. And people who act pro se aren't necessarily at a disadvantage, as witnessed by the Home Depot case and others around the country.
Perhaps in some cases, in some courts, but when faced with a dishonest and unethical attorney who will go behind the back against another attorney and do things, then the person who can't afford an attorney and must represent themselves faced with that dishonest, unethical conduct simply doesn't stand a chance.
The legal profession's reputation? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that for every winner in court, there is usually always a loser. And I noticed the winners aren't the ones complaining.
This wasn't my case. It was one that I observed. I've observed the same attorneys doing the same thing in other cases. In fact, I grabbed an opposing attorney in the hall before session one morning and told him that this attorney had just gone into chambers with the judge. That attorney watched him come out of chambers, but told me not to worry about it. I told that attorney right then that I'd wager $100 that he was going to lose that morning. In the end, the unethical attorney won his case that morning, but nothing was said about it.
==================================
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
Gene DeMambro
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Weymouth, MA US of A

Post by Gene DeMambro »

By all means, then, please provide the details that show that there are way too many who will do anything to win for their client and screw the other guy, by using blatant lies, unethical acts and using a complete disregard for the facts. As a proud citizen of the Commonwealth, I would very much like to know about independant studies and reports that show this conduct and bias is rampant throught the Massachusetts legal system. I'd also really like to hear about the "oath" that lawyers really take, as it seems to conflict with stated law.

Don't want me to dispute what I don't know? Then enlightenment is greatfully accepted.

And if it's two particular lawyers and two particular law firms, then the problem isn't rampant, then, is it?

No, the part about good, honest, competant attorneys being a rare breed wasn't missed at all; just disagreed with. They are way more common than being rare.

Mom and Dad? Round Two, that was just ruled on this week, got pretty bad. I'm not going to go into the details, but a judgement of contempt was issued against dad, with financial sanctions to boot with a due date coming up awefully fast. All thanks to good lawyering on mom's side.

It is my contention that whatever ethical lapses and violations occur on the part of lawyers, here and in other states, are not as wide spread as some people would have us believe. That opinion is based on my own observations and dealings with the legal community, which are not necessarily the same types of experiences as others. But I'm not going to be persuaded to change my opinion, in the absence of good reason.

OJ had good, ethical lawyers on his side. But I remember something about a racist cop and misplaced evidence on the other side...

Gene
User avatar
Panther
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post by Panther »

I had heard and seen a few instances of things that were unfair and I thought they were isolated instances. When I checked further I found that they weren't. The report that made me take notice and watch the happenings in the courts much more closely is available at:

http://www.wcwonline.org/wrn/pubs.html

It is titled: Battered Mothers Speak Out: A Human Rights Report on Domestic Violence and Child Custody in the Massachusetts Family Courts

There are other reports also.

You can download them online.
Post Reply

Return to “Realist Training”