NEW LAWYERS GET THEIR FEDERAL ADA RIGHTS, THEIR CLIENTS ARE STILL WAITING!

Journalist Jay Stapleton of the CT Law Tribune reports the following, "The Connecticut Bar Examining Committee has unanimously voted to change some of the questions it asks of new law license applicants regarding any mental health conditions they might have, making it less likely that law students will avoid being treated for substance abuse or depression out of fear it might ruin their careers.

Advocates for privacy rights, including former Supreme Court Justice David Borden and the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, had called for questions to be narrowed or removed altogether. Borden questioned the value of even asking law license applicants about their mental health, saying, "it's impossible to predict future misconduct."

The CBAC was apparently listening. At its last meeting, the CBEC voted to change the questions it will ask about mental health in order to determine "fitness" of applicants seeking a law license. According to the changes approved at the April 25 meeting, starting in February 2015, the bar examiners will ask more narrow questions focused on the applicants' conduct and competence, rather than general questions about any past diagnosis."

For more information on this topic, please click on the link below:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202654036299/State-Restricts-Mental-Health-Questions-To-New-Lawyers#ixzz30t2bJEaN

EX-PRISONERS COMPENSATED TO THE TUNE OF MILLIONS WHILE EX-PATIENTS GET NOTHING. WHY?

By Elizabeth A. Richter

I recall that when I was living more closely within the psych patient community the story went around that when average citizens were asked who they would prefer living next to--a criminal or a former psych patient--70% or more would prefer to live next to a criminal. 

In other words, give me a murderer or a rapist any day, but for goodness sake, don't give me a neighbor with a mental health disability.  On the scale of worth, prisoners were on one level and then several stories down, well beneath the basement there was us, the nutcases.  We were the lowest of the low.

 

This impression of the low esteem in which we recovering individuals get held, in contrast to prisoners, is no better illustrated than in the recent article in the CT Law Tribune regarding the compensation for individuals who have been wrongly imprisoned for crimes they did not commit.   

 

At the same time the State is considering compensation for persons wrongly imprisoned, a long lasting (eight year) Olmstead case is finally coming to a close.  This is a case where persons with mental health disabilities were improperly warehoused in nursing homes, often in locked units, in violation of Title II of federal ADA law for years.

 

Here we have two similar stories of folks wrongly held in institutions against their will, but with one group receiving a very financially remunerative outcome--former prisoners, while the other--persons with mental illness who are in recovery--gets absolutely nothing, unless you want to call the moral high ground something!

 

Among the prisoners, exonerated by definitive DNA evidence, is James Tillman who served 18 years for a rape that it turned out he did not commit.  In 2007, he received $5 million in compensation for the injustice he endured.

Tillman's case set the tone.  After his case, the State Legislature voted through a statute establishing the basis for any compensation for other people who come forward with claims of wrongful conviction and imprisonment.  Part of the process involves going before the State Claims Commissioner, J. Paul Vance Jr.  who must OK any of the payments that the State makes in situations like this.

There are more cases coming up on the horizon at this point.  One, according to the CT Law Tribune, is that of Kenneth Ireland who spent 21 years in prison for a rape and murder that he didn't commit.  Apparently, Mr. Ireland is looking for between $5.5 to $8 million in compensation for false imprisonment.

 

Another case is that of Miguel Roman who was in prison for 20 years for a murder that we now understand was committed by somebody else.  Roman hopes to obtain $8.5 million in compensation. 

 

In these cases, the State of Connecticut is represented by the Attorney General's office.  In regard to Kenneth Ireland's case, the Attorney General has stated that "the state will not contest the compensation he seeks."

 

Title II of Federal ADA law also maintains provisions for compensation for individuals with disabilities whose rights are violated by government agencies.  They are entitled to compensation for the legal fees incurred in the prosecution of their cases and further they are allowed civil penalties which may not exceed $55,000 for a first violation or $110,000 for any subsequent violation.  Were these guidelines actually followed up on, this could add up to millions of dollars in compensation, but from what I see in the State of Connecticut, this isn't happening.

 

Why?  I am assuming it is because while the Attorney General takes a back seat and doesn't dispute compensation for prisoners denied their freedom, the very same Attorney General absolutely opposes compensation for persons with mental health disabilities who were also denied their freedom.  And we are not talking for some small timeframe.  Given that the Office of Protection and Advocacy took eight years to arrive at a conclusion to their lawsuit, this means that very likely some of the people in this lawsuit were imprisoned in nursing homes in violation of their civil and constitutional rights for the entirety of those eight years. 

 

Yet the Attorney General clearly fought tooth and nail to make sure than none of these mental health clients would receive so much as a single penny from the case.  As the exhausted attorneys who fought so long and hard for the rights of their clients stated when putting together a settlement which gave their clients nothing, we recommend this settlement "in order to avoid the expenses, risks, delays, disruptions and uncertainties of further litigation."  I mean, what were they going to do?  Fight another eight years? 

But let me give you a little background regarding this case, to give you a fuller sense of how ridiculous this situation is.  In 2006, the Office of Protection and Advocacy launched a lawsuit against the CT Department of Social Services, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, the Department of Public Heath and three nursing homes charging that in violation of the Olmstead decision they were warehousing 3000 psychiatric patients in nursing homes against their will instead of allowing them to live in their communities. 

Who were these patients?  Early in the case, the Office of Protection and Advocacy provided some quick examples.  Some of the people may have changed over time, but the list from the OPA gives you a good sense of the kind of CT citizens we are talking about.

There is "Jerry" who had been at Bidwell nursing home more than three years.  He was in the facility because he had developed depression and schizophrenia.  Jerry had finished high school and had experience working in auto repair, and could cook, clean, shop and take his medications on his own.

There is "Donald" who had lived at Bidwell for more than six years.  Before living at Bidwell, he'd worked as a store clerk and engineer before he developed the symptoms of schizophrenia.  Speaking of living in the nursing home he said, "We can't even order food from the restaurants around here or go for a walk when we want to.  This is no way to live."

Then there is "Sarah" who also has schizophrenia.   She had been at Bidwell for a year and a half when the case began.  She explains that at Bidwell she can go out accompanied for four hours at a time, but the staff will take that privilege away if she doesn't do what she is told.  Sarah says that she would like to live in the community so she can have more freedom.

And there is "Susan" who is in her 20s and had been at Bidwell for a year with schizo-affective and multiple personality disorder as well as a history of substance abuse.  She has attended college and worked in a grocery store.  She finds it hard to speak on the phone because of the lack of privacy at Bidwell.  I am assuming that she is restricted to the use of a hall phone which is what happens in nursing homes most of the time.

And also "Kathy" who is in her early 50s who has lived in her own apartment as well as a group home.  She has schizo-affective disorder and a history of substance abuse.  She was on the locked unit of Chelsea Place for two years, but is now on the unlocked 4th floor.  She would like to live in the community and does not need any help taking her medication, cooking, cleaning or doing laundry.  But she was told she would have to wait.

Finally, "Marjorie" who is over 65 and had been in West Rock (now closed) for more than nine years when the case began.  She has depression and a history of alcoholism, but she has been sober now for more than 10 years.  Other than AA, Marjorie would not need any support to live in the community, but at the time this brief bio was written, she had not been allowed to do so.

These are people, just like you and I, who no more committed a crime than these exonerated prisoners, but nonetheless the State denied them their freedoms and liberties solely on the basis of disability. 

 

Before we move on, please consider this.  Theoretically, if "Marjorie" had already been warehoused in West Rock for nine years when this lawsuit began, if you add an additional eight years, you have her locked up for 17 years by now against her will and in violation of her civil and constitutional rights.  And yet the State is not obligated to compensate her for this grossly abusive treatment?  I guess not.  I guess the life of an exonerated prisoner is worth millions of dollars more than the life of a person in recovery who simply wishes to live independently in his or her community along with friends and family.  I mean God forbid a mental patient think that his or her life has value!

 

In the well-known case Raymond v. Rowland conducted from 2003-2007 against the CT Department of Social Services in regard to their lack of compliance with Title II of the ADA, in advance of the fairness hearing, persons with disabilities were cautioned that "The case was brought to get changes in how DSS operates, not to get money damages for class members."  Oh, really, and is that because the class members are persons with disabilities, and how dare persons with disabilities imagine that they might have the right to financial compensation?

 

Can you imagine the exonerated prisoners who have lost years of their lives being told that it is all about improving the criminal justice system and not about the money?  Give.  Me.  A.  Break.  None of you would even think of saying such a thing.  But when it comes to people with disabilities...what?  They are supposed to be grateful and shut up?

 

Certainly, in Raymond v. Rowland attorneys fees were forthcoming to the amount of $35,000.  But when you consider that it was a three or four years case--are you kidding me?  That kind of compensation is a joke.  In the more recently resolved Office of Protection and Advocacy v. The State of CT, the suggested compensation for attorneys fees is $1,300,000 which seems like a lot until you break it up into the eight years it took to pursue the litigation.  Then the amount is ridiculously low.

 

What does this all mean?  It means that to the State of Connecticut and to its Citizens people with disabilities and, in particular, people with mental health disabilities are the garbage of the earth. 

 

Before you start arguing with me regarding this point, please keep in mind that the State of Connecticut knew very well that they were wrongly warehousing folks in nursing homes well before the Office of Protection and Advocacy filed their lawsuit in 2006.  Our Supreme Court ruled that this was the case in Olmstead v. L.C. way back in 1999.  In its ruling the Supreme Court reasoned that, "institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life." and also, "confinement in an institution severely diminishes the everyday life activities of individuals, including family relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, educational advancement, and cultural enrichment."

 

Since this was understood to be so in 1999, I'm not sure what the hold up was.  Further, in 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an Amicus Brief in support of the Office of Protection and Advocacy in this case.  What is more, an identical case being adjudicated in Illinois at around the same time came down heavily in favor of the plaintiffs and their right to be allowed to leave nursing homes and return to their communities.  Further, in 2010, Federal District Court in Connecticut supported the plaintiff's right to be considered a class, supported the right of the Office of Protection and Advocacy to bring the complaint, and also refused to dismiss the case. 

 

So, why was the case dragged out for another four years?  Why was there what the Office of Protection and Advocacy referred to as another four years of arms length negotiations?  You would think that the Attorney General and the State of Connecticut would have pangs of conscience about continuing to abuse its citizens with disabilities and stop right away, particularly when it was fully aware that this was what they were doing.  But no, they did not. 

 

What is most important to keep in mind when you think about eight years of litigation is how many thousands and thousands, oh, millions of dollars it cost for one agency of the State of Connecticut with its phalanx of attorneys to fight against another agency of the State of Connecticut with its phalanx of attorneys.  This was an unbelievable waste of our taxpayer dollars, and now, having wasted all that money, after having spent eight years fighting tooth and nail to blockade citizens with disabilities from gaining access to their rights, now, the State does not wish to compensate these citizens.  How outrageous is that?

 

There are other curiosities associated with the case conducted by the Office of Protection and Advocacy--for example, why in the eight years that it was taking place, did it never came to trial?  I'd also like to know how come the Judge in this case allowed the State of Connecticut to play around during negotiations.  But why, again, am I surprised.  The State of Connecticut cannot stand to give CT citizens with disabilities the rights they are entitled to under Federal ADA Law.  For example, the CT Department of Justice announced in January that it will be investigating the CT Judicial Branch for non-compliance with Title II of the ADA.  I have been a person with a disability for the majority of my life, and yet on March 28, 2014, I actually received a ruling from CT District Court stating that I do not have "an ADA-covered disability".  I am sure that the insurance companies--Connecticut General and Blue Cross/Blue Shield--who have paid for my treatment over the last three decades will find that quite interesting.  I mean, who is delusional here?

 

What can you say about The State of Connecticut that will throw away millions of dollars in resources and fight to the last breath before it is the least bit willing to give a single person with a disability any kind of break.

 

Soon there will be a Fairness hearing in the case Office of Protection and Advocacy v. the State of CT during which time the members of the class who are the plaintiff's (person's with mental health disabilities who were illegally incarcerated in nursing homes) will have the opportunity to express their approval or disapproval of the unfolding agreement in this case.  I am aware that some members of this class braved harassment and potential retaliation when they stepped forward to participate in this litigation.  Personally, I think they deserve a little more than just a pat on the back.

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-february-14-2006-attorney-michael.html

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202650904376?kw=Exonerated%20Ex-Inmates%20Want%20Millions&cn=20140416&pt=Connecticut%20Law%20Tribune%20Daily%20Briefing&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=Connecticut%20Law%20Tribune&slreturn=20140323131704

MARATHON CONNECTICUT OLMSTEAD CASE SLOWLY LUMBERS TO A CLOSE IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT!

By Elizabeth A. Richter

On February 14, 2006, Attorney Michael Allen of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law in Washington, D.C. delivered a speech challenging then Lieutenant Governor Sullivan with a clarion call—release the nearly 3,000 people with primary psychiatric diagnoses trapped in nursing homes here in Connecticut and allow them to live with supports in their homes and communities.

Over eight years later, with the submission to Federal District Court of an historic agreement dated April 11, 2014, it looks as though the State of Connecticut is going to do just that. 

But it didn't happen overnight! In 2006, the Office of Protection and Advocacy supported by the Bazelon Center and the pro bono assistance of the New York law firm Stroock, Stroock & Lavan launched its federal lawsuit against The Connecticut Department of Social Services, the Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, the Connecticut Department of Public health as well as the nursing homes West Rock, Bidwell, and Chelsea Place. Since that time, West Rock has closed its doors. 

This lawsuit has been going on for an extraordinarily long time. I am aware that the Office of Protection and Advocacy was gearing up to launch this lawsuit as early as 2005, and now we are almost halfway through 2014. The case includes at least 200 plaintiffs in its class action suit, but the outcome will ultimately affect thousands of Connecticut citizens with serious mental illness who are now or who at one time or another may end up in a nursing home. 

From the time that it was filed, the State attempted to have the case dismissed, but failed in the attempt when the Federal Court ruled against it in 2010. From that time onward the case remained in litigation limbo as the parties obtained stay after stay while they conducted arms length, often hostile negotiations to resolve the matter.

What has been most striking about this lawsuit is the fact that essentially, for eight years, what has been involved here is one part of the State of Connecticut (the Office of Protection and Advocacy) fighting another part of the State of Connecticut (DSS, DMHAS) costing thousands of dollars in legal fees, apparently without any visible results, until very recently. 

Yet financially speaking, getting people out of nursing homes only makes sense. While the cost of housing someone in a nursing home is approximately $60,000 per year, it costs only $22,500 per year to maintain an individual in an apartment in the community. 

Among nursing home residents, you have many elderly, disabled, as well as persons with serious mental health disabilities. The State of Connecticut is well aware that with the baby boomers expanding the population of elderly in our State, maintaining our elderly primarily in nursing homes is simply not feasible in the long run.

Thus, during the time that this case has been going on the State of Connecticut has developed a Strategic “Rebalancing” Plan to save millions of dollars by shifting residents from nursing homes back into their homes and communities where they can live with supports. Such residents who have been transitioned out of nursing homes thus far have included elderly persons and the physically disabled. 

As the Court recognized in this recent agreement, it should also include those with serious mental health issues. 

The State of Connecticut has been implementing this program since 2007 with the support of millions of dollars from federal programs such as “Money Follows the Person” enacted in 2005 as part of the Deficit Reduction Act. 

Housing people with mental health disabilities in their communities is the law. In the 1999 case Olmstead v. L.C., the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the States are required to provide services for those with mental illness in the most integrated setting possible. 

This decision was based upon the integration mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a 1990 statute which Attorney Michael Allen has equated with the “Emancipation Proclamation” for people with mental health disabilities. 

In addition, in 2010 the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of the Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy. And finally, that same year, in a similar lawsuit, the State of Illinois lost its bid to maintain mental health clients in nursing homes in violation of the Olmstead Act.

So has there been any progress up to this point? Recently, I called the Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction services and asked them straightforwardly: has there been a reduction in the number of persons with mental health diagnoses in nursing homes since 2006 when the OPA lawsuit was filed. They told me that they no longer collect that kind of information. 

However, according to the online journal “Heath Affairs”, in a recent study, Connecticut was estimated to have the highest rate of people with mental illness in nursing homes in the nation. 

Yet there are signs of hope. In 2010, when Illinois lost its lawsuit, nursing homes implemented a scare tactic campaign to discourage people with mental health disabilities from returning to their communities. As a result, only 45 people actually decided to return to the community. 

In contrast, spokesperson Laurel Reagan of the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services has stated clearly that the Department is prepared to support people in their transition into the community from nursing homes, no matter how severe the difficulty. 

In addition, the proposed settlement includes specific safeguards to prevent the use of any kinds of scare tactics which might hinder nursing home residents with mental illness from taking advantage of the new opportunity they have to live in the community. While residents with serious mental health issues will have the right to choose whether or not to take advantage of their new opportunity to live in the community, nursing homes will be required to educate nursing home residents regarding what is involved in living in the community, and also regarding what supports will be available to them once they are placed in the their new homes. In addition, even if residents reject the option of living in the community, nursing homes will still be required to remind residents that the option is available and that they are encouraged to take advantage of it. 

In addition, a remedial expert, Mr. Kevin Martone, M.S.W., will be hired to monitor the progress of transitioning nursing home residents with mental illness back into the community. Mr. Martone, a native of New Jersey and a graduate of Rutgers University has extensive experience in this area. He is currently Executive Director of the Technical Assistance Collaborative in Boston, MA. Mr. Martone will submit reports regarding the progress of the state agencies when it comes to returning residents to their communities. Further, he will identify barriers to getting the job done and provide recommendations for overcoming those barriers. 

Of course, there is a caution in this situation. It makes sense that folks who recall some of the more disastrous results of the deinstitutionalization of psychiatric patients during the 60s and 70s may be justifiably alarmed by the thought of another round. 

We know that many people with mental health issues are currently in jail simply because they did not have the kinds of community supports to which they are entitled under Olmstead. Thus, if we are going to get people out of the nursing homes, we must ensure that they receive legitimate community supports. From the plans that I saw detailed in the Settlement agreement, this kind of support will be in place. 

Attorney Michael Allen is no longer in the case. He left the Bazelon Center a few years ago and is now working in private practice. When I spoke to him, he repeated his original point that the State of Connecticut must abide by Olmstead and allow people with mental health diagnoses to live in their communities. 

Right now, as negotiations continue, the lead attorney Nancy Alisberg has repeated this sentiment. A considerable amount of financial resources, all manner of preparations have been put into place to do just that. So it is very exciting that on the verge of the upcoming Easter season, the season of hope, and anticipation of new life, that during the Passover when we recall the Israelites release from Egypt and the beginning of their journey back to The Promised Land, it looks as though nursing homes will follow through and return residents to homes in their communities to begin their new lives. This is only fitting. 

One down note is that, under this agreement, Members of the class will not receive financial remuneration for their pain and suffering which they endured while being held illegally in nursing homes. The Defendants will only pay $1,300,000 in attorney's fees. which I don't imagine will begin to cover the costs of conducting the lawsuit. But the benefits that will emerge for residents and to their families are incalculable.

THE PRICE ATTORNEYS PAY FOR BEING SCUMBAGS: SUICIDE AND DEATH, PART II

I can recall when I first began to have problems in my own divorce.  At one point, I was calling around to speak to attorneys to find one who would be willing to work with me. Sometimes when I was calling around, I ended up having conversations with attorneys focusing on the many litigants who end up committing suicide.  I certainly believe that the subject of litigants and suicide might be one worth exploring. 

None of these attorneys mentioned that there is an issue in their own profession.  But, as my discussion in the first part of this report indicated, there are is a serious public health problem in connection to attorneys and their high rate of suicide.

Among the factors I mentioned involved in the high rate of suicide among attorneys is the drive to make money at all costs.  But in addition, another issue is that many attorneys are terribly overworked and overburdened.  On the website "Legal Cheek" one blogger put it this way, "The prevailing culture of 24/7 availability only makes matters worse.  And then there is the unwritten expectation that lawyers should put their work and firm first."

 

Another factor is personality.  According to journalist Deborah Cassens Weiss, "Personality characteristics often associated with lawyers, such as perfectionism and competitiveness, when combined with depression may  be contributing to a higher suicide rate in the legal profession." 

I noticed these qualities frequently when I worked as a temporary employee when I first arrived in Hartford in the late 1980s.  The attorneys I worked with were frequently very stressed out, very impatient and brusque, and unwilling to allow me any time to get oriented when I first arrived in their offices. 

In fact, I can recall that it was in an attorney's office that I had my first experience of actually calling my temp agency and asking them to "get me out of here right away!"  This attorney firm was criticizing my work even before I had a chance to walk from the front entrance over to the desk they had assigned me to. 

This was despite the fact that in those days I was highly skilled as an administrative assistant -- I was the fastest typist in my class, and I was also able to take stenographic dictation.  But it wasn't enough--I could tell within the first ten minutes. 

If attorneys have to work in such environments, and they aren't able to send out an S.O.S. to their supervisors, I can imagine how difficult it must be for them. 

Commentator Stuart Mauney also suggests that the problem is that the legal profession attracts pessimists.  As he put it, "Recent studies have shown that in all graduate school programs, in all professional fields except one, optimists outperform pessimists.  The one exception:  law school." 

He further noted, "Pessimism helps lawyers excel by making us skeptical of what our clients, our witnesses, opposing counsel, and judges tell us.  It helps us anticipate the worst and thus prepare for it."  I will say that people who are pessimistic are actually more realistic, or even more sane than the average, if you want to put it that way.  Even so, pessimism is bad for our mental health! 

 

 

Attorneys can also end up being socially isolated because they have argumentative and abrasive personalities that again, might make them successful in the courtroom, but also make them unpopular.  In general, Americans do not feel comfortable with intellectual exploration, critical thinking, or challenging ideas.  Instead, they value concensus and cooperation. 

America's homegrown promoter of this kind of harmonious  vision is Dale Carnegie of "How to Make Friends and Influence People" fame whose prime tenet was , "Don't Argue!"  Of course, if attorneys didn't argue, they couldn't earn a living!  

Has anyone watched the House of Commons in England confront the Prime Minister on television?  If you can, you should watch it sometime.  In these debates, representatives interrupt each other, they contradict each other, confront one another, and above all they challenge the Prime Minister directly and ask for immediate responses to the questions they pose.  If representatives don't get the kinds of answers they are looking for, they will call out the Prime Minister and each other on the flaws to their comments and demand better answers.  

This kind of direct confrontation and debate is very uncomfortable to most Americans.  Then look at attorneys and see that attorneys behave this way all the time!  It is their job to be this way!  

Unfortunately, however, annoying, irritating, demanding and challenging personalities simply do not play well in your average social situation, and for attorneys who cannot turn themselves off after court is over, this could lead to considerable social isolation. 

 

Further compounding the social isolation that might result purely based on personality, the practice of law has become increasingly isolated in recent years.  Some of this is the result of advances in technology which mean that attorneys can get a lot of their work done alone in their offices typing into a computer.  Thus, in an article published in the CT Law Tribune, one attorney, Frederic C. Ury wrote, "Unless you attend court on a regular basis or participate in bar association events, you no longer interact face-to-face with your fellow attorneys.  Instead, face-to-face has given way to Facebook, listservers, e-mail, text messaging and sometimes the antiquated telephone."

 

After reading this information, I have a better understanding of why the CT Bar Examiners are concerned about identifying those people who might have difficulties and seeking to monitor them.  However, it is always the spirit in which these tasks are done which counts.  It is one thing if you are seeking to undercut and stigmatize.  It is another thing to keep track so that you can intervene and be supportive if anything comes up and if you are trying to convey that help is available in time of need. 

 

On that note, for attorneys who need support here in CT there is a program known as Lawyers Concerned For Lawyers, which offers complete confidentiality.  

If you are interested in obtaining more information about this program, please click on the link below:

http://www.lclct.org/resources.htm

Online, I also took a look at another blog which I think would be helpful; see below:

http://www.lawyerswithdepression.com/

THE PRICE ATTORNEYS PAY FOR BEING SCUMBAGS--SUICIDE AND DEATH: PART I

As a Court Watcher, I have heard many attorneys point the finger at litigants and say he or she has a mental health disability and needs supervised visitation, or should be denied access to the children. 

 

Turns out this is a bit of the kettle calling the pot black because attorneys have some of the highest rates of mental illness in the country! 

 

From the articles I have read on the subject, this means that I am supposed to have more compassion for attorneys because of the sad fate they have in store for them because of the profession they have chosen.  One commentator said, you know that joke that goes, "How do you describe hundreds of lawyers at the bottom of the Ocean?  Answer:  A good start!"  Apparently, that joke isn't so funny in the light of the reality that there is an epidemic of depression and suicide among attorneys throughout the nation. 

 

Of course, I can't help responding that this epidemic is pretty much self-inflicted, and is nothing in comparison to the pain and suffering of the victims these attorneys leave behind.  But perhaps that is an argument for another day.

 

Let's get the data.  What I did was review several articles on the issue of attorneys, depression, and suicide and the following is the sum total of what was said:

 

1.  Lawyers, as a group, are 3.6 times more likely to experience depression than the general population;

 

2.  Of 104 occupations, lawyers were the most likely to suffer depression;

 

3.  A 1989 National Institute for Safety and Health found that male lawyers between the ages of 20 and 64 are more than twice as likely to die from suicide than men of the same age in other occupations;

 

4.  In 1990, a quality of life survey by the North Carolina Bar Association revealed that almost 26% of respondents exhibit symptoms of clinical depression, and almost 12% said they contemplated suicide at least once a month.  Studies in other states have found similar results.  In recent years, several states have been averaging one lawyer suicide per month.

 

5.  A 1991 North Carolina Bar Association study found that 25% of lawyers suffered symptoms of anxiety three or more times a month in the last year;

 

6.  In a 1997 study, suicide accounted for 10.8% of deaths among lawyers in the U.S. and Canada, and was the third leading cause of death among this group;

 

7.  Furthermore, the study concluded that the suicide rate of attorneys was 6 times as much as the rate of the general population;

 

8.  According to a study by Prof. Andy Benjamin (U. of Washington) by the spring of their 1L year, 32% of law students are clinically depressed, despite being no more depressed than the general public (about 8%) when they entered law school.  By graduation, this number has risen to 40%.  While this percentage dropped to 17% two years after graduation, this rate of depression was still double that of the general public;

 

9.  Suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death among attorneys, but only the 10th leading cause of death in the general population;

 

10.  Attorneys are 3 times as likely to be depressed as the general population;

 

11.  Attorneys are 2 times as likely to be addicted to drugs and alcohol as the general population;  (Then people who struggle with substance abuse are about six times more likely to kill themselves)

 

12. A John Hopkins study found lawyers have the highest rate of depression of any profession;

 

These are pretty sobering statistics.

 

The majority of individuals who are at risk are lawyers and judges aged 48-65, trial lawyers, or as one journalist put it, "It's men in their 50s." 

 

So what is going on?  Why is this happening? 

 

One person, Yvette Hourigan of the Kentucky Lawyer Assistance Program speculated that the reason is that legal work involves a high level of stress. 

 

As she put it, "There are a lot of high stress professions.  However, when the surgeon goes into the surgical suite to perform his surgery, they don't send another physician in to try to kill the patient.  You know, they're all on the same team trying to do one job.  In the legal profession, adversity is the nature of our game." 

 

I think that what brought this issue to the forefront of so many people's minds was the 2009 suicide of Attorney Mark Levy, one of the most skilled appellate lawyers in the country, and friend to many powerful individuals in Washington.  He was around 59 years old and had just been let go from the firm Kilpatrick Stockton when he came to work in the morning, pulled out a gun and shot himself in the head.  

 

While many expressed puzzlement for his decision to kill himself, after a while the picture emerged of a profession for whom money is the bottom line. 

 

An attorney who cannot generate major income by generating hefty bills to clients will not be successful.  

 

Unfortunately, the focus on cold cash was an approach to the legal profession that Attorney Levy did not feel comfortable with and this was a substantial reason for his death.   

 

As journalist Richard B. Schmitt put it, "Levy loved the practice of law, but he struggled with the business of law.  Without a firm stable of paying clients, he grew vulnerable in a world where rainmaking is often valued over skill and judgment." 

 

Further, "He was not interested in compromising to make law a business."

 

And "Levy never relished the role of salesman." "He was a superb lawyer but he wasn't a business-getter." 

 

Finally, "his disdain for marketing and client recruitment again seemed to undermine his standing with firm management." 

 

In a field such as the law, where attorneys and their supervisors expect to make six digit salaries or more, ideals, ethics, and sometimes basic human compassion end up on the wayside, as we litigants in family court have observed and experienced. 

 

But the attorneys who make those kinds of decisions to let go of basic human decency inevitably pay the price for that, if not professionally, then indeed personally.  If you are a good person and you don't go along with the "money is everything" mentality, you are doomed to suffer in terms of your career.  So, in a way, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. 

 

(More on this topic in Part II.) 

ALAN DERSHOWITZ OFFERS TO ASSIST IN HELPING TO FREE JUSTINA!

According to Alan Dershowitz, Massachusetts law states that in a situation where there is a medical disagreement between professionals, only the parents have the right to decide. 

 

For more on this, please click on the link below:

http://therightscoop.com/alan-dershowitz-offers-to-help-freejustina-says-law-is-clear-and-on-the-side-of-the-parents/

THIS NEWS JUST IN RE JUSTINA, MASS STATE LEGISLATORS TO INVESTIGATE THEIR DCF!

"Massachusetts state representatives Jim Lyons (R-Andover) and Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica) will discuss an impending investigation into DCF spending on the Justina Pelletier case at a Wednesday morning news conference.

 

Representatives Lyons and Lombardo have requested that the Chairman of the House Committee on Post Audit and Oversight convene an investigation into the amount of taxpayer dollars that have been spent on the Justina Pelletier case since the state first intervened over fourteen months ago.

 

The news conference will be on Wednesday, April 2, at 11:00 A.M. on the sidewalk in front of the steps to the State House on Beacon Street. They will be joined by other State Representatives and a spokesperson for the Pelletier family."

 

For more information on this matter, please click on the link below:

 

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/04/01/legislators-will-call-for-investigation-into-dcf-after-parents-lose-custody-of-justina-pelletier/

FEDS LOOK INTO JUDICIAL BRANCH ADA COMPLIANCE!

Jay Stapleton of the CT Law Tribune reports the following:

 

"Federal authorities are reviewing the Connecticut Judicial Branch's compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, prompted by complaints it has received from two women who claim they were not provided with equal access to the courts as required under the ADA.

 

The Connecticut U.S. Attorney's Office acknowledged it has launched a review, which will look at all aspects of the state court system.

 

"This review will examine ADA complaints that the Judicial Branch has received, the responses, and the accommodation process. It will also examine the training that the judges and support staff receive regarding the ADA," John B. Hughes, an assistant U.S. attorney and chief of the Connecticut office's Civil Division, wrote in a letter to one of the women who brought complaints."

For more information on this topic, please read the following link:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202648960110/Feds-Look-Into-Judicial-Branch-ADA-Compliance#ixzz2xerzmNRi

CONNECTICUT CITIZEN, JUSTINA PELLETIER, FALSELY IMPRISONED IN MASSACHUSETTS! SEE WEBSITE!

For more information on the Justina Pelletier case, please click on the link below:

http://justiceforjustina.com/

CONNECTICUT CITIZEN--JUSTINA PELLETIER--KIDNAPPED BY STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS!

A Massachusetts juvenile court judge on Tuesday awarded "permanent" custody of a Connecticut teen at the center of an interstate custody battle to the state of Massachusetts in a major setback for her family fighting for her return.

 

The ruling by Judge Joseph Johnston leaves it up to the state Department of Children and Families to decide whether or when 15-year-old Justina Pelletier should be returned to her West Hartford home, The Boston Globe reported.

 

Justina has been in the agency's custody since last February, when her parents took her to the Bay State to get medical treatment for a rare condition called Mitochondrial diagnosis. When she was taken to Boston Children's Hospital to be treated for a negative reaction to the flu last year, doctors determined that her problems were partly psychiatric and that a prior treatment at Tufts Medical Center constituted medical abuse. They contacted DCF, which took the girl.

 

http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=22995&external=2594641.proteus.fma#quickPage_html_page_22995_content_102894006_pageNum_1

ANNE STEVENSON REPORTS THAT CT FAMILY COURT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST LITIGANTS WITH DISABILITIES AND IMPOSES INCREASED COSTS UPON THEM!

CONNECTICUT, March 11, 2014 —The US Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division confirmed in January 2014 that it has opened up an investigation into whether Connecticut judges are unfairly singling out and punishing disabled litigants caught in the State’s divorce courts. The announcement came in response to parents who complained that if the family courts even suspected a family member suffered from an impairment, judges denied them equal access to due process, took away their children, and imposed outrageous costs and fees on their families that drove them into bankruptcy and financial ruin.
“The costs courts routinely impose on families with special needs are not only outrageous, but the services are often questionable, unbeneficial, or just outright harmful the litigants ordered to pay for them,” says Peter Szymonek, a Glastonbury father with an autistic child who is also an administrator for UnitedHealthcare.

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/life/connecticut-courts-impose-outrageous-costs-on-disabled-families-11942/#EQbk70j8yU8OdUkH.99

CONNECTICUT, March 11, 2014 —The US Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division confirmed in January 2014 that it has opened up an investigation into whether Connecticut judges are unfairly singling out and punishing disabled litigants caught in the State’s divorce courts. The announcement came in response to parents who complained that if the family courts even suspected a family member suffered from an impairment, judges denied them equal access to due process, took away their children, and imposed outrageous costs and fees on their families that drove them into bankruptcy and financial ruin.
“The costs courts routinely impose on families with special needs are not only outrageous, but the services are often questionable, unbeneficial, or just outright harmful the litigants ordered to pay for them,” says Peter Szymonek, a Glastonbury father with an autistic child who is also an administrator for UnitedHealthcare.

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/life/connecticut-courts-impose-outrageous-costs-on-disabled-families-11942/#EQbk70j8yU8OdUkH.99

CONNECTICUT, March 11, 2014 —The US Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division confirmed in January 2014 that it has opened up an investigation into whether Connecticut judges are unfairly singling out and punishing disabled litigants caught in the State’s divorce courts. The announcement came in response to parents who complained that if the family courts even suspected a family member suffered from an impairment, judges denied them equal access to due process, took away their children, and imposed outrageous costs and fees on their families that drove them into bankruptcy and financial ruin.
“The costs courts routinely impose on families with special needs are not only outrageous, but the services are often questionable, unbeneficial, or just outright harmful the litigants ordered to pay for them,” says Peter Szymonek, a Glastonbury father with an autistic child who is also an administrator for UnitedHealthcare.

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/life/connecticut-courts-impose-outrageous-costs-on-disabled-families-11942/#EQbk70j8yU8OdUkH.99

CONNECTICUT, March 11, 2014 —The US Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division confirmed in January 2014 that it has opened up an investigation into whether Connecticut judges are unfairly singling out and punishing disabled litigants caught in the State’s divorce courts. The announcement came in response to parents who complained that if the family courts even suspected a family member suffered from an impairment, judges denied them equal access to due process, took away their children, and imposed outrageous costs and fees on their families that drove them into bankruptcy and financial ruin.
“The costs courts routinely impose on families with special needs are not only outrageous, but the services are often questionable, unbeneficial, or just outright harmful the litigants ordered to pay for them,” says Peter Szymonek, a Glastonbury father with an autistic child who is also an administrator for UnitedHealthcare.

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/life/connecticut-courts-impose-outrageous-costs-on-disabled-families-11942/#EQbk70j8yU8OdUkH.99

CONNECTICUT, March 11, 2014 —The US Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division confirmed in January 2014 that it has opened up an investigation into whether Connecticut judges are unfairly singling out and punishing disabled litigants caught in the State’s divorce courts. The announcement came in response to parents who complained that if the family courts even suspected a family member suffered from an impairment, judges denied them equal access to due process, took away their children, and imposed outrageous costs and fees on their families that drove them into bankruptcy and financial ruin.
“The costs courts routinely impose on families with special needs are not only outrageous, but the services are often questionable, unbeneficial, or just outright harmful the litigants ordered to pay for them,” says Peter Szymonek, a Glastonbury father with an autistic child who is also an administrator for UnitedHealthcare.

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/life/connecticut-courts-impose-outrageous-costs-on-disabled-families-11942/#EQbk70j8yU8OdUkH.99

The US Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division confirmed in January 2014 that it has opened up an investigation into whether Connecticut judges are unfairly singling out and punishing disabled litigants caught in the State’s divorce courts. The announcement came in response to parents who complained that if the family courts even suspected a family member suffered from an impairment, judges denied them equal access to due process, took away their children, and imposed outrageous costs and fees on their families that drove them into bankruptcy and financial ruin.

Whether or not someone in your family has a disability, it should not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for CT families to get divorced

 

For more information on this issue and Anne Stevenson's investigation into disability discrimination, please click on the link below:

http://www.commdiginews.com/life/connecticut-courts-impose-outrageous-costs-on-disabled-families-11942/

CALL ME CRAZY, BUT I THINK THE BAR EXAMINERS OUGHT TO FOLLOW THE LAW TOO: "ANGRY" PARENTS FIND COMMON GROUND WITH "ANGRY" ATTORNEYS!

The issue is heating up again for the legal profession.  What kinds of questions in regard to candidates' mental health treatment can the Connecticut Bar Examining Committee ask of fledgling attorneys applying for admission to the bar?

A recent article by Jay Stapleton of "The Connecticut Law Tribune" gives you a taste of the kinds of questions the Bar is currently asking.  According to Stapleton, the recent application for admission to the bar asked the question, "During the past five years, have you engaged in conduct or behavior which caused you to be  voluntarily or involuntarily treated for...disorders [such as] schizophrenia, bipolar or major depressive mood disorder, drug or alcohol abuse, impulse control disorder, kleptomania, pyromania, explosive disorder, pathological or compulsive gambling."  

(Personally, I think if they are interested, they should really check out narcissistic personality disorder as well since, as I understand it, a good majority of lawyers have that disorder.) 

What will be done if the candidate responds in the affirmative?  Apparently, "If the applicant does have a relevant history, they are required to turn over mental health records, for the CBEC to review." 

Attorneys who have been subjected to such inquiries speak about them as being degrading, humiliating, and traumatic.   

Let me reach across the great divide and embrace my brother and sister attorneys for understanding what we parents in CT Family Court have been saying ever since mental health professionals started to make their way into the court system and began their reign of terror on us.  You are absolutely correct.  Inquiries in regard to our mental health as parents has no bearing on the legal proceedings in family court, or our ability as parents, any more that such inquiries have relevance in regard to how an attorney practices law. 

As parents who have been discriminated against, stigmatized, scrutinized, labeled and subjected to the worst kind of invasion of privacy based upon our mental health history, or the fabricated reports generated by the courts once we arrived, let us say to you our brother and sister attorneys who are stuck in the same exact boat, we share your pain. 

Attorney Kathleen Flaherty's story is a case in point.  According to an article published in "The New York Times" on August 5, 2013 by Melody Moezzi, Attorney Flaherty is a CT attorney who graduated from Harvard Law School and who has bipolar disorder.  She was a member of the Massachusetts and New York bars.  Then in 1990, she applied for admission to the Connecticut Bar and was denied.  Upon appeal, she had to endure a year of hearings regarding her mental health which, according to Moezzi, "one questioner characterized as torture." 

Ultimately, Attorney Flaherty was granted conditional admission which required her to provide "a doctor's report and affidavit semi-annually" confirming she was fit to practice for a period of nine years.  According to Moezi, "No one should have to experience such humiliation.  Not just because such mental health inquiries are irrelevant and unethical, but also because they can be illegal.  The regulations implementing Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act forbid public entities to administer licensing programs that discriminate against qualified candidates on the basis of disability." 

Eureka!  Just fabulous!  Again, we are on the same ground.  Because you see, my attorney friends, and now compatriots and soulmates, (let me kiss your cheeks!) the Americans With Disabilities Act also forbids public entities such as the Connecticut Judicial Branch from discriminating against litigants on the basis of disability, which includes in its definition, "mental health disability." 

For those who need clarification, in essence, Title II of the ADA provides that no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132. 

The issue of mental health inquiries on the application to the bar has been boiling for over a decade.  In 2006, it became particularly  relevant when  the CBEC included depression as part of their general inquiry regarding mental health treatment.  This significantly extended the net in terms of people who would be identified and subjected to increased scrutiny. 

The spotlight again shone on this issue when Dr. Michael J. Herkov, a mental health consultant with the Forida State Board of Bar Examiners, published an article entitled "Mental Illness and the Practice of Law" in the March 2013 edition of "The Bar Examiner" 

In this article, Dr. Herkov attempted to provide some guidelines for when it would make sense to investigate a candidate further before allowing him or her to proceed with practicing law.  This article prompted a written response in a Letter to the Editor of "The Bar Examiner" signed by 43 "lawyers with mental health conditions, mental health experts, and disability civil rights practitioners" who protested the presumptions behind Dr. Herkov's attempt to establish some guidelines for screening applicants to the bar who have mental health disabilities. 

What this does, states this letter to the editor, is create "a rebuttable presumption that mental illness may equal an incapacity to practice law unless and until "proven" otherwise.  These are the very prejudices and stereotypes that the ADA prohibits and is designed to eliminate." 

Yes, yes, I agree.  In the same way, attempts to screen parents in CT Family Court in order to determine whether they should be allowed to be parents creates a very similar rebuttable presumption regarding parenting, and it is just as wrong to do that to parents as it is to do that to attorneys! 

The letter continues on to say, "we contend that the bar's goal of protecting the public against unfit practitioners and preserving the integrity of the profession is best served by targeting questions to a person's behaviors and conduct." 

This makes absolute sense to me in regard to my parenting.  What difference does it make what diagnosis I have if I feed my children three meals a day, provide them with a roof over their heads and beds to sleep in, pay their basic expenses, make sure they are clothed and have their books when they board the bus for school, and stand there waiting when they get off the bus. If I have a record of getting my children to all their after school activities and doctor's appointments in a responsible manner, why do you need to put me through a psychological examination, when it is what I have done to further my children's best interests that matters, not what labels you can slap on me. 

Seriously, in the scheme of things, if you have full information regarding what I have done with my children, what difference does a label make? 

The letter continues on to say, it is a well-established fact "that a mental health condition or history of treatment does not in itself preclude one from a successful, productive, responsible life as an attorney." 

Likewise, the same material does not, "in itself preclude one from" having a successful, productive, and responsible life as a Mom or Dad. 

That is the bottom line. 

The letter continues on to say more.  Apparently, Dr. Herkov wrote extensively about what he saw as the correlation between mental health diagnosis and good character.  The signers of the letter to the editor, however, find this correlation completely offensive stating, "The empirical evidence for this kind of prediction is notoriously limited, and, thus, when used in this way, in many contexts, legally impermissible and ethically approaching what many would deem as unconscionable." 

Unconscionable.  Unconscionable.  That is what I call the behavior of judges in CT Family Court who point their fingers at litigants and accuse them of having mental health disorders without any kind of testimonial or documentary evidence. 

That is what I call it when judges and attorneys deny litigants their rights to due process as well as their human, constitutional and parental rights based upon a mental health diagnosis or history. 

Further, the writers of this letter state, "no evidence indicates that mental health providers or bar examiners can predict inappropriate behavior on the basis of a person's mental health history.  What the evidence does show is that past behavior and not mental health condition is the most reliable predictor of future behavior." 

Right, that is exactly right.  This is why assigning psychiatrists to do custody evaluations and ordering psychological evaluations are completely irrelevant, because the ability to parent, in the same way as the ability practice law, has nothing to do with a mental health label, and everything to do with a persons behavior up to that time. 

Finally, the letter states that assessments in regard to a candidate's fitness to work as an attorney "should comply with the ADA's mandate that persons with disabilities, including mental disabilities, be assessed as to their abilities, not disabilities." 

Parents, also, should be assessed in regard to their parenting based upon their abilities, not their disabilities. 

I couldn't agree more. 

More recently, on January 31, 2014, Attorney David McGuire and Sandra Staub of the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut sent a letter to retired Judge Anne Dranginis, Chair of the CBEC asking the Committee to remove these questions in regard to mental health background from the applications to the Bar. 

In addition, recently the U.S. Department of Justice indicated that states which inquire into mental health condition or treatment when assessing a candidate's fitness to practice law are in violation of Title II of the ADA. 

Samuel Bagenatos, a University of Michigan professor and disability law expert agrees that under Title II of Federal ADA law, the focus should be on what people are capable of doing, not on their medical condition.  And further Bagenatos stated, "That is the law, plain and simple.  As the gatekeepers to the legal profession, the bar should know and follow the law." 

Likewise, litigants in CT Family Court think that Family Court should obey the law as well.  For once, we all have common ground.  It seems no one likes to be bullied, harassed, stigmatized or discriminated against based upon a label, particularly when it is against the law.