So many of us know what it is like to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to our family court attorneys, only to find that when we try to get them to listen to us and work with us as partners, they refuse to do so.
These attorneys, it seems, feel that they are above the law, that they can do whatever they want not only with us, but also with our cases, that they can enter into life altering agreements with the opposing party in our cases without considering our views, and then at the end of the process, after they've provided us with extremely unsatisfactory results, demand that we pay them massive sums of money for the privilege.
Tell me how they get away with this?
The law does not condone this behavior. In fact, the Rules of Professional conduct require that attorneys act towards their clients in a respectful manner and defer to their clients' decisions.
For example, according to the Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.2 (a) Scope of Representation, "A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation." Also, later on it states, "A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to accept an offer of settlement of a matter." This rule further states in 1.2 (c) "A lawyer may limit the objectives of the representation if the client consents after consultation." Hello, Hello! Note the words, "after consultation", so the lawyer is not supposed to just run off and change those objectives independently without imput from his or her client.
The only exception to the rule that the attorney defer to his client's decisions occurs if the client wishes to do something fraudulent or criminal (see Rule 1.2 (d)).
Another exception would be if the client is disabled or mentally incompetent, see "Withholding Information" under the commentary for Rule 1.4 Communication and Rule 1.14 Client under a Disability. Of course, I would suspect that most attorneys consider the clients they represent in family court mentally incompetent, particularly their female clients, so they may assume they are justified in violating their clients' rights based upon this rule. But I doubt most of us would agree!
Attorney rules recognize that decisions can only be based upon Informed Consent. Thus, in order to make decisions regarding their representation, the Rules of Professional Conduct that attorneys are supposed to abide by, state that a client must have enough information to make an Informed Decision. Thus, Rule 1.4 Communication which states in 1.4 (b) "A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation."
In this regard, under commentary, the Connecticut Practice Book states "The client should have sufficient information to participate intelligently in decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and the means by which they are to be pursued, to the extent the client is willing and able to do so. For example, a lawyer negotiating on behalf of a client should provide the client with facts relevant to the matter, inform the client of communications from another party and take other reasonable steps that permit the client to make a decision regarding a serious offer from another party."
All of these directives reflect the political and cultural values of the State of Connecticut. They reflect a respect for the clients who are litigating in Court with the assistance of attorneys who are supposed to be respecting them not only as Citizens of this State but also as persons worthy of consideration.
The problem, as I see it, and as so many people I've spoken to see it, is that attorneys absolutely flout these rules and if you go before the Statewide Grievance Committee to complain that an attorney did not respect these rules, the Committee has a record of failing to uphold them.
What is the result?
Most attorneys seem to act in loco parentis, as if you are the child and they are the parent. They seem to think they have the right to make all the decisions in your case on your behalf and to go ahead and participate in negotiations regarding agreements without letting you, the client, know anything about the issues that are under negotation and what your options are.
In essence, the attorneys speak to the judges in chambers in the presence of the opposing attorney, they participate in discussions with GALs and custody evaluators, draw conclusions about what they intend to do in the case, and then coerce their clients into agreement. What is truly annoying in situations of this kind, which pretty much occur most of the time in high conflict divorce, is that had your attorney actually kept you informed, you might have been able to provide information or evidence which could have strengthened your bargaining position; you might actually have been of assistance in developing an argument in your favor!
We, as clients, know ten times more about our cases than our attorneys do, so cutting us out of the loop can only have the result of causing harm. Furthermore, many of us are well educated college graduates and/or have rich life experiences which have provided us with the insight and skills to negotiate very well in family court, and it is galling to find that we are shoved to the sidelines at a time when just those abilities are crucial not only to our own well being, but that of our children.
My question, and I'm sure other people have this same question, is "Where do these attorneys get the nerve?"
Only legal corruption, the erosion of constitutional rights, the complete indifference to the law, which exists in family court, along with the steady disempowerment of litigants represented by attorneys in family court could have led to such an outrageous and blatently illegal situation for litigants in family courts throughout this State.
It has gotten to the point where litigants have reported to me that attorneys have threatened, verbally abused, and slandered the reputations of their clients in order to get their clients to do what they are told.
I have also heard that attorneys agree well in advance who will win or lose a case, and that outcomes are all determined by various systems of barter and pay back which have nothing to do with actually practicing law.
Once you get to a place like that, where attorneys are abusing their own clients, and selling their own clients out to the opposing side, you can't even pretend to say that there is a functioning legal system in this State.
So to answer the question of who is the boss? Who is making the decisions? Make no mistake. It sure ain't you!
No comments:
Post a Comment