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 sorted by relevance for query self represented. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query self represented. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday, October 3, 2011

RICK GREEN MAKES US LAUGH WITH SHOUT OUT TO LAWYERS ASKING THEM TO ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE!

Mr. Rick Green, a commentator for The Hartford Courant published an editorial on Friday, September 30, 2011 challenging attorneys, particularly large legal firms to step in and "aid the poor".  Isn't that hilarious!?!  A reporter actually believes that attorneys give a hoot about the poor.

What is this guys problem?  Is he mental or something?  Hasn't he heard the running jokes about attorneys such as the following: 

Question:  What do sperm and attorneys have in common?  Answer:  One in a million becomes a human being!

Question: How do you know an attorney is lying?  Answer:  His lips are moving. 

Question:  You are trapped in an elevator with a tiger, a rattlesnake and a lawyer. Your gun only has two bullets.  What should you do?  Answer:  Shoot the lawyer twice to make sure he is dead. 

Question:  What's wrong with lawyer jokes?  Answer:  Lawyers don't think they are funny and nobody else thinks they are jokes!  

Seriously, what's the problem with this guy Rick.  Where has he been?  Lost on a desert island somewhere?  Ok, ok, I'll stop cracking the jokes.  Let me get serious about this problem here. 

Apparently, according to Mr. Green, in divorce, domestic abuse, eviction, and foreclosure cases more and more folks are representing themselves which results in a a situation in which the Court is not as "fair" as it ought to be. 

Fair?  Fair?  Ok, I'm laughing so much my sides ache.  Ricky actually thinks the courts ought to be fair?  Really?  Boy, from my experience of the Court, and that of so many other people, particularly protective mothers, I would never have known that the courts were supposed to be fair.  What's going on doesn't look fair to me.  I wonder--has this guy Rick actually been in Court so that he would know what's going on, because I think any one of us could share with him--hello, the Courts are not fair.  And if you don't like it, too bad for you, because the Court couldn't care less. 

Ok, this is interesting--apparently, it looks as though around 85% of all family court cases have an least one self represented party.  That is definitely an increase from when I last looked the numbers up when I heard around 70% of family cases had a self-represented party. 

Apparently, in Rockville Court almost all of the cases have a self-represented party.  And God bless them too, because at least that way when these self-represented parties speak, they know that they are getting to ask for what they want to ask for and make the statements about their cases that they want made instead of having some dick lawyer shut them up.  They may not win, but at least they can get what they have to say on record. 

And let's get real, there isn't really a problem with self representation; the problem is that judges are so prejudiced against self represented parties that they routinely rule against them.  Then, since this prejudiced kind of ruling often results in injustice, self-represented parties simply file appeals or file additional motions to rectify the wrongs done to them which leads to what Ricky tells us is a court system that is "clogged." 

That sure is correct.  Repeated and unrelenting cases of Injustice sure do clog the good old system. He got it right there.  

And Ricky has it right as well that it is the poor representing themselves that causes the problem, or rather the newly poor.  Because, you see, these self-represented parties might have started out with a little nest egg for themselves, they may have had retirement plans, maybe a little real estate after many years of backbreaking hard work, but then they hired your average family attorney in Connecticut, and you see, after that attorney sucked these self represented parties dry of every dime they had, they then became poor and needy of "help" from the same kind of attorney that exploited them in the first place. 

Do you want to know how much it should actually cost to get a divorce in Connecticut it is such a simply matter--maybe $500.00. 

How then do cases start vacuuming up multiple thousands of dollars in legal fees?  I'll tell you how, from the vicious and exploitative practices of these very attorneys Ricky thinks should offer up their assistance for "free". 

Judge William Bright is worried that self represented parties don't know what they are doing?  Is he kidding?  If you go to any court service center all the forms you need in order to obtain a divorce along with explanatory material is freely available along with the assistance of a law clerk who will spoon feed you through it.  If you don't know what you are doing as a self-represented party, you should be ashamed of yourself.  And that is without bothering to google all the information you need or go to the library where the librarian will show you all the reference material you need in order to get your legal matter completed. 

No, no, no, what Judge Bright really doesn't like are the litigants who are not represented by attorneys who will stab their clients in the back and manipulate them into agreements that are not in their best interests, get them out of the court system, and back onto the street minus all their money, their children, and whatever self respect they might have had.  Litigants who are represented by attorneys are far more easily manipulated into shutting up and doing what they are told.  This is the real need this article seeks to meet, the need for attorneys who will make deals with other attorneys and with judges in back rooms and screw their clients. 

That way the Court, judges, and attorneys can eliminate that pesky issue of "fairness"  and justice and the constitutional rights of American citizens, concepts that are violated and ignored daily and hourly in our broken judicial system. 

Make no mistake.  Our legal system is corrupt, our legal system is evil, our legal system is harmful to the most vulnerable, to the strong, the weak, the average honest citizen, to us all.  In fact, legal rights are an illusion to all but the elite few who are wealthy enough and well connected enough to obtain them. 

So don't be fooled.  This editorial isn't about helping the poor and the less fortunate.  It's about continuing to shut up people who are self represented, who have investigated how the law is supposed to work, i.e. with fairness and justice, and who demand their legal rights.  Yes, of course they have no idea what they are doing, because if they did they would know that the last place on earth to expect fairness and justice would be in a Connecticut Courtroom. 

The legal profession should be ashamed, and not only the legal profession, but also journalists such as Mr. Rick Green who fail to dig deeper and investigate fully, and then tell fake stories fed to them by corrupt court insiders, ones that gloss over what is really going on and allow the corruption of the court system, particularly the family court system, to continue on without any scrutiny or accountability.  

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

FOR JUDGES, BULLYING SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES IS A WAY OF LIFE: JUDGE CORINNE KLATT REPEATEDLY POUNDS KATHI SORRENTINO IN MAY 23, 2014 CUSTODY HEARING!

In an earlier blog on the Kathi Sorrentino case, I had spoken of the book "Man's Search For Meaning" in which Viktor Frankl stated that of all the many sufferings he endured in the Nazi Concentration camps, the worst he had to bear were not the physical privations, but the verbal abuse he had to put up with on a daily basis. When asked, "Why was this so?" his answer was, "Because it was so unfair." 

The context in which Mr. Frankl's words make the most sense in our Family Courts is in regard to how Judges bully and badger self-represented parties during hearings.  In ways that are very predictable, judges treat the represented party as if he can do no wrong, while judges consistently browbeat, harass, and pass judgment on the character of the self represented parties. This is one of the most unfair aspects of our corrupt Family Court system.

This phenomenon represents an ongoing, hidden disgrace in terms of how the Court treats litigants in Family Courts throughout the State of Connecticut.  In the hearing that took place on May 23, 2014, Kathi Sorrentino fell victim to the policy of abusing self-represented parties, and thus ended up losing custody of her son, Storm.

In this blog, I am referring to Judge Corinne Klatt who conducted Kathi Sorrentino's trial, but the bottom line is the techniques judges use in abusing self represented parties are well known and clearly judges discuss and share approaches.  So all of them stand guilty of the same abusive behavior, not just any single judge. 

Disregarding Court Rules:

The most common piece of nonsense Judges allow in hearings with self represented parties is to allow the opposing attorney to submit motions right when the hearing starts.  This is a violation of the due process right to know what you are being accused of in advance of the proceedings.  Thus, with Kathi Sorrentino, Dr. Eric Frazer submitted a status report that Kathi hadn't had the opportunity to see prior to the hearing.  Second, in Kathi Sorrentino's case, the judge allowed the opposing attorney to switch around the order of the witnesses right in the middle of the hearing which gave him considerable advantage.  As long as attorneys can manipulate the legal proceedings at will and a self-represented party has no recourse for that, it is unlikely that a self-represented party will ever have a fair hearing.

Often, judges will mislead self-represented litigants about court procedures as a way to disrupt their legal defense.  For instance, in my case the Judge told me that I did not have to object to decisions I disagreed with because the rules of the CT Practice Book had changed and objections were no longer necessary to preserve your right to appeal.  In fact, this was totally untrue. 

Likewise, Judge Corinne Klatt told Kathi Sorrentino that you are not allowed to object to a question that the opposing attorney posed, when in fact, of course you can.  Also, Judge Klatt told Kathi she was not allowed to object to an answer.  Ok, so you might not be able to "object" to an answer, but you can certainly expose the weaknesses in an answer during later examination.  

At other times when Kathi Sorrentino was legitimately standing up to state her objections, Judge Klatt responded with, "Please, stop interrupting." and "Stop shouting out in the courtroom."  So an attorney who objects is objecting, but a self represented party who objects is interrupting or shouting. This kind of judicial reframing of the actions of a self-represented party turns the application of a standard court procedure into a form of wrongdoing which could be punished by a contempt of court.  How can you possibly argue on behalf of your position under such intimidating conditions?  

Shouting loud commands:

Judges also bully self-represented parties by using repeated loud commands.  For instance this exchange during one part of the May 23, 2014 hearing:

Kathi:  Did I ever deny you any time during your parenting time?
Sam:  No.
Kathi: Not mine because, as you...
Sam:  No.
Kathi:  You admitted...
Judge Klatt:  All right.  All right.
Kathi: You do ask to...
Judge Klatt:  All right.  All right.  All right.
Kathi: Ok.
Judge Klatt:  He's answered the question.  You're not to argue with the witness; understand me?
Kathi: Ok.
Judge Klatt:  Ask your next question.

As I read through this transcript, I didn't see that Kathi had been arguing, but this is the point, that the Judge imposes an interpretation on a neutral situation and finds wrongdoing where there is none. 

Other behaviors like this include repeatedly going "Stop, stop, stop, stop" when Kathi Sorrentino was doing something minor like handing over an exhibit too quickly, or another variation, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!" when Kathi asked the other side to show proof in regard to a statement they made.  Or when Kathi tried to elicit testimony from her ex-husband as to why he refused to continue with court ordered co-parenting therapy, "No. No. No. No. No."  

There are also situations where a judge doesn't think you are conducting your examination fast enough as a self-represented party and after each question barks out, "next question!, next question!, next question!" as Judge Klatt did with Kathi Sorrentino.  Or consider this outburst from Judge Klatt when she didn't think Kathi was going fast enough in her examination "This is the last time, move on to the next question.  I have ordered you five times.  I've actually counted.  Five times I've ordered you to move on from that subject.  Next question or I will stop this cross examination." 

Treatment like that inevitably leads self-represented parties to feel hurried and fragmented and judges do it for that reason.  Judges also like to tell self-represented parties off for using up so much of the Court's valuable time on their miserable self-defense.  For instance, Judge Klatt: "We are not going to turn this into a three day procedure.  Please."  Or else this exchange during Ms. Sorrentino's cross-examination of her ex:

Judge Klatt:  Just ask your next question.
Kathi:  So we have it on the record that Storm is registered...
Judge Klatt:  Please ask your next question.
Kathi:  with Dr. Landis...
Judge Klatt:  Are you finished with your questions?
Kathi: Okay.
Judge Klatt:  Are you finished with your questions?
Kathi:  No.  No, I'm not.
Judge Klatt:  Please.  Then go.

Again, when Kathi Sorrentino was attempting to make her final remarks she didn't say them fast enough for Judge Corinne Klatt as the following interchange indicates:

Judge Klatt:  Other than that, what do you want to tell me because...
Kathi:  Why?
Judge Klatt: ...quite frankly, ma'am, I'm about to shut you off.
Kathi:  Why?
Judge Klatt:  We've got three minutes left.  You've taken all day.  And as I've indicated, I think that's been a deliberate behavior on your part...
Kathi:  I'm sorry.  It's not deliberate.

Soliciting or Providing Testimony Outside Judicial Role: Frequently, when judges see there are big holes in a case, they will simply find a way to get the testimony in that is necessary to throw it in the direction of the particular litigant they've decided will win.

In my case, I recall the judge asking my ex's attorney questions about some retirement accounts in my ex's name thus cluing the attorney in on what arguments to use to get my ex excused from the penalties he should have endured for not reporting them on his financial agreement. 

In Kathi Sorrentino's case, the judge intervened extensively  and simply elicited the testimony he wanted to get out of Mr. Sorrentino, rather that leaving it up to the attorneys to argue to argue their case.  If you have the judge inserting evidence into the case of his own volition, and disregarding his role as neutral decision maker, how can you possibly believe that you have a fair trial.

Direct Personal Attacks:

Then there are the direct personal attacks on the self-represented litigant's character which are the most difficult to take and are a matter of course when a self-represented party is involved in a hearing.  For instance, there is the interchange between Judge Corinne Klatt and Kathi when Judge Klatt makes fun of her for not knowing the meaning of the word "filibuster":

Judge Klatt:  This is not let's ramble on because, really, that's all you're doing.  Are you familiar with what a filibuster is?  Ma'am, are you?
Kathi:  No. No.
Judge Klatt:  You're not?  Not at all?
Kathi:  No.
Judge Klatt:  You're a college graduate, aren't you?  Or I know you're enrolled in college...
Kathi:  English and Studio Art major.
Judge Klatt:  All right.
Kathi:  And I'm in school now for...
Judge Klatt:  All right.
Kathi:  and Education major.
Judge Klatt:  And you don't know what a filibuster is?
Kathi:  No.  Not off the...
Judge Klatt:  That's where somebody keeps talking just to stretch things out without really getting to the point of the issues at hand and which is what I think you're doing to me here.

There is something inherently wrong when a Judge of the superior court thinks it is acceptable to make fun of a self represented party for not knowing the meaning of a word. 

Condemnation for being intelligent:

With women who are representing themselves, there inevitably comes a point where the Judge will comment on how intelligent you are.  I personally know several women this has happened to.  This occurs because in these cases of abuse, the Family Court racketeers particularly choose women who are intelligent because the misogynist court system, I believe, is immensely gleeful to have the opportunity to humiliate and demean intelligent women. 

Also, they are aware that bright women are very likely to fight long and hard for their children, so this means more money for everyone all around. 

In Kathi's case, as with so many others, Judge Corinne Klatt's commentary on Kathi's intelligence is predictably interlaced with insult as follows:

Kathi:  I'm confused, your honor.
Judge Klatt:  Ma'am, you know what, Ma'am?  It is my obligation to assess the credibility of witnesses and I don't think you're in the least bit confused.  You're a bright, intelligent woman that has thoroughly prepared for this hearing and I think you're deliberately presenting to the Court in a fashion that makes you--that you're attempting to tell the Court or imply to the Court that you're confused.  I am not believing you in that regard."

But then after celebrating Kathi's intelligence, albeit in a very abusive manner, Judge Klatt tries to insult that intelligence by pretending that the entire court proceeding is not a direct attack on Kathi in the following interchange:

Kathi:  What I'm sensing and I'm hearing is that--that this is about me being accused of [being] an alienator and not complying with Court orders and I'm doing what I can to show that I am.
Judge Klatt:  Well, I hesitate to accuse, ma'am.  That's -- it's an affliction.  It is not -- it is not a crime we're accusing you of.

Right, it's a mental illness not a crime, as if that matters,  because the outcome for Kathi will be the devastating loss of custody of her child.  So is Judge Klatt trying to say that Kathi shouldn't worry about it?  How irrational is that? 

Increasing the noise level to drown out the truth:

The bottom line is that whenever Kathi Sorrentino succeeded in making powerful points in her defense, which was actually quite frequently, Judge Klatt would find a frivolous reason to strike that testimony from the record.  In addition, if Kathi was pursuing a successful line of questioning that proved that she was innocent of wrongdoing, inevitably Judge Klatt would allow the opposing attorney to jump up and down with irrelevant objections and commentary, or else she herself would interject discouraging remarks and observations. 

While for the better part, Kathi was able to make her points nonetheless, I recall being completely sidelined by those kinds of distracting techniques in my day.

The represented party can do no wrong:  

Meanwhile, the represented party pretty much gets away with anything he wants.  He can provide extensive hearsay testimony, make unsupported and outrageous statements without being required to provide the slightest bit of evidence.  He can refuse to answer the questions or answer them with outright lies and get away with it.  In other words, for the person who has an attorney to advocate on his behalf, hearings like this are a breeze. 

For instance, at one point while examining Mr. Sorrentino on the stand, Kathi Sorrentino was able to point out that he had no evidentiary basis for his accusations.  Immediately, Judge Corinne Klatt rushed to his rescue stating, "Well, ma'am, to be quite frank, that -- those comments are stricken.  You want to know why?  Because I am the one who determines credibility, not you."  

A hearing solely for show:

What this adds up to is that Kathi Sorrentino's hearing on May 23, 2014 was simply for show, a casual bow to the legal requirement that the Court allow a citizen a hearing before depriving her of her constitutional right to parent.  The outcome of this hearing was already predetermined. 

But yes, given the fact that legal techniques and procedures are geared to expose the truth, it does take the active intervention of the Judge to subvert the proceedings and conclude with an entirely unjust final judgment as happened in this case. 

Many of the self-represented parties who undergo this trial by outright wrongdoing by a judge talk about how exhausted they feel afterwards.  They are exhausted by the direct personal attacks and exhausted by the constant perversion of the truth.  It can feel as though you are an exhausted boxer staggering around the ring flailing back at punches that appear to come out from all sides. 

There is nothing fair or just about such proceedings.  The fact that Connecticut Family Courts conduct such show trials is a disgrace.  With the passage of last years Bill #494 and with the upcoming Bill #5505, there is hope that we can correct these kinds of abuses.

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.   

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

Friday, February 4, 2011

WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT, REPRESENTING YOURSELF

As you know, or should know by now, I am a self represented party.  But I wasn't always a self represented party.  To start with, like everyone else, I had a lawyer.  The entire legal process totally frightened me and when it came to Courtrooms, I was afraid of my own shadow. 

So why did I end up representing myself?  It was pretty clear after a few months with my first lawyer that there was a really bad attitude out there regarding my case, and the attitude kept on going with each successive lawyer I called upon. 

My initial thought had been, if one lawyer is bad, just move on to a different one and start with a fresh perspective.  Unfortunately, that was not such a great idea.  If I had it to do over again, I would have stuck to the first idiot lawyer.  The problem is that divorce attorneys in the State of Connecticut are in a very specialized field.  Most of these folks have known each other for a long time and they have arrangements with each other regarding how they are going to interact.  I've even heard that cases are decided within the first few weeks that a party files. 

Under these circumstances, no matter what you want in your divorce, if you have fired your first attorney because you didn't like his management of the case, watch out, because you can be sure the second attorney has spoken to the first attorney, gotten the low down on your case and plans on handling your divorce exactly the way the first attorney intended to handle it.  And the same goes on down the line. 

This is true no matter what wonderful stories they tell you in the first few meetings before they get a check from you.  When you hit the third attorney, he will speak to the first and second attorney and keep on with the program. Except the likelihood is that the third and later attorneys will be more threatening and intolerant because the fact that you've had multiple attorneys weakens your position in court and makes you far more vulnerable. 

Many attorneys have a rule that they will not handle a divorce case where there have been more than a few attorneys involved. 

I have to say I would not recommend becoming a self represented party prior to judgment.  There are too many technical issues involved that most of us would have no way of knowing.  Even now I am discovering parts of the stipulations attorneys made on my behalf at the time and coming to understand more clearly how important it was that those parts were incorporated in the agreements.  Yes, these attorneys failed when it came to important parts of my case, but the situation could have been much worse.  

So, prior to judgment it made sense to have an attorney representing me, but post judgement I was smart to stand up and represent myself.  The primary reason for that, of course, is that it saves you a whole lot of money.

Otherwise, I will agree that it is hard to come in as a self represented party because the Court System is clearly hostile to people who represent themselves and often hold them up to a higher standard.  Further, judges often jerk around self represented parties, making up rules that don't exist, denying self represented litigants their constitutional rights and their right to due process without blinking an eyelid.  I have often had to tolerate personal attacks on my character from judges, all of which was entirely unjustified.  I would also say that the Court usually rules against me whenever I bring forward a motion. 

On the other hand, I'm not sure that they wouldn't have ruled against me with or without a lawyer, simply because if you are the oppressed party in a case, it's generally going to stay that way unless you can somehow change the dynamic.  Let me know if you figure that out. 

The most difficult part of representing myself was the absolute sheer terror I experienced taking on the job.  My blood pressure shot up to the roof just stepping foot in the courtroom, all tribute to the fact that there is nothing worse than getting yourself stuck in a situation where you simply don't entirely know what the rules of the game are and yet the stakes are extremely high.  Plus, you have a full audience audience of other litigants sitting there behind you watching you make a fool of yourself when you make mistakes. 

I have to say that my first year or so as a self represented party I spent most of the time apologizing to the judge for every mistake I thought I'd made, real or not.  But it got better as I learned how to handle myself better with each of my successive appearances in the courtroom.

The down side of representing yourself is how you can be manipulated since you don't know all the rules, how you can be the focus of the Court's hostility, and how often the Court will rule against you simply because you have the nerve to represent yourself. 

On the other hand, the upside of representing yourself is the fact that you no long have to sit silently taking shit.  Finally, you can speak your mind on the issues that arise.  You can also behave with dignity and self respect no matter what the Court says to you or about you, and by your merely behaving in a proper manner, you can demonstrate decisively that the Court is simply wrong about you. 

Finally, and yes, it doesn't happen all the time, but you can present case law and quote the Practice Book, and bring forward quotations from the Connecticut General Statutes to prove that, legally speaking, your position is solidly the correct one, and if they rule against you, they appear foolish that they have to break the law in an attempt to break you. 

And, this truly does happen no matter how down I get in my discussions on this blog, every once and a while your logic and your presentation of the legal argument is simply unassailable, and the Court will rule in your favor, or, at the very least, refrain from trashing you altogether as it would have liked. 

Sometimes, by the time a litigant in a high conflict divorce goes self represented, the game is over and you have pretty much lost, so what we are talking about often, but not all the time, is more of a moral victory than anything else.  It's about not walking away from the field until you've had your say. 

There is that old Roman prayer, "Oh Great Jove, you may sink me or you may save me, but I will keep my rudder true."  In this case, you go with the knowledge that you kept your rudder true no matter the outcome.  Even if you have lost, there is an immense satisfaction to that, a satisfaction that only comes from being a self represented party and having the chance to speak for yourself. 

And there is always the possibility that your arguments may not fall on deaf ears and that you will be able to sway the Court in your favor. 

Ultimately, I choose to represent myself in order to have that opportunity.  And, also, the bottom line is, no one is  as convinced of the justness of my own cause as I am, no one speaks with as much intensity and conviction, no one can advocate for his or her own client as passionately as a self represented party, and, in a legal system shot through with corruption and sleeziness, there is no one you can trust as much as yourself. 

When you come to that realization, as far as I am concerned, that's when the time is right to decide to represent yourself and go for it.  Thoughts anyone?!?

Friday, February 28, 2014

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS: WHY THEY DON'T MATTER IN FAMILY COURT!

Members of the Coalition on Connecticut Family Court Reform sat tensely in the gallery of the Capitol Building watching the debate over the reappointment of Superior Court Judge Leslie Olear.  They had been campaigning for her ouster for a considerable amount of time prior to the debate.  When the vote came, the Coalition campaign "Say No to Judge Olear" lost by a vote of 78-67, with 5 absent & not voting. 
 
So what happened? 
 
Representatives felt that Judge Leslie Olear's performance evaluations were "overwhelmingly excellent" and that Coalition members had expressed their dissatisfaction too late to give Judge Olear an opportunity to improve her performance. 
 
But is Olear's performance as a Judge really excellent? 
 
And if there were more time available, would Judge Olear have had the opportunity to hear litigants' concerns regarding her performance?
 
Probably not. 
 
Why is that you ask? 
 
I will give you the answer, and mind you this is an answer that most of the legislators know because they are attorneys.  This means that when they are giving speeches to the general public and call the performance evaluation of a Judge such as Olear "overwhelmingly excellent" they know that such an assessment has one big major flaw. 
 
In particular, in regard to Family Court Judges, that flaw is considerable. 
 
The bottom line is, these Judicial Performance Evaluations do not include the views of the self represented parties who appear in family court whose numbers are estimated to be as high as 80%.  They also do not include the views of the remaining litigants who are represented by attorneys. 
 
For the better part, only attorneys provide significant input into the performance evaluations of trial court judges. This means that Superior Court judges in Family Court proceedings only receive performance evaluations from a small group of the cases they adjudicate, those with attorneys. 
 
It is equivalent to conducting teacher evaluations by having the teaching aides fill out all the evaluations while excluding feedback from the students. 
 
It makes no sense, does it--if you actually want a fair result. 
 
Logically speaking, if you are a judge in a courtroom and you see before you an attorney on the one side and a self represented party on the other, and you know that the attorney is going to walk out of the courtroom and write up your evaluation after the proceedings, whose side would you be on? 


Judges and opposing attorneys in Family Court cases repeatedly insist that self-represented litigants must abide by the same rules and standards that apply to attorneys.  However, as this disparate treatment in regard to Judges' Performance Evaluations reveals, attorneys have extraordinarily greater access to influence with Judges than self represented parties, and this makes a mockery of any statements that self represented parties have to rise to the level of attorneys.  Quite plainly, the system has extended an outright advantage to attorneys when it comes to Judges' Performance Evaluations, and that isn't the only one they have, as we all know.

Of course, they didn't clarify that point to you, did they, when those legislators spoke at the Capitol during the vote on February 26, 2014.  It has just been their little secret! 

Meanwhile, the CT Judicial Branch complains about what a big problem self-represented parties are, and how our lack of understanding of the legal process burdens the system.  No, that's not true.  The Problem with the CT Judicial Branch is attorneys--attorneys, attorneys, attorneys. 
 
During the reappointment hearings on Judges, Members of the Judiciary Committee asked questions based upon the performance reviews of those judges which they had received. 
 
So what do we know about these performance evaluations and why weren't all of us given copies? 
 
According to the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System based at the University of Denver, Connecticut has been conducting performance evaluations of trial judges since 1984.  Also, in Connecticut, the Judicial Branch has a Judicial Performance Evaluation Advisory Panel which is there "to review and implement" the wishes of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Program Committee. 

(I swear all these lengthy Committee names are simply there to confuse us!)
 
The Advisory Panel is made up of "twenty-three members who are appointed by the Chief Justice, and includes members of the bench, the bar, academia, and the Judicial Selection Commission." 
 
According to the Institute, "Attorneys are given an opportunity to rate judges as excellent, good, fair, or poor through a series of questions in the categories of comportment, legal ability, and management skills."  Juries are also given a series of questions that are different in nature but intended to assess the skills and abilities of the judge. 
 
The results of these Judicial Performance Evaluations are confidential, and only end up in the hands of the Judiciary Committee when a judge is nominated for reappointment or seeks a position on the Appellate or Supreme Court. 
 
So if you were wondering, that is how come, during the Judiciary Committee hearings to reappoint certain judges, the Committee Members were looking through the evaluations and asking questions based upon these evaluations, but the members of the audience didn't have copies and could only guess what was on them. 
 
The last time the Judicial Performance Program Committee conducted meetings to improve and update their Judicial Performance Evaluation Program was in 2009.  Apparently, a large part of the deliberations of the subcommittee that reviewed Judicial Performance Evaluations spent a considerable amount of time deciding who would be allowed to provide input into those evaluations. 
 
The Committee certainly considered whether to include information from litigants and self represented parties, but ultimately decided to turn down that proposal with a unanimous vote of 23 to zero.  The reasoning behind this unanimous vote as reported under recommendation 1 (b) of the "Report of the Subcommittee on the Improvement of the Existing System for the Evaluation of Trial Judges" dated May 19, 2009 was that, "It was concluded that the inclusion of those parties would. . .result in feedback of questionable value." 

(How condescending is that?  Of course, they don't mind taking our money!  Apparently, cash isn't of questionable value!)
 
From the Minutes of the June 4, 2009 meeting of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Program Committee the thinking behind denying litigants and self-represented parties participation in Judge's Evaluations was that "During discussion it was pointed out that other avenues exist for litigants and self-represented litigants to make complaints regarding a judge's conduct; e.g. complaints to the Judicial Review Council."
 
The latter comment motivated me to look up the Statistics associated with the Judicial Review Council to see whether there have been any good results for people who complained.  The bottom line is that in eight years only eight people have been reprimanded for judicial improprieties.  This is an extremely minimal level of accountability. 

A considerable number of complainants see their complaints dismissed simply because they miss the one year Statute of Limitations.  Of course, often with Family Court litigants it takes at least a year to recover from the pain and suffering that an unethical Judge causes so that they can begin to articulate what happened.  Finally, it is worth noting that from 2006 when there were 51 complaints to 2013 when there were 110, the Council saw the number of complaints double. I would also like to add that since it is widely known that Statewide Grievance and the Judicial Review Council pretty much ignore even the most egregious behavior, many abused litigants simply don't bother to submit their complaints. 
 
Readers should know that filing a complaint isn't that simple.  You have to write up your complaint in a clear and concise manner and provide documentation to prove your points.  If you are experiencing the symptoms of PTSD from Legal Abuse and you are emotionally devastated, this is very hard to do. In essence, what the Judicial Performance Evaluation Program Committee is doing is asking litigants with complaints about judges to provide feedback using the most labor intensive approach that exists.  My conclusion on that, of course, is that the Committee doesn't want to hear from litigants and simply wished to look for excuses to silence their voices.  Then, in the legislature, that silence gets used as an excuse to allow for the reappointment of corrupt and abusive judges.
 
The May 19, 2009 Report did recommend soliciting feedback regarding a judge's performance from "court staff personnel, probation officers, family relations officers, victim advocates, courtroom clerks, and interpreters" but recommended that this feedback be channeled through the Presiding Judge.  I suspect that would considerably white wash a lot of that feedback.  Still, what this means is, pretty much everyone has the opportunity to contribute to Judge's Performance Evaluations except the people directly affected by those Judge's actions, i.e. the litigants themselves. 

The end result of restricting feedback regarding a judge's performance to attorneys, peers, jurors who really know very little about the process, and to a limited extent court personnel, and superiors at the CT Judicial Branch while ignoring input from litigants and self represented parties is that Judges are receiving considerably skewed and flawed results to their Performance Evaluations. 
 
Like many corporate and political leaders Judges then become surrounded by interested parties with questionable motivations or by fawning sycophants who tell them what they want to hear.  This results in cases of "robitis" which one jocular Member of the Judiciary Committee pointed out.  The CT Judicial Branch needs to reconsider this flawed policy in regard to evaluating its judges.