PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.
Showing posts with label SELF REPRESENTATION. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SELF REPRESENTATION. Show all posts

Sunday, June 2, 2013

PANAMA PUBLISHING SERIES FOR SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES!

Panama Publishing writes detailed, informative, litigant friendly guidebooks on how to navigate your way through the family court system.  You may wish to look them up at:

www.panama-publishing.com

Thursday, May 23, 2013

PROPOSED PILOT PROGRAM FOR CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL SYSTEM WOULD ALLOW ATTORNEYS TO OFFER LIMITED SCOPE REPRESENTATION OR "UNBUNDLING"!

At the Annual 2012 meeting of judges in Connecticut, Judge Chase Rogers expressed concern about the rising number of self represented parties in the judicial system today.  Right now, at least 85% of cases in family court have one or both parties representing him or herself. 
 
Like many other States around the country, Connecticut has been trying to adjust the way it does business in order to respond to this situation. 
 
For example, most courthouses in Connecticut have a Court Service Center available for self-represented parties where there are computers, fax and copy machines, as well as a telephones which they can use free of charge.  Some of these Centers have clerks working there who are available to provide litigants with court forms and answer basic questions about how to navigate your way around the court system. The larger court service centers have regular hours where marshalls are available to take papers that need to be served. 
 
In addition, some courthouses have volunteer attorneys available once a week to answer questions on a first come, first serve basis. 
 
Also, the Connecticut Judicial Website has tutorials and videos to keep self represented parties informed about some of the more basic procedures they are required to follow, i.e. information on how to file an appearance. 
 
Now, if judges approve the new addition to The Connecticut Practice Book proposed for this year, Section (b) of Rule 3-8 Appearance for Represented Party, the Chief Court Administrator will be authorized to establish a pilot program for Limited Scope Representation (or what is informally known as "unbundling") by attorneys in one or more judicial districts throughout the state. 
 
What is Limited Scope Representation?  This is a concept originally attributed to UCLA law Professor Forrest S. Mosten who, in 2000, wrote the book "Unbundling Legal Services:  A Guide to Delivering Legal Services a la Carte."  It consists of a method of legal representation in the United States where an attorney and client limit the scope of the attorney's involvement in a lawsuit to specific aspects of the case and leaving the remaining aspects to the client as a means to save money.
 
As with other things, when it comes to innovative practices like this, we in the State of Connecticut are somewhat slow about getting cutting edge practices such as Limited Scope Representation implemented.  Thus, according to a an article written in 2010 by Susan Cartier Liebel, "Is 'Unbundling' in Your Future?  It Better Be or You May Have No Future," "Forty-one states, including California and New Hampshire, have [already] adopted a model rule drafted by the American Bar Association" 
 
Why is this happening and why is Limited Scope Representation so popular?  According to Ms. Liebel, litigants simply cannot afford to spend lots of money on legal representation in these difficult economic times.  Not only that, the spread of information on the internet combined with a judicial system that itself provides litigants with considerable information has empowered people to the point where they want more input into what happens in their cases. 
 
Connecticut's new Limited Scope Representation laws will come with some limitations.  For example, only attorneys affiliated with this pilot program would be able to file a Limited Scope Appearance.  Attorneys will not be allowed to file limited appearances in connection to criminal or juvenile cases. 
 
And for those who are interested, this still does not constitute side by side representation where a self represented party conducts the case on an equal basis with the attorney.  In any matters for which the self represented party has legal representation, the self represented party must step aside and allow the attorney full authority. 
 
On the other hand, interestingly enough, an attorney will not be able to file a limited scope appearance until the self represented party has filed his or her appearance. 
 
The Practice Book has other suggested rule changes to accommodate limited scope representation. Such rule changes are as follows: 
 
Under Rule 1.5 Fees, Section (b), newly proposed rules require the attorney to file an appearance for the specific services he will provide and then he is required to file a Certificate of Completion once those services have been provided. 
 
Under Rule 1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation, an attorney who provides limited scope representation will not have to ask permission from a judge in order to terminate his representation.  For those of us who have suffered because of attorneys who will not go away, this will be a considerable improvement!
 
Rule 3-8 Appearance For Represented Party, Section (b) gives the attorney specific instructions on how to file an appearance when providing limited scope representation stating, among other things, that the attorney in this situation will only receive copies of documents related to the matter he will be working on. 
 
Section 3-9 Withdrawal of Appearance provides details on how to file a Certificate of Completion regarding the matter for which an attorney provided limited scope representation. 
 
Under Rules of Professional Ethics 4-2 Communication With a Person Represented by Counsel, the opposing counsel is not allowed to discuss with the self-represented party any matters that will be handled for that party by an attorney under a limited scope representation agreement.
 
Rules from Chapter 4-2 Signing of the Pleading states that if an attorney assisted a self represented party in writing a pleading (ghostwriting!), that attorney is not required to sign the pleading, but there should be an acknowledgement of that attorney's assistance in the pleading. 
 
Some well known attorneys in Connecticut have already begun to take advantage of this approach.  For example, Attorney Susan Wakefield of Connecticut Legal Coaching. 

For more information on Attorney Wakefield, see the link below:

http://www.ctlegalcoaching.com/


Attorney Wakefield is an attorney with over 22 years of experience who has put together a law film with the expressed intention of assisting litigants who are representing themselves in their divorce, custody, or post-divorce matter. 
 
As she puts it, "Legal Coaching, with its unique pay-as-you-go and "A La Carte" structure makes quality legal services accessible to all individuals so they can acquire the knowledge and tools needed to navigate through the system on their own." 
 
There is also Greenwich Attorney Barbara Shea with her unbundled legal services known as "Partners-in-Law", a part of the law firm that allows people to represent themselves with some legal guidance to point them in the right direction."  Journalist Debra Cassens Weiss reports Shea as saying, "Instead of letting someone dump everything on my desk, I teach them the smart way to solve a case...The concept is based on giving clients choice and control over their legal matters."  

I would add more on contacting Attorney Barbara Shea because I do like her ideas, but she has been reprimanded by the Statewide Grievance Committee on more than one occasion.  So working with her is all at your own risk.  I don't know what to say about her history, except that I know of people who have done so much worse that she did who are walking around scott free.  People can be redeemable, but every litigant has to make up his or her own mind. 

 Finally, attorneys have raised some ethical concerns in regard to this practice.  For example, limited scope representation could allow attorneys to evade the legal consequences of malpractice by simply saying, I didn't represent the client in that area. 
 
There could be problems with communication which result in a situation where the attorney and the client are unsure of who is responsible for what aspect of the case, and then someone drops the ball on some vital area of the case as a consequence and both end up blaming the other. 
 
In terms of legal ghostwriting, if an attorney writes documents for a self represented party, this could give the self represented party an advantage in situations where judges allow self represented parties more leeway.  Proposed Connecticut Rules do require a litigant to acknowledge the assistance of an attorney, but who is to know how faithfully such rules will be followed. 
 
Despite these criticisms, with more than 40 states on board, it doesn't look like anything will be able to stop the momentum behind the movement to provide Limited Scope Representation.  Online businesses such as LegalZoom and "Ask an Attorney" websites are prospering in the busy, chaotic, fairly unregulated internet marketplace and there are no signs of them stopping any time soon. 

RELATED LINKS:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/SH-tab2.pdf

ABA White Paper,
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/legalservices/delivery/downloads/prose_white_paper.authcheckdam.pdf

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

COMMENT ON MS. MONICA FORE'S TESTIMONY, ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES!

I think it is important to clarify the specific issue that Ms. Monica Fore raises in regard to the expectation that pro se litigants must be held to the same standards as attorneys. 
 
Such a standard is not equitable to pro se litigants first of all because pro se litigants do not get the same respectful treatment that attorneys receive.  Frequently, judges don't even listen to what pro se litigants have to say, simply by virtue of the fact that they are what they are:  i.e. pro se litigants. 
 
If you go to trial court representing yourself, even though you have a perfectly correct, constitutionally supported right to do so it is often, if not always, a way to lose automatically.  Judges simply don't like self represented litigants no matter who they are.  If you prepare effectively as a self represented party, then Judges see you as arrogant and defiant of authority.  If you don't prepare effectively, then you are disrespectful of the trial court process because you didn't.  Either way, you lose. 
 
So that is the first strike against you. 
 
Second, you can take full responsibility and read The Connecticut Practice Book (a compendium of the rules of court) to be prepared for what is going on in the courtroom, but that will not actually give you sufficient information.  The Connecticut Practice Book is extremely difficult to understand and interpret--and I say that as a College Graduate with a humanities degree. 
 
What Ms. Monica Fore is asking us to consider, and the Supreme Court as well, is how are folks without high school degrees going to figure this out! 
 
The Connecticut Practice Book should be rewritten so that it is clear and understandable to the average person who is coming in for services at the Judicial Branch. 
 
Why does the Connecticut Judicial Branch skew its practices and its publications in such a way that it benefits solely attorneys, and then say self represented parties have to catch up to them ready or not? 
 
Furthermore, there are many trial court policies and procedures that are not mentioned in The Connecticut Practice Book  but which are a standard aspect of legal practice.  For example, Ms. Fore mentioned to me what is called an "Offer of Proof" where you indicate to the Court why a piece of evidence that was rejected as a full exhibit should be accepted. 
 
So there are a great many trial court traditions, understandings, practices that are not in any book a self represented party has access to, and therefore, holding such a party to the standard of knowing as much about them as an attorney who has often spent years absorbing them all would clearly be an injustice. 
 
It is also true that attorneys have access to professional meetings and trainings, and also various data bases through their professional offices which self represented parties clearly cannot share. 
 
In the interests of justice, therefore, it seems to me reasonable, that there should be a way to adjust trial court practices so that attorneys and also self represented parties can operate on a level playing field. 
 
Thus far, what the Connecticut Judicial Branch has done is simply complain about the fact that there is self representation, as if to say perhaps we should make self representation illegal.  And, of course, judges kind of do that by making the experience of representing yourself so unpleasant and so unjust.  But they have not acted to make sure that self represented parties get a fair shake by adjusting policies, procedures, practices, and informative materials so that they provide self represented parties improved access to justice. 
 
On another note, I did want to mention that, indeed, we do have more litigants deciding to represent themselves despite the well known dangers involved in doing so.  I believe the number in Connecticut is like 79% self represented or some high number like that. 
 
To me, this situation exists because there has been such malfeasance on the part of attorneys, such blatant corruption and wrong doing, that the legal profession has totally lost credibility in regard to its involvement in family matters.  The responsibility for correcting this situation lies with the legal profession itself and the timeframe for getting the job done is none too soon given the fact that the number of those who choose to represent themselves inside family court continues to rise.   

Friday, October 26, 2012

NEW BARRIERS TO ACCESSING JUSTICE, SELF REPS SEE CUTBACKS IN LAW LIBRARIES!

On October 19, 2012, the Access to Justice Commission published its Annual Report consisting of 38 pages.  In its report, the Access to Justice Commission expressed particular concern regarding self represented parties and the abilility self represented parties had to obtain information necessary to pursuing their cases in Court. 
 
Recent statistics have indicated that in the State of Connecticut, 87% of parties in Family Court are self represented.  This means that there are a great many self represented parties who are in desperate need of information not only in regard to which forms to use, but also in regard to Practice Book rules and case law. 
 
It is surprising then, that in the past year, an April 9, 2012 article by Lauren Sievert of the "Middletown Press" reports that "law libraries in Connecticut have suffered major cutbaks in the last three years."  As Ms. Sievert reports about it, the situation is grim.  Two law libraries have closed since 2009.  Also, according to Judge Barbara Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer of the Judicial Branch, since 2009, eight librarians have been let go and two are on leave of absense. 
 
In addition, according to Ms. Sievert, Judge Quinn states that "the budget [for the library] spent in 2009 was $2.485 million, and the estimated budget expenditure for 2012 is $1.1 million."  This is a drastic reduction in the operating budget of the legal libraries in this State. 
 
According to Sievert, "Law Librarians help the public when they are in need of assistance in finding the materials and laws regarding their cases.  The librarians, who must have Master's Degrees in library science, can help the public print material regarding cases, draft motions and point them in the right direction to move along their cases." 
 
Of course, many attorneys have online resources, but that is not always true of self represented parties. 
 
In addition, self represented parties often need the assistance of librarians simply to define the kinds of good questions they need to ask and then to pursue the answers in their research.  This is why State Law Libraries are so valuable.  One of the most important services that the Law Libraries provide are the Pathfinders which provide vital information in regard to key issues in the law that self represented parties are likely to face.  Retired Middletown Librarian, Lawrence Cheeseman, played a major role in developing these Pathfinders. 
 
It is particularly troubling that the State has started to cut back the hours of these Law Libraries.  For example, the Hartford Law Library, probably one of the most used in the State, is closed on Thursdays and Fridays, and the Waterbury Library is closed on Wednesday.  When the Libraries start to reduce their hours, we as citizens should start to be very concerned. 
 
The mission of the Judicial Branch is to be more open and accessible to litigants; however, that is a hard goal to achieve when you are restricting access to your law libraries. 
 
As Law Libraries are faced with major cutbacks and closures, it is ironic that a recent report issued this month by Connecticut Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers proposes that most state judges receive pay raises of $45,000 over the next four years.  This would raise judicial pay in Superior Court from $147,000 per year to about $192,000 over four years, and it would then raise the pay of Supreme Court justices from $163,000 to $212,000.
 
According to David Collins of the Associated Press who initially reported on this pay raise proposal on October 18, 2012, the last pay raise for judges in the State of Connecticut was in 2007 and left them with an annual salary of $147,000.  He goes further to state, "that's the 14th highest salary level in the country for general trial court judges, but 45th in the nation when the state's high cost of living is factored in, according to the National Center for State Courts." 
 
He goes further to state that, "The average trial court judge's salary nationwide is about $137,000."  Thus, Connecticut's Salary is a little above the median.  
 
This pay raise should cost approximately $3.8 million.  Personally, I have trouble cutting the budget for the State's Law Libraries drastically by approximately $1.3 million in order to make way for pay raises for judges.  After all, don't Law Libraries benefit us a whole lot more than additional judges?  Isn't the use of law libraries on the level of teaching a man to farm rather than just giving him a handout?  Don't we save a lot more money teaching litigants to do things for themselves through Law Libraries rather than hiring more clerks and other personnel to guide them through the process so they don't clog up the court because of their lack of knowledge?

Some citizens have said that we should raise Judges' salaries higher if we want to make sure we retain the services of the highest quality of talented judges.  This is similar to the thinking we have gone along with before in the State of Connecticut, that having well paid teachers will lead to the highest quality of teachers.  Thus, salaries in the State of Connecticut for teachers are among the highest in the country.  Certainly, the proposed salary for judges of $192,000 would be well above the highest salary for judges in the nation, propelling us to first place.

However, as one commentator has stated, "There is no need for this...Keep in mind that these judges were the "talented judges" who in a 4 - 3 ruling on October 2, 2012, overturned the sexual assault conviction of a man who raped a disabled woman with severe cerebral palsy, who has a functional intellectual I.Q. of a 3 year old, and who cannot verbally communicate because she didn't leave evidence of "biting, kicking, scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing" to indicate her lack of agreement with the act.

So what is your choice in regard to this issue?  More funding for libraries, or more funding for Judges' salaries?  Let me know your opinions.


For a look at the original article about Law Libraries, see link below:
http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2012/04/09/news/doc4f822dededc18179387483.prt

For a directory of all the Legal Libraries, see link below:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/staff.htm

For the article in regard to Judges' salaries, see link below:
http://www1.salary.com/Judge-Magistrate-Salary.html

Sunday, August 28, 2011

WHAT TO EXPECT AS A SELF REPRESENTED PARTY

As you may know, I am a self represented party.  This means that when I arrive at the clerk's office to ask a question, I often get a response from a clerk which goes, "I cannot provide legal advice.  If you need legal advice, go and get an attorney."  Of course, that very same clerk, asked the very same question by a person who is obviously indigent or low income, will freely hand out legal advice.  So there is a bit of a class based double standard here. 

Be that as it may, it is important for you to know that there is a long standing legal and historical basis for your right to represent yourself rooted in the sixth and fourteenth amendments.  So when the opposing attorney attempts to prevent you from representing yourself, and she will if you are in family court, you have a strong basis for defending yourself.  Once you have established your right to act as a self represented party, what can you expect from the judicial system? 

Basically, in the U.S. judicial system there are two attitudes towards self represented parties.  One attitude is that self represented parties have the money but can't be bothered to hire attorneys and so they are absolutely not entitled to any flexibility.  The other attitude is that most people would not choose to represent themselves but are doing so because they don't have the money or don't feel they can obtain a proper defense any other way.  Connecticut is one of the few states that takes the more benign attitude towards self represented parties and, at least in theory, acts accordingly.  As one judge told me, I have a legal obligation to bend over backwards in order to accommodate your needs as a self represented party."  

Still, the handout you receive as a self represented party states that, "A self-represented person must abide by the same rules of procedure and the rules of evidence as lawyers.  It is the responsibility of self represented parties to determine what needs to be done and to take the necessary action."  This is the official position of the judicial system.  

However, if the court system actually followed through on this approach literally the whole legal system would collapse, granted that over 50% of parties are self represented and fairly incompetent. 

So what gets done to incorporate the unique needs of a self represented party in court while at the same time preserving a represented party's right to a fair and impartial hearing?  First, once the judge has determined that there is a self-represented party in the proceedings, he or she may explain the process to the self represented party before proceeding.  The judge might say something like "I'm going to hear both sides of the case.  The defendant will first explain his case, and you will have a chance to respond.  Please do not interrupt the other party when he is presenting his case, etc." In other words, the judge will provide a quick overview of proper courtroom behavior for the self-represented party. 

Second, the judge might explain to the self-represented party what are the elements of the case and what is the burden of proof required in order for the self-represented party to prove his or her case.  In one situation I was in, the judge had the clerk provide a copy to me of a central ruling which described exactly what I was required to prove in my case.  He then told me he was going to call a recess in the hearing so that I could have a chance to review the case and decide whether or how I wished to proceed further. 

During a hearing with a self represented party, the judge may cut to the chase and just say "tell me what you have", or "what is your argument" so you can just state your case outright rather than present evidence or examine a witness on the stand in your stumbling and inadequate self represented party manner.  Frequently, rather than sit back passively, in a case where there is a self represented party the judge will intervene with his own questions of both you and the witnesses in order to delve into the issues and obtain more information. 

Third, particularly in family matters, the court will lower the standards in regard to evidence so that you don't have to establish a foundation for the documents you wish to submit to the court.  The other party can object, but frequently they don't since judges can make life difficult for them if they do. 

Essentially trial courts are required to accommodate the needs of self represented parties as long as doing so does not infringe upon the rights of the other side.  I'm sure that gets to be a pretty difficult line to draw, but my impression is that they interpret the line liberally.  Of course, my impression also is that judges will give you all that accommodation and flexibility in court and then return to the office and kind of knee jerk rule on the side of the represented party all in the spirit of attorney-attorney solidarity, but that may just be an impression rather than a reality.  

In accordance with a general policy throughout the judicial system in the U.S. the courts in Connecticut will accept any papers submitted by self represented parties and, at least in theory, interpret them as liberally as possible searching them diligently in order to locate anything that might represent a meritorious claim or defense.  This means that when I went to civil court, the clerk was ready to accept anything I was going to give them.  In fact, the court has a fill in the blank form with the heading "motion" where you can simply write in by hand what you are complaining about and submit it to the court for a hearing. 

However, there are limits to the court's liberality.  For example, if you miss a deadline, you miss a deadline, just the same as any other attorney.  Too bad for you.  If a motion you submit to the court requires a fee and must be delivered by a marshall, it requires a fee and must be delivered by a marshall, so don't try to avoid the requirements. 

The appellate court simply will not accept documents that are not formated properly.  However, if you ask they will give you a break and give you more time to revise them so they meet appellate court requirements.  Of course, they would give that very same break to an attorney as well.  The appellate court will try to accommodate you by giving you a free copy of their booklet "Handbook of Appellate Procedure" plus an additional free copy of their booklet with sample forms.  Also, keep in mind that there is a section of the judicial website which is devoted to providing information for self represented parties at:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/SRP/default.htm

Still, even though there is all this lip service about the rights of self represented parties, you know that if you are acting as your own counsel, you are a second or even third class citizen.  The court will take advantage of the fact that you don't know the law to work injustice.  When it came to one of my motions, I had to submit a few "Requests for a Hearing" before the court would schedule my motion for a hearing.  This would never happen to an attorney.  Attorneys can just call in and demand a continuance on a court hearing and get one.  Self represented parties have to go through a song and dance for a continuance.  Attorneys can meet the judge in the hallway and have a nice chat.  You cannot.  So don't be naive.  Yes, you are not a lawyer, but you can still make your way through the system and achieve decent results if you keep your cool and follow procedure.  I will always believe that a self represented party who is committed, although he or she does not have the skills or connections of a lawyer, will always outdo an attorney who doesn't give a sh_t, and unfortunately most of them don't give a sh_t.

One point I would like to make is that as you represent yourself, do not spend your time on your emotions.  The point is, what is the law, and is what you are requesting in compliance with the law.  Nothing else matters.  If you become emotional and strident, and if you act on the basis that the injustice you are enduring in court is so severe that you have a right to circumvent protocol, you could end up being marginalized, at which point the court will automatically deny anything you ask for, or you could even lose your right to self representation.

So, that is pretty much it.  Go forth and conquer...or at least, give it a try!

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

FILING AN APPEARANCE

Once you have hired a lawyer and signed a retainer agreement with him or her, that lawyer will then go to the Court where your case will be heard and sign an Appearance Form indicating to the court that he or she is going to represent you.  




Once that Appearance Form has been signed, this means that the lawyer has told the Court that he or she advocates on your behalf and all notices sent from the Court or by the opposing attorney should be sent to the address that he or she has provided on the form.  This means that every time you go to court regarding a matter, this attorney will step forward and speak on your behalf and negotiate agreements on your behalf.  




The law governing the appearance of an attorney on behalf of a client in the State of Connecticut is detailed in the Connecticut Practice Book 2011 Chapter 3-1 to 3-21. 




The one question I have most frequently heard regarding the appearance of an attorney is whether a self-represented party can join his or her attorney and represent him or herself along with the attorney side by side.  I looked all over the Practice Book to see if this was possible.  While I never saw this arrangement expressly denied in the Practice Book, the attorneys I spoke to simply dismissed the idea and all the clerks spoke to said it just isn't possible.  I've seen other self-represented parties give it a try before the judge, but judges don't buy it either.  So, I don't think there is any possibility of trying that approach.  




However, even though you can't join your attorney shoulder to shoulder in representing yourself, you can have multiple lawyers representing you.  This means that not only does the appearance form allow lawyers to check off a box on the appearance form indicating the lawyer is appearing "in lieu of" another attorney it also allows lawyers to indicate that they are appearing "in addition to" another attorney.  




Sometimes this allows you to assemble a dream team.  But more often than not it is a good way to get rid of a bad attorney without making yourself look bad, because you can just bring one attorney to the forefront and leave the other behind, not out of the case, but not doing anything either.  




Where this becomes relevant is when you get to your third attorney or so.  That is when the opposing side will begin the litany of "He or She has been represented by more than one attorney"--Oh my God, Call out the National Guard!!!" or worse, "He or She has been represented by several attorneys!".  Of course, in high conflict divorces, particularly with the losing side, several attorneys do get involved in the case.  Usually, the lawyer saw you were losing and didn't want to be in a losing case and quit, or the lawyer was helping the opposing side and got angry when you objected to him or her doing so, or you simply ran out of money and the attorney was unwilling to work for nothing.  It really shouldn't be held against you, but it is.  




According to their professional ethics, an attorney cannot simply walk out on you and abandon you right in the middle of your case, but they do it all the time, so don't start feeling secure as though they can't do it, because they can and they will.  In order to do so, they have to withdraw their appearance.  However, they can't do so without getting a judge's permission and so they are required to file a "Motion to Withdraw" which must be heard by the judge.  




They can't put down as a reason for their wish to withdraw something as crass as you haven't been paying them, or they don't like you or your dang case, because the Judge won't want to hear it and they don't want it public in the courtroom how much money or character matters in the legal system.  Instead, what a lawyer will put down as the basis for a Motion to Withdraw is something vague like "a breakdown of the attorney client relationship." 




My best advice here is DO NOT SHOW UP FOR THIS HEARING.  Let the attorney obtain permission from the judge to withdraw by default because you were absent from the hearing.  Otherwise, the lawyer will invent very damaging reasons for needing to withdraw and those inventions will end up being on the record and will follow you from motion to motion, hearing to hearing.  Yes, in these situations attorneys are dirty, lice ridden ugly scum.  You are right.  Now run away as fast as you can.  




Moving along, likewise, you cannot just get rid of an attorney who is representing you and has an appearance filed on your behalf by telling them something as clear and understandable as "You are fired!".  I have heard frequently of people who fired their attorneys only to have them show up unannounced at the next hearing and try to take over.  And "no", you cannot just fire your attorney and replace him or her by filing an appearance as a self represented party.  The only way you can actually get rid of your attorney is to hire another attorney and have that new attorney file an appearance "in lieu of" the old attorney and send a copy of that appearance form to the old attorney you want to get rid of.  




If you didn't start off as a self represented party and you want to replace your lawyer with yourself as a self represented party, you have to get a judge's order in order to do that.  No Fair!  Well, get used to it.  There is lots of "no fair!" in family court.  Where this situation can be difficult is when you are trying to become a self represented party and replace an idiot attorney who was sucking up to the opposing side.  Then the opposing attorney who really, really loved the old suckup will come to court on your motion to represent yourself and oppose your motion vigorously.  In that case, you could end up legally ordered to continue on with an idiot attorney you hate.  So you end up being in quite a bind.  




It's quite a mine field as I well know, having gone through it myself.  All I can say is, despite it all, I did end up being able to represent myself.  What was particularly persuasive to the judge was that even before I became a self represented party I was bypassing my lawyer and submitting my own motions, so the judge simply said, she is already doing it, she might as well keep on with it.  I am not necessarily advising you to do what I did, but it tells you how things can go in court sometimes.  




Anyway, look up Chapter 3 of the 2011 Practice Book for more information.  Also, I will provide here the URL of a video presentation prepared by the Connecticut Judicial Court explaining how to fill out an Appearance Form.  Good Luck!  
 

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

CONNECTICUT'S FAKE PROVISION FOR THE UNEARNING SPOUSE WHO CAN'T AFFORD AN ATTORNEY: CT STATUTE SEC. 46b-62!

What do you do if you have no money to pay your attorney's fees during a divorce? 

What they say is that if you don't have any money for lawyers, you will simply lose the case. I don't know if this is true. What I will say is that I was lucky enough have access to money that came from my parents to pay my attorneys a substantial fee.

Of course, there is the whole ethical question of why the CT Family Court makes the assumption that litigants with parents who have money to pay, should be required to make those parents pay. Since when should third parties unrelated to the lawsuit be put in the position of having to pay for it? That's a good question I never got an answer to!

Nonetheless, parents money or not, in my situation having money available for litigation didn't make my attorneys any more effective. They were still substandard. So money isn't everything. In the same way that you can't buy love, you also can't buy a lawyer's good work. In order for lawyers to work hard for you, they really have to care about you, sympathize with your story, or do a financial deal that benefits you rather than the other party so it becomes worth their while to support you. If they don't, you are simply done for and you will lose.

On the other hand, if you don't have any lawyer at all because you absolutely can't afford one, then you definitely will lose simply because you have no idea how to handle yourself in a court room. It is one thing to represent yourself when you have been in the system for a while as I have been, but it makes absolutely no sense if you are totally new to the system and have no one to mentor you. At the very least you are going to need someone to ask questions of as you begin your divorce.

The good news is that, as with so many points of law, the legal system has developed a response to circumstances where one party is the primary earner and the other has few resources available with which to hire a lawyer. The intention of this legislation is to level the playing field so that one person doesn't bulldoze over the other simply because of financial advantage. This is CT STATUTE SEC. 46b-62 referenced above. There is the equivalent of this legislation probably in every state of the union. It basically authorizes the Court to order the earning party to pay the legal fees of the other. See the wording of the statute below:

Sec. 46b-62. (Formerly Sec. 46-59). Orders for payment of attorney's fees in certain actions. In any proceeding seeking relief under the provisions of this chapter and sections 17b-743, 17b-744, 45a-257, 46b-1, 46b-6, 46b-212 to 46b-213v, inclusive, 47-14g, 51-348a and 52-362, the court may order either spouse or, if such proceeding concerns the custody, care, education, visitation or support of a minor child, either parent to pay the reasonable attorney's fees of the other in accordance with their respective financial abilities and the criteria set forth in section 46b-82. If, in any proceeding under this chapter and said sections, the court appoints an attorney for a minor child, the court may order the father, mother or an intervening party, individually or in any combination, to pay the reasonable fees of the attorney or may order the payment of the attorney's fees in whole or in part from the estate of the child. If the child is receiving or has received state aid or care, the compensation of the attorney shall be established and paid by the Commission on Child Protection.

The bad news is that even though this remedy is available, the Court rarely orders it, at least for folks like us who are victims of high conflict divorce. As my divorce progressed and became more and more expensive, my family and lots of my friends and neighbors said, "Doesn't he have to pay your legal fees?" There seemed to be this presumption that my ex would have to. In reality, the Court rarely orders it--not as long as there are grandparents, extended family members, friends or retirement accounts available to be cashed in early, tax liability or not--they don't care.

I actually know of one person whose ex paid all of the legal fees in her case, and I'm sure that it does happen. She big time lost, though I'm not sure if it was because of how her legal fees were paid. But it is kind of suspicious, don't you think?

For the better part, my ex did not have to pay my attorney's fees, and the same thing happened to most other women I know in similar situations. So what do people do? Unless you have a great Aunt to borrow from, etc. etc. in these cases, the attorneys work for nothing until the financial settlement is finalized, at which point they get paid, and often these attorneys simply don't get paid at all. Also possible is that the attorney get paid in favors meted out at another time in exchange for backstabbing you and scuttling your case.

When I asked the several attorneys I had to make a motion to court to request attorneys fees, they simply refused to do it. They told me I would never be able to get the court to order my ex to pay attorney's fees. To be honest, I'm not sure what is the point of having a CT General Statute in place giving the Court the authority to get the earning party to pay attorney's fees for the non earning party if the Court is never going to make that kind of order. Be that as it may, it is there. 

What I hated was the fact that such a statute existed encouraged my friends and family to insist that it could be done and that there must be something the matter with me that I couldn't get my lawyers or the Court to order that kind of relief. The fact that this law--like many other laws intended to protect protective mothers--was only in the books for show was a concept that was far beyond their comprehension. So this law was more of an annoyance to me than anything else because it made me look bad...again!

Finally, within this legislation is an additional provision that you should all be aware of which allows the fees for the Guardian Ad Litem to be paid for from the estate of the child. This means that if you had put money aside for the child through the uniform gift to minor's act, or if you had a *college fund for the child, all of that could be seized by the GAL for the payment of legal fees.

*recent legislation, as stated below, now precludes the Court from seizing college funds for this purpose.

If you are heading for a divorce, make sure you take all the funds you have in the name of your children, make sure you consult with a tax advisor and/or an attorney regarding how you can protect them or disappear them. Good luck!

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

VOLUNTEER ATTORNEY PROGRAM!

Just wanted to let you guys know that there is now a volunteer attorney program at the Hartford Family Court at 90 Washington Street. It operates every Wednesday from 9:00 - 11:00am in the Court Service Center.
 
Apparently, volunteer attorneys are available at that time to answer all the legal questions that you may have. It is first come, first served.

I haven't heard anything about how this works or whether the advice they give is helpful. Give it try and be the first to comment about it here on this blog!!!!

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

APPEALS AND SUCH

Yesterday and today was a busy time for me because I recently filed an appeal. That, by the way, is the most fun you'll have--you file the appeal, life is great! That'll teach them (the opposing counsel, etc)! you think. But then the time comes when the other side responds to your appeal and you look at their objections and go, what the heck?!? Where did they go and get that idea from.

Objections range from sly insinuations that you are a lunatic, to questions about the format of your motions, all the way to questions of law. My problem is when the opposing side raises objections that I've never even heard of before. Damn, I think, I really made a mistake deciding to become a self-represented party.

Of course, this doesn't just happen when you look at court papers and find yourself totally lost, it also happens when you are in a court hearing and the judge and the opposing attorney get lost in a conversation piled up with case law and CT General Statutes you've never heard of!

Under the circumstances, there isn't much you can do other than get on the computer and start googling big time. Wikepedia, by the way, has been a big help. Plus, steal from the opposing attorney. If they quote case law, then look the cases up online and you will usually be able to find them. Read the cases and the cases usually quote further case law.

Bingo, you figure the whole situation out and you can formulate your "Reply" or your "Objection" to the other side's position and you'll be able to do a little quoting of your own. That plus the conviction that you are on the side of justice will go a long way, inadequate as you are in the face of these legal tigers. So, off you go, give it a try, and let me know what happens!