BAUER V. BAUER, FA 97 071559 SINGING KUMBAYA, AND THE BOUNDS OF ADVOCACY (5)

Continued from part 4

Remember how we used to act during the old demonstrations of the 60s and 70s?  We'd wave the posters, chant "The people, united, will never be defeated", raise our fists, applaud all the speaches and have a high old time?  Then everyone joined hands, sang kumbaya and then we'd be good for another day. 

Something kind of similar happens in a Connecticut Divorce.  The attorney's rip each of you apart, and bludgeon your kids; they give you the devil's handshake, and then we are all supposed to stand in a circle and sing Kumbaya!  No seriously.  You're laughing.  I know you are laughing.  Stop it.  Ok. 

Of course, there is a little bit of a problem with that, particularly in this case, $400,000 later.  You are right.

Judge Bishop acknowledged that at the end of his Memorandum of Decision.  He states, "Attorney Santy [the GAL] is commended for his commitment to Gregory..."  Damn I would be committed too for the amount of money he got!  "At an early stage in the litigation, defendant's counsel (Attorney Eliot Nerenberg) instructed Attorney Santy not to communicate ex parte with Mrs. Bauer.  Based on my observations during trial, I believe that this prevention of direct, unhampered communication between Attorney Santy and Mrs. Bauer had a chilling and polarizing effect." 

Oh, Eliot how could you!  I am so disappointed.  It would never occur to me that you had such an appetite for filthy lucre that you would allow a chilling and polarizing atmosphere to develop thus costing the parties considerably more legal fees, particularly fees owed to you.   

Apparently, Judge Bishop concedes that, according to the Rules of Professional Conduct 4.2 in the CT Practice Book, Eliot was well within his rights to act as he did.  However, what Judge Bishop acknowledges, and quite crucially so, is that "Rules adopted for the handling of traditional civil and criminal litigation may not have an equal applicability to family litigation where counsel have a special responsibility to 'spike the forensic guns' and to foster an environment in which the parties are enabled to come to voluntary resolution of their intra-family dispute." Jackson v. Jackson, 2 Conn. App. 179. 

Golly gee.  Why didn't anyone tell me about this.  Spike the forensic guns!  So they have a special responsibility, do they!  I hope they take that very seriously.  Yeah, right.  So, that is not all.  There is more. 

Judge Bishop continues on to say, "The Rules of Professional Conduct may not adequately cover the role of counsel in family dispute resolution.  In 1991, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers published standards of conduct for attorneys involved in family matters" called the "Bounds of Advocacy".  They provided a revision of this standard in 1995.  Judge Bishop says, "While neither of these standards is binding, both are instructive and relevant. 

According to Judge Bishop, The Preliminary Statement in the Bounds of Advocacy states, in part:  "Existing codes often do not provide adequate guidance to the matrimonial lawyer.  First, their emphasis on zealous representation of individual clients in criminal and some civil cases is not always appropriate in family law matters."  

Bishop continues on with his quotation, "In many ways, matrimonial practice is unique.  Family disputes occur in a volatile and emotional atmosphere.  It is difficult for matrimonial lawyers to represent the interests of their clients without addressing the interests of other family members.  Unlike most other concluded disputes in which the parties may harbour substantial animosity without practical effect, the parties to matrimonial disputes may be required to interact for years to come.  In addition, many matrimonial lawyers believe themselves obligated to consider the best interests of children, regardless of which family member they represent." 

So, if the professional standards for Attorneys published by the American Academy of Matrimonial lawyers is so important, and attorney's should abide by them, how come they are not in the Connecticut Practice Book or mentioned somewhere, somehow.  I mean, I have been in my divorce for years and years and I never even heard of these standards. 

That hurts.  I mean.  Didn't anyone want to include me so I'd know what I could reasonably expect from my attorney?  I'm crying now.  My hanky is wet!  One moment.  Let me blow.............Ok, now.  Feeling better.  So, let me see.

Rule 2.15 of the "Bounds of Advocacy", "An attorney should encourage the settlement of marital disputes through negotiation, mediation, or arbitration."  Oh, and here is another lovely one: 

Rule 2.6, "When representing an unimpaired child, counsel should take appropriate measures to protect the child from harm that may be incurred as a result of the litigation by striving to expedite the proceedings and encouraging settlement in order to reduce trauma that can be caused by the litigation." 

And I assume that "encouraging settlement" means more than just expecting me to give away all my rights while the other side gets all the rights.  Underlying the concept of "settlement" is the concept of mutual concessions, I would think. 

How come there is all this good stuff in cases reported by the court, like here, but I've never seen these ideas promoted anywhere else, like in my own case or that of any of my friends, who have been victimized by horrible, multiyear, NPD driven divorces.  Do attorneys ever really read those professional ethics, or are they too busy scooping up the dough and running to the bank? 

I am seriously thinking of grievance.  No, maybe a lovely Motion to Sanction.  Yes, that's right...

For more information regarding the professional ethics of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers as stated in their publication "Bounds of Advocacy", see the link below:

http://www.willicklawgroup.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Bounds-of-Advocacy,-1991-ed..pdf