The Truth…The Whole Truth About Family Law

I don’t know about you, but I like people, companies, organizations etc. that tell you what they are really all about and where they are at.

For most of the public, law firms are not particularly transparent entities. They deal in complicated subject matters and use complex language to describe what they do, if they ever explain it at all.

Not so, however, with respect to the Columbia, South Carolina law firm of Pincus Family Law. Their firm website tells you exactly what they will do and what they won’t. Their critics say their to-the-point abruptness can’t be good for business. Consider the following excerpts from their website.

Under the heading “Client Expectations” the following paraphrased rules are set out:

1. They do not work weekends and they will not provide clients with a weekend emergency number;

2. They will not routinely respond to email from clients on a weekend, however, if they do on occasion respond, this is the exception and not the rule;

3. They are good at what they do but they are not perfect. They are human beings with the same frailties as their clients. If a mistake is made, they will fix it quickly, but they do not expect to be harangued or insulted by their clients for human error;

4. They will return client phone calls in the order they are received by the firm, subject to their assessment as to client priority. Calling their office three or four times a day will not change the priority assigned to a call;

5. Legal Assistants and Paralegals are available to answer clients’ questions and provide status updates and their hourly billing rates are substantially less than the firm’s lawyers;

6. Being “nice” to your spouse during the divorce process is a laudable goal, but do not expect to get any concessions or consideration from your spouse as a result of your civility;

7. In the litigation process, your spouse’s lawyer will file documents called “pleadings”. These pleadings will contain allegations that may be upsetting to you. Don’t waste your emotional energy fretting over these documents. The allegations are “standard-operating procedure” and may or may not be true;

8. Courtrooms are overbooked and often there are an insufficient number of judges to handle all the scheduled cases. Don’t blame us if we cannot obtain hearing dates as early as you or we would wish. We have no control over court scheduling;

9. Your spouse may retain counsel who are “nasty” or who procrastinate. Once again, that is not our fault. We will work within the rules to keep your case moving forward but we cannot be held responsible for your spouse’s lawyers’ personality disorder or their delay tactics;

10. In divorce and family law, nothing happens quickly. That’s just the way the system is, so be prepared.

My impression? I love it! I have never seen a family law firm that has more succinctly identified some of the major client issues that cause friction between attorney and client. Certainly, many divorce lawyers operate on the same terms, they just don’t do their clients the favour of telling them.

As award-winning journalist Roberta Baskin has noted, there is a public feeding frenzy for transparency, and Pincus Law delivers all of that. Kudos to them!

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Top TV Lawyers

There is no question that we love TV shows that tell stories about crime, courts and lawyers. In every decade over the past fifty years, shows that featured lawyers have rated high in the Nielsen rankings.

Here’s a few of my old favorites:

1. PERRY MASON

From 1957 to 1966 Perry Mason represented the ideals of the consummate barrister. He was whip smart, but never cocky, calm and deliberate, kind and gracious and ever the perfect gentleman. He also never lost a case because when it came down to the wire, a witness walked into the court room who revealed a spectacular truth that completely exonerated his client and often identified the real criminal. Even today, those startling court scenes as portrayed in the show are called “Perry Mason moments” and of course, they never happen in real life.

2. RUMPOLE OF THE BAILEY

This show ran on the BBC from 1978 to 1992. Rumpole was an aging barrister who took almost every case that came his way, very often representing ne’er-do -wells who were as guilty as sin. His motto was that every person deserved a defence; he rarely plead a client guilty and he never submitted to a plea deal.

Rumpole referred to himself as “an old Bailey hack” referring to the venerable criminal court in London England. While his family tried to persuade him that at his age he should move on to more dignified work such as a Queen’s Counsel or Circuit Judge, Rumpole referred to those people as “Queer Customers” and “Circus Judges”.

Rumpole was a crusty barrister with a fondness for cigars and more often than not arrived in court with cigar ash trailing down his court gown with his barrister’s wig askew.

A charming part of the story line was Rumpole’s wife who was a lot smarter than he was. Rumpole referred to her as “She Who Must Be Obeyed”. A classic British television series written by John Mortimer, an English lawyer.

3. THE DEFENDERS

This American courtroom drama aired between 1961 and 1965. Actors E.G. Marshall and Robert Reed played a father and son defence team. Unlike Perry Mason and Rumpole, these lawyers did not win all their cases as they tackled social issues such as neo-Nazi’s, conscientious objectors, pornography, atheism, mercy killing, the Hollywood Black List, and capital punishment, to name a few.

A 1962 episode centered on The Defenders defence of an abortionist. Three of the show’s premier sponsors refused to run their commercials during this episode. The show won thirteen Emmy Awards including three in a row for “Outstanding Drama Series”.

Tell me, who are your favorite TV lawyers?

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

The Naked Judge: Lori Douglas is Not a Victim

Most people would rather have a root canal than be caught up in a court proceeding. Courts and judges are mysterious, scary, and expensive. But imagine appearing before a judge whose photos on the internet, according to reports, depict her nude, with her legs wide open, performing fellatio on a man, urinating on her lawn, or tied up with a dog collar and a chain around her neck.

Yes, that would be Winnipeg’s Madam Justice Lori Douglas, and the scenes described are merely a few of the 150 poses captured by her lawyer husband, Jack King, and posted by him on the world wide web, for all to enjoy.

I have followed Lori Douglas’ public excoriation from the outset and can’t imagine how she expects to carry on as a judge, and why she did not resign in 2010 with some of her dignity intact. I say she is not fit to occupy a judicial position because her shameful situation, whether she is to blame or not, flies in the face of the ethical principles set out by the Canadian Judicial Council, the august body that investigates complaints from the public regarding judges.

Yes, I reject Judge Douglas’ claims that she is a victim. She is not. She has the education and sophistication of a worldly woman who knew when she applied for a judicial position that she would be held to a higher standard of conduct than the pole dancers at Winnipeg’s popular Teaser’s Burlesque Cabaret.

She knew, or ought to have known, that where her personal life intruded on her judicial duties, any complaint about her situation could and would be investigated by her governing body, which has a statutory duty to investigate all complaints.

To the legions that have fallen for her lawyer’s suggestion that Judge Douglas is akin to a rape victim and are angry that her behavior is even being investigated, it should be said that the Council’s mandate compels them to act.

The Council publishes guidelines for judges, including the admonition that judges are expected to behave in a manner that attracts no criticism to their office or diminishes public respect for a particular judge or for the judiciary in general. Judges must understand and accept restrictions on their activities, even if those activities would be acceptable for ‘Jane Doe.’ More importantly, a judge must disclose any matter that reflects upon the credibility and repute of the judiciary as a whole.

This is where Judge Douglas will face intense scrutiny. She apparently admits that when she applied for a position on the bench, she did not disclose the published pornographic images, her allegedly unwilling involvement in a website called “Dark Cavern,” or the sharing of cocktails with her husband’s client, the complainant, Alex Chapman.

Her excuse? She says that everyone who needed to know already knew about the earlier scandal involving her, her husband, and Chapman. Admittedly, as a member of the bar when the events occurred, her only restraint was her personal moral values, which were her business alone.

However, once she became a public officer with the immense power and authority flowing from her judicial office, she ought to have realized that she was obliged to make nothing less than full written disclosure, as required by the judicial application form she filled out. The question to which she apparently answered “no” was: “Is there anything in your past or present which could reflect negatively on yourself or the judiciary and which should be disclosed?”

How is it possible that Judge Douglas did not consider that the events involving the publication of pornographic photos of her and the related fall-out involving her husband and Alex Chapman would not reflect negatively on her or the judiciary as a whole?

Lori Douglas is not, however, the only judge in Canada who has failed to disclose personal information on a judicial application. Most notably, Mr. Justice Richard Therrien of the Court of Quebec made several applications for the Quebec bench, divulging a criminal record and a year of imprisonment related to the FLQ crisis in Quebec in the early 1970’s.

Therrien was a minor and a first year law student whose sister sheltered the terrorists who abducted Pierre Laporte.* He spent several days in his sister’s home running errands for the men who were later convicted of kidnapping. On the occasions when he answered the form truthfully, Therrien’s applications were denied as a result of his criminal conviction.

In 1996 he reapplied; but, this time, he hid the events that occurred many years earlier and was finally appointed a Judge of the Court of Quebec. Shortly thereafter, the matter of his criminal record was discovered and an investigation was initiated which led to his removal from the bench. His “defence” was that he believed a pardon he received in 1987 did not require him to admit to a criminal record and he was certain that Quebec’s Minister of Justice would be aware of his history.

Judge Douglas’ “excuse” for non-disclosure sounds remarkably like former Judge Therrien’s.

While the Judicial Council hearings are presently focused on whether she was an active participant in her husband’s seduction of Alex Chapman, her bigger problem is her deliberate decision to conceal a matter in her past that could reflect negatively on her or her judicial colleagues.

I suspect she believed, like Richard Therrien, that her only chance for a prestigious judicial appointment was to pretend it never happened. After all, the easiest person to deceive is one’s own self.

Judge Douglas’ Lawyer Cries Uncle

They say if you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, an appropriate admonishment to Judge Douglas’ lawyer, Sheila Block, who is now desperate to call a stop to the judicial inquiry.

So what are Ms. Block’s options? Can she call in sick? No, she can only rely on an age-old legal ploy to extricate her client from the debacle that is called the Judge Douglas Judicial Inquiry.

There are times when proceedings in court or in a similar judicial hearing become untenable, and you believe your client is being prejudiced by the unfolding events. For example, in one case I argued the central theme of the case revolved around off-shore bank accounts. The presiding judge interrupted my argument to suggest that only people who have something to hide would use off-shore bank accounts.

The judge’s jaded view of such accounts led me to believe that she may decide the case based on her ignorance of the world of multi-national corporations and high stakes business dealings. I then made an argument that the judge should remove herself from the case on the basis of the legal maxim called “a reasonable apprehension of bias”. Interestingly, there are hundreds of case where an allegation of bias has been asserted against a sitting judge, most of them unsuccessful, as was mine. Face it, why would a judge admit they were biased?

This is the argument that is being made on behalf of Judge Douglas, however, the allegations of bias flow from the vigorous cross-examination of Judge Douglas’ better-half by Vancouver lawyer George McIntosh, who is counsel for the Inquiry panel.

Ms. Block complains that Mr. McIntosh’s questioning of Jack King is overly aggressive and shows “animus and bias”. From the media descriptions of Mr. McIntosh’s cross-examination it appears that Jack King is easy pickin’s as he tries to convince the panel that Judge Douglas had never seen the photos.

You can only imagine the snickering in the hearing room as Mr. McIntosh toyed with Mr. King, suggesting to him that it strained credulity that the good judge would pose for pictures, but never ask to see them and was unaware they were posted online.

Judge Douglas desperately needs a saviour and apparently believed her husband could play that role convincingly, but it isn’t working. The truth is Mr. King’s testimony is another nail in her coffin. And the panel has not even dealt with the “main event”, namely, why did Judge Douglas deliberately conceal the pornographic photos and the events relating to Alex Chapman, “Dark Cavern” and drinks at Earl’s?

I guess I’d want to get out of there too.

Talking Tough With Judges

The Canadian courtroom is not a venue for the faint of heart. It is “ground zero” for our adversarial system of justice, pitting the state against a criminal accused; corporate titans battling competitors; spouses jousting to establish a fair division of the spoils of their marriage; and average citizens seeking redress for motor vehicle accidents, human rights complaints, estate disputes and so many other legal matters that are part of everyday life.

“See you in court” is a threat that is feared by most people, with the exception of trial lawyers, who have studied, practiced and for the most part, crave the adrenalin pumping through their veins, like gladiators entering the arena.

In hard-fought cases, clients expect their lawyers to champion their cause aggressively with a “take-no-prisoners” zeal. Many trial lawyers are proud to be called “a bulldog, a bruiser, a basher, a pit-bull” and other normally unflattering nicknames.

Within this milieu it is inevitable that advocates will lock horns with opposing counsel, and judges and lawyers will occasionally spar with one other. However, there is a fine line between passionate argument and unchecked invective when the heat in a courtroom accelerates.

In a decision last month from the Supreme Court of Canada, Dore v. Barreau du Quebec, lawyers and judges alike have been provided with guidance on courtroom etiquette that balances an advocate’s duty to aggressively defend a client, with their obligation to maintain professional decorum.

Quebec lawyer Gilles Dore was representing an accused in a criminal matter involving a Hells Angels prosecution before Quebec Superior Court Justice Jean-Guy Boilard. During Mr. Dore’s submissions, Judge Boilard chastised Mr. Dore, saying “an insolent lawyer is rarely of use to his client”, and later criticized Mr. Dore for his “bombastic rhetoric and hyperbole” and dismissed his “ridiculous” application.

After the hearing Mr. Dore delivered a scathing letter to Judge Boilard, calling him a “coward…pedantic…aggressive…petty… arrogant… unjust…that he was of dubious legal acumen” and made “shamefully ugly, vulgar and mean personal attacks on the unsuspecting”.

Mr. Dore also wrote the Chief Justice of the Quebec Court and the Canadian Judicial Council about Judge Boilard’s behavior.

Canada’s Judicial Council determined that Judge Boilard’s remarks were “insulting and unjustifiably derogatory…displaying a flagrant lack of respect for an officer of the court”. The Council also reviewed Judge Boilard’s track record and noted he had “a penchant for leveling personal, denigrating attacks against lawyers”.

Judge Boilard responded by removing himself as trial judge on the Hells Angel’s trial, while Mr. Dore was defending himself against a complaint made to the Barreau du Quebec, who ultimately found that his letter to Judge Boilard was “likely to offend and was rude and insulting”. Mr. Dore had his license to practice law suspended for 21 days. His suspension was upheld by the Quebec trial and appeal courts.

Canada’s highest court in a 7-0 decision, agreed with the lower courts, but held that judges are not fragile flowers unable to withstand withering critiques from lawyers who argue before them.

Madam Justice Rosalie Abella said “Lawyers should not be expected to behave like verbal eunuchs. They not only have a right to speak their minds freely, they arguably have a duty to do so. But they are constrained by their profession to do so with dignified restraint.”

Judge Abella also recognized the conundrum lawyers face when provoked by opposing counsel or members of the bench noting, “…it is precisely when a lawyer’s equilibrium is unduly tested that he or she is particularly called upon to behave with transcendent civility.”

This case is important, not only for addressing the difficult topic of conflict between counsel and the Court, but also in providing a framework for lawyers and other players in the justice system to understand the boundaries when speaking out about flaws in the system they work in.

While lawyers enjoy freedom of expression, their words must still be chosen wisely in order to balance their obligations to their clients, with the professionalism required of them by their governing bodies and the public.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Pithy Law Firm Slogans

Now that most law firms have websites and some even have blawgs, we see more law firm slogans than we did when lawyers only advertised in the Yellow Pages. (You do remember the Yellow Pages?)

On a lazy Saturday afternoon, consider my top ten slogans:

1. Our Dress Code Does Not Include Stuffed Shirts

2. Talent Mandatory. Suit Optional

3. We Not Only Try Harder, We Try More Often

4. Your Success is Our Success

5. Minds Over Matter

6. We Can’t Protect Your Heart, But We Can Protect Your Rights

7. Winning At All Costs

8. All We Do Is Work

9. Lawyers You’ll Swear By. Not At.

10. Justice May Be Blind, But She Sees It Our Way 90% of the Time

If you know of any other interesting legal slogans let me know. By the way, did you know that “slogan” has two meanings? It can be a “motto” or the “battle cry of a Scottish clan”.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Who Knew? Abraham Lincoln Was a Divorce Lawyer

Did you know that America’s 16th President was a divorce lawyer? I didn’t, but according to the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War of Middle Tennessee, he was.

And who are they? An organization founded to “Preserve the Memory of the Grand Army of the Republic and our ancestors who fought to preserve the Union 1861-1865″.

The Sons of Union are hosting a program in Nashville Tennessee this month that will explore how Lincoln’s divorce practice impacted who he was as a leader and offer a glimpse of the society he lived in.

Researcher Stacy Pratt McDermott found that between 1837 and 1861 Lincoln and his three law partners handled 131 divorce cases in 17 Illinois county circuit courts. The state of Illinois was one of the first in America to grant divorces, make custody orders and provide alimony for women.

Grounds for divorce in Illinois included desertion, adultery, habitual drunkenness, repeated cruelty, impotency, bigamy, and felony conviction.

One case in particular reveals Lincoln’s approach to the business of divorce, which he apparently disliked but considered a necessary evil. In Rogers v. Rogers Lincoln was retained to act for Sam Rogers who sought a divorce on the basis of his wife’s desertion and her adultery. Lincoln persuaded his client that he didn’t need to rely on two grounds for divorce and recommended the divorce proceed under the ground of desertion.

The reason Lincoln chose not to pursue a divorce on the basis of adultery was to avoid any unnecessary embarrasment to his client’s wife. His sensitive approach, however, backfired, as his client was ordered to pay $1000.00 in alimony to his wife. Had he also plead adultery, his client would have paid nothing or a nominal amount.

Fortunately for his client Lincoln was able to reverse the alimony ruling and undoubtedly learned a lesson in the process.

Lincoln was not only a great leader and an advocate for the abolition of slavery, but was a sensitive, pragmatic man who practiced law for 25 years. While he handled railroad cases, tax cases and murder cases, his “bread and butter” was divorce law.

Historians now rank him among the top three United States Presidents and his Gettysburg Address on liberty, equality and democracy is one of the most often quoted political speeches.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Lawyer Chastised for Excessive Legal Fees

Ontario lawyer Kathy Chittley-Young acted for a woman who was severely injured in a car accident. The lawyer intitially asked for $1.25 million in damages for her client’s injuries, but later settled for the sum of $750,000. The only remaining issue to be resolved was whether the agreed damages of $750,000 should be reduced because her injured client could be partially at fault in the accident.

The issue of fault was decided by a judge who reduced the injured woman’s damages to $375,000 finding her 50% responsible for the accident.

Once that matter was resolved, lawyer Ms. Chittley-Young sent her bill to her client, a bill that sought $560,000 in legal fees and $230,000 in disbursements. The fees billed reflected 1800 hours of lawyer and paralegal time, an amount most successful lawyers bill in a year for all their clients.

During the course of the litigation Ms. Chittley-Young’s client was unable to pay for disbursements which included the cost of expert medical reports, photocopying, court fees and other out-of-pocket expenses, so Ms. Chittley-Young recommended and arranged a loan for her client with a company called Lexfund Inc. The client borrowed $150,000 with an interest rate of 51% so that within 24 months the client owed $200,000 in interest alone.

Ms. Chittley-Young’s client successfully challenged her bill and Judge John Murray reduced the bill to $104,000. The disbursements of $230,000 were reduced to $120,000.

Mr. Justice Murray had this to say about the lawyer’s bill:

“The plaintiff, a woman of modest means, who suffered serious injuries in a motor
vehicle accident causing permanent impairment, is now faced with another burden of unimagined
proportions–a second catastrophic event–her legal costs. The legal costs and disbursements incurred
and claimed by Ms. Chittley-Young produce a result that is contrary to the fundamental objective
of access to justice.”

With respect to the loan from Lexfund Inc. the judge said:

” The interest rate on the loan obtained by the plaintiff for disbursements is unconscionable.
It is difficult to believe that any lawyer would refer a vulnerable client to such a
lender.”

It is hard to believe that a lawyer who obtained $375,000 for her client would charge $790,000 in fees and disbursements. What was she thinking?

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Young Lawyer Thrown in Jail For Protecting His Client’s Rights

Michigan attorney, Scott Millard, had been practicing law for less than two months when he ran into Judge Kenneth Post earlier this month. Today, he is a folk-hero for standing up to an overbearing judge while representing his client on a bail application.

Millard’s client was seeking bail having been charged as a minor in possession of alcohol. During the hearing Judge Post asked Mr. Millard’s client when he had last used drugs. Millard believed it was not in his client’s best interests to answer that question and invoked the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution regarding self-incrimination. The following exchange took place next:

Lawyer: I’m his attorney your Honour.

Judge: I’m encouraged.

Judge: I’m not interested in what you think. Haven’t you gotten that yet?

Lawyer: I have gotten that and I…understand that, and your Honour, the Court fully, certainly has the right not to care what I say. How…

Judge: Thank you. Then be quiet.

Judge: When was the last time, the date that you last used controlled substances?

Lawyer: (attempts to interrupt)

Judge: One more word and I’m going to hold you in contempt.

Lawyer: (continues to fight for his client and invokes the Sixth Amendment regarding the right to have counsel)

Judge: (lawyer is cited for contempt and fined $100.)

Lawyer: (again attempts to interject)

Judge: Counsel, I’m holding you in contempt of court. Remand him to the jail.

Mr. Millard spent four hours in jail before his law firm colleagues brought the matter to a senior judge who released him. Judge Post had intended to hold Mr. Millard in jail throughout the weekend. A complaint has been made to the judicial council and Millard is reaping the positive publicity of his polite, but unrelenting attempts to represent his client.

Not surprisingly, fellow members of the bar in Michigan are applauding Millard’s stance and decrying Judge Post’s bullying behavior, for which he is apparently well-known.

For a lawyer who practiced for only two months, Scott Millard’s resolve is extraordinary.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Westboro Baptist Church Tweets Intention to Picket Steve Jobs’ Funeral

Most famous for their repugnant disdain of gays and lesbians, the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas are up to their usual activities. A small church run by Reverend Fred Phelps, a disbarred lawyer, and his adult children, most of them lawyers, ironically used Twitter for IPhone to announce their intention to picket Steve Jobs’ funeral, dead at 56 of pancreatic cancer.

It began with a tweet from Margie Phelps, 50′ish daughter of patriarch Fred, who is a lawyer for the Kansas Department of Corrections and was the attorney who successfully defended the Church’s right to free speech, including epithets like “God Hates Fags” and other similarly abusive slogans. Most often the Church exercises their constitutional privileges while barging in on funerals of gay men and US soldiers who have fallen in battle.

Her tweet read: “Westboro will picket his funeral. He had a huge platform; gave God no glory and taught sin.”

Sister and lawyer Shirley Phelps, who is the main spokesperson for the Church also tweeted “God used Steve Jobs to create amazing STUFF for WBC (Westboro Baptist Church) to preach”. Both Shirley and her father can be found on the United Kingdom’s List of Persons Not Allowed Entry to the UK for “fostering hatred.”

Reverend Phelps’ granddaughter, Megan Phelps, 25, joined in by tweeting “We’re doing what Steve Jobs refused to do: use the resources God gave to publish his standards, the truth of God.” As a member of the younger generation of the Phelps’ family, Megan has also taken on Lady Gaga, calling her a “hussy” and a “heathen” and has produced a video parody of Gaga’s hit “Telephone” which is on Youtube.

It has since been reported that because Mr. Jobs’ service will not be public, they have decided the publicity from their tweets will suffice and have abandoned plans to picket.

It’s people like this who make it more difficult for reasonable, right-thinking Christians, who desire to spread God’s love, and are repulsed by the Westboro Baptist Church.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang