More things not to do if you’re a practicing lawyer, all from recent Law.com reports: Don’t abscond with the down payments that your real estate clients have laid down on houses, as 19 New York attorneys apparently could not resist doing last year (John Caher, “Light-Fingered Lawyers Cause Spike in Client Fund Payouts”, New York Law Journal, Apr. 17). Don’t “[hum] ‘The Twilight Zone’ theme song to imply a client’s ex-wife — seated at the same table during a post-judgment divorce proceeding — is mentally unstable,” which drew a reprimand for Torrington, Ct. attorney Steven H. Levy (Douglas S. Malan, “Attorney Gets Static for ‘Twilight Zone’ Rendition During Divorce Proceeding”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Apr. 13). And if you’ve gotten caught in a colorful episode of legal malpractice in which you falsely claimed (among other things) to have founded an L.L.M. program at New York University School of Law, don’t engage in “elaborate and sometimes fraudulent efforts” to avoid paying the judgment to your former client, for which offense federal judge Denise Cote requested that the U.S. attorney’s office prosecute New York lawyer David A. Dorfman (Tom Perrotta, “Federal Judge Requests Prosecution of Attorney for Criminal Contempt”, New York Law Journal, Apr. 19). More in our “Don’t” series: Aug. 3 and Sept. 13, 2005; Jan. 20 and Apr. 12, 2006.
Posts Tagged ‘divorce’
Dating service sued for turning away married man
Attorney John Claassen, formerly of Skadden Arps, is suing online matchmaker eHarmony.com, which declined to list him because he is not yet divorced and it has a rule against listing profiles of persons who admit to being married. He’s claiming marital-status discrimination in his suit, filed in Alameda County. (Knight-Ridder; AP; SFist)(& welcome Sploid readers). More: Akhmed Al-Fayyed explains why he thinks eHarmony might lose (Mar. 29).
Tribunes of privacy, cont’d: cell phone records
Another entry in our ongoing series about how unlikely it is for the U.S. legal profession to assume a convincing pose as guardians of everyone’s privacy:
Attorneys are among the top customers of the controversial Web sites [which sell access to cellphone records without customers’ consent], according to private investigators, privacy advocates and Web site operators who sell the phone records.
“Let’s put it this way, the legal profession is keeping it alive,” said Rob Douglas, a former private eye turned security consultant who has helped the Federal Trade Commission investigate and prosecute online operators that sell phone records.
“I’ve investigated them with the federal government and in private lawsuits … and in every single case, the overwhelming majority of users of these companies are attorneys,” Douglas said.
These attorneys include divorce lawyers, who want to know who feuding spouses are talking to; business lawyers, who want to know who their clients’ competitors are talking to; and employment lawyers, who want to know if employees are selling any trade secrets.
(Tresa Baldas, “Will Lawyers Get Hung Up in Quest for Cell Phone Records?”, National Law Journal, Feb. 10). A few earlier entries: Jul. 22, 2003; Apr. 14 and Jun. 15, 2004; Feb. 7 and Feb. 9, 2006.
Zellweger and Chesney marriage annulled
As injustices go, it’s a tiny one. But the everyday citizenry of California has to wait six months after a separation for a divorce decree. Renee Zellweger got around this law by filing for an annulment of her short marriage to Kenny Chesney. Except that annulments are only available on fairly limited grounds. Zellweger plead fraud in her annulment filing—and admitted in a press release within days that there wasn’t any actual fraud, but that she had made the allegation out of convenience. It’s not often that a major celebrity admits committing perjury, and it’s even rarer that a court rewards the admitted perjury with the sought-after relief. But that’s what happened here, and, as of December 20, Zellweger has an annulment that wouldn’t be available to the hoi polloi.
“Taking Combat Out of Custody”
D’ya think? “Divorce lawyers tangled in messy custody disputes should refrain from smashing the other side to bits.” (Tresa Baldas, National Law Journal, Nov. 30).
Jailed…for not breaking the law
Conflicting legal obligations in Illinois:
An Alton woman embroiled in a divorce case spent more than four hours in jail for contempt of court after she refused a Madison County’s judge’s order to return a handgun to her ex-husband, a convicted felon.
Elizabeth “Beth” Ritchie, 30, said that complying with Associate Judge Ellar Duff’s order, delivered at a hearing on Thursday, would have required Ritchie to commit a crime herself.
It is a felony in Illinois for a felon to possess a firearm, and for anyone to transfer a gun to a felon.
Duff said in an interview Friday that she did not learn until after the hearing that Ritchie’s ex-husband was a felon, and that she then ordered Beth Ritchie released from the Madison County Jail.
Ritchie said she tried to explain the situation to Duff in court but was ignored.
“I was being ordered by the law to break the law,” Ritchie said. “And when I wouldn’t, I got thrown in jail.”
(Paul Hampel, “Justice misfires over gun”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jul. 22)(& welcome Crime & Federalism, Wave Maker readers).
More: reader Mickey Ferguson asks whether Ritchie could have avoided the predicament by volunteering to the gun over to the court itself, as in a case of escrow, with the court then free to turn it over or not to the felon. Good question, but I for one don’t know the answer.
“Parents asked to pay alimony to son’s wife”
As New Jersey Law Blog summarizes the case (May 19): “Cynthia Idleman claims that after her husband [Douglas] lost his job and suffered a disabling medical condition his parents have supported their family for the last two years by giving them about $20,000 per month. She claims that by having done so, ‘they have stepped into the shoes of their son’ and, thereby, assumed a continuing obligation to support not only their grandchildren, but also her.” See “Divorce Case Focused On In-Law Support”, WINS, May 17; Lisa Brennan, “Lawyers Wince at Grandparental Alimony Claim”, New Jersey Law Journal, May 26. Among those commenting: Enlighten-NJ, Michael Capanzzi, and the Michigan Medical Malpractice blogger.
How Stella Lost Her Groove And $35,000 Or More In A Contra Costa County Superior Court Hearing
Terry McMillan, whose affair with a man half her age was dramatized her novel “When Stella Got Her Groove Back,” might have thought her prenuptial agreement, negotiated after five months with his attorneys, protected her against gold-digging, but her now ex-husband is challenging the validity of it in a threatened bid for the millions of dollars she’s earned as a writer during their six-year marriage, and has already punished her failure to give into the extortion by submitting embarrassing court filings, which the press has been happy to publicize. (And not only is he young and good-looking, but the Diablo Valley College drop-out knows how to use terms like “Hobson’s choice” and “de minimus [sic]” in a sworn affidavit!) To add insult to injury, a judge has ordered her to pay her ex-husband’s attorney’s fees of $25,000 so he can litigate the matter against her. (Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross, “Epilogue for ‘Stella’ author: a messy divorce”, SF Chronicle, Jun. 26; Ann Gerhart, “Terry McMillan’s Epilogue to ‘Groove’ Affair”, Washington Post, Jun. 29 (via Weiner)).
Jury raises eyebrow at lawyer’s $300K “success bonus”
A federal jury has disapproved a $300,000 “success bonus” that a Greenwich, Ct. divorce lawyer tried to charge his client following a high-pressure five-day divorce mediation. Noted lawprof ethicist Geoffrey Hazard, testifying for dissatisfied client Gary Zimmerman, said the extra charge resembled a contingent fee on the lawyer’s part and that contingent fees are supposed to be disallowed in divorce litigation. (Thomas B. Scheffey, “$300,000 ‘Success Bonus’ for Five-Day Mediation? Not So Fast, Says Jury”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Mar. 29). David Giacalone has more (Mar. 29).
Alienation of affection suits
The North Carolina Bar Association is pressing to abolish the state’s unusual cause of action for alienation of affection, a carryover from common law days in a few states which allows a wronged spouse to sue the other spouse’s paramour for having broken up the marriage. The law is still sometimes used, and in fact damage awards have been escalating briskly in the Tarheel State, reaching $500,000 (later reduced) in a 1990 Forsyth County case and $1.2 million in a case eight years ago in the same county. “Most of the time, lawyers said it costs as much or more to try these kind of cases than the injured party stands to win,” and Raleigh family law practitioner Lee Rosen says he often discourages clients from filing such a suit because by poisoning the atmosphere it “destroys the possibility of future cooperation” on, e.g., custody matters. (Amanda Lamb, “Some Want To Get Rid Of ‘Alienation Of Affection’ Lawsuits”, WRAL, Feb. 2). See Nov. 16, 2004; May 18-21, 2000.