DISBARRED- THE SERIES: F. LEE BAILEY

10950859361151CDPSome lawyers achieve international recognition whether through their representation of high-profile clients, their legendary oratory skills, or their transition from law to politics.

We live in a culture that idolizes the successful and the famous and yet as Phaedrus the Roman fabulist said “Success tempts many to their ruin.”

This aphorism is nowhere truer than in respect of some of Canada and America’s most celebrated lawyers. Lawyers held in the highest esteem for their skill and knowledge, but eventually stripped of their credentials and barred from the practice of law.

The first subject in this series on disbarred lawyers is F. LEE BAILEY:

Bailey was a criminal defence lawyer and legal superstar known for his representation in 1965 of the Boston Strangler, Albert deSalvo. DeSalvo was convicted of numerous sexual assaults but never tried for the strangulation deaths of thirteen women, despite the confession he made to Bailey.

He also represented Dr. Sam Sheppard in 1966 on appeal from his murder conviction in the death of his wife. Sheppard’s “bushy-haired stranger” defence failed at his first trial, however, his appeal to the United States Supreme Court succeeded on the basis that Sheppard’s trial resembled a “carnival” and was tainted by non-sequestered jurors and the trial judge’s public declaration: “Well, he’s guilty as hell. There’s no question about that”.

Sheppard was acquitted at his second trial after serving ten years of his sentence. The Sheppard case was said to be the basis for the popular television series “The Fugitive” with David Janssen and the movie with Harrison Ford.

Other high-profile clients included Dr. Carl Coppolino, convicted in the death of his wife, Patty Hearst of Symbionese Liberation Army notoriety, Captain Medina for his 1971 My Lai Massacre court martial and O. J. Simpson.

Many pundits say that it was Bailey’s cross-examination of Mark Fuhrman that sealed Simpson’s acquittal.

In 1994 Bailey and ROBERT SHAPIRO acted for Claude Duboc, an international drug trafficking kingpin extradited to Florida. Part of Duboc’s plea deal was that he would turn over all his assets to the federal government. These assets included stocks in a Canadian company called Biochem valued at $6 million. By the time the government moved to recover Duboc’s assets, the stock had increased in value to $14 million. Bailey had previously placed the stock in his account and used it as collateral for personal loans. He also used the interest on the investment to finance his expensive lifestyle, claiming that the stocks were payment for his legal fees. He refused to turn the stock over to the government.

Bailey was censured by the Florida Supreme Court and served six weeks for contempt of court. He eventually reimbursed the government almost $20 million. In 2001 he was disbarred by the State of Florida for five years and ordered to close his practice within 30 days. The State of Massachusets removed Bailey from their roll of licensed attorneys the following year.

Today Mr. Bailey is chairman and CEO of a productivity and management company and is on the speaking circuit for a fee of $10,000.00. From time to time he also appears as a legal commentator on television and radio. He has tried for several years to regain his practice license but says he has no desire to practice criminal law.

As a 12-year-old I read Mr. Bailey’s book “The Defence Never Rests” and was mesmerized by his war stories and trial tactics. He was a hero of mine.

Perhaps Will Rogers was correct when he said “Heroing is one of the shortest-lived professions there is.”

UPDATE: In 2012 Mr. Bailey passed the bar admission exam in the State of Maine and sought admittance to practice as a lawyer. The Maine Board of Bar Examiners reviewed his case and determined he was not fit to practice law given his past issues in the States of Florida and Massachusetts. On appeal, the tribunal found that the only impediment to allowing him to practice was an outstanding tax debt of $2 million dollars. His lawyer filed an application to reconsider Bailey’s application and he was cleared to obtain a license to practice law in Maine, however, in April 2014 an appeal decision stifled his opportunity to become licensed in the State of Maine. Today he is not licensed to practice law in any state.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

The Wife, The Mistress and Two Wills

BarristerYears ago I attended the funeral of a dear friend who died much too early. His memorial service was both solemn and awkward. Seated in the front row of the church were his estranged wife, his current common law wife and his girlfriend. As you can imagine, the complexity of his personal life caused difficulties in settling his estate.

In a similarly difficult case, British real estate tycoon Chris John 47, died suddenly without a will, until two wills surfaced.

One of the immediate problems was that Mr. John believed he and his wife, Helen John, were divorced, but upon his early demise it was discovered that the final divorce order had never been pronounced, albeit they had separated seven years earlier.

As a legal spouse, with entitlement to his $6 million estate, the battle lines were drawn between Mr. John’s wife and his mistress, Gillian Clemo, against a backdrop of not one, but two wills.

John’s mistress miraculously located a will three days after hearing that her boyfriend was still married to his wife. Witnesses testified that Ms. Clemo collapsed on the floor when she learned that her boyfriend and his wife were not divorced.

Mrs. John also discovered a will, but when questioned by police readily admitted she had forged the will to ensure their 15-year-old daughter received her share of the estate. She also advised the investigators she was certain that Gillian Clemo had forged the will produced by her, as the signature on the will was not her husband’s.

Ms. Clemo’s “will” named her as the primary beneficiary of her lover’s estate and permitted her to reside in his luxury home in Cardiff, Wales until Mr. John’s daughter reached the age of 27 and then it would belong to her. Ms. Clemo swore an affidavit that stated the will was genuine and she had witnessed Mr. John’s signature on the will.

Unfortunately for Ms. Clemo, the will was riddled with errors including the misspelling of Mr. John’s daughter’s name.

A forensic document examiner testified at Ms. Clemo’s trial that the signature was not Mr. John’s and a Welsh jury convicted Ms. Clemo on charges of forgery. She awaits her sentencing but is not expected to receive jail time.

With no will, the estate will be divided between Mrs. John and her daughter.

As American writer Ambrose Bierce observed: “Death is not the end. There remains the litigation over the estate.”

STORY UPDATE

In 2011 Gillian Clemo was convicted of forgery and fined approximately $10,000. Ms. Clemo appealed the decision to no avail. However, in September of 2013 the Criminal Cases Review Commission, a body set up to review cases where there may be a miscarriage of justice, agreed to assess her case on the basis of new evidence. That evidence included a fresh handwriting analysis and the discovery of a copy of a will identical to the one allegedly forged by Ms. Clemo. With this new development, Mr. John’s estate is again in limbo.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Passionate Entreaties Against Trinity Law School Persuaded BC Lawyers

10950859361151CDPLet me recap the recent special meeting of the members of the Law Society of British Columbia, a meeting prompted by a motion from Victoria lawyer Michael Mulligan who sought to overturn the 20-7 decision of the governors (benchers) of the Law Society, who had approved the admission of future Trinity Law School students as articling students in B.C.

When the meeting began at 12:30 pm on June 10 Law Society President Jan Lindsay announced that just over 1,200 lawyers were present and a quorum was established. Family law lawyer barbara findlay (lower case is how she spells her name) moved the motion and made a passionate speech urging members to vote in favour of the motion.

Her speech was nothing short of brilliant as she referenced her struggles as a lesbian woman grappling with earlier laws that denied gays, lesbians and transgendered persons basic human rights. She did not mince words, she argued that during the time, not that many years ago, when homosexuality was labeled a mental illness, she had spent time in a mental institution, all because she was a lesbian.

Ms. findlay has been a friend and colleague of mine for many years. Recently when Canada passed laws permitting non-resident same-sex spouses to come to Canada to be divorced, if the American state they lived in would not divorce them and if they had married in Canada, she and I collaborated on several of the first cases to be heard in Canada. She had clients seeking this relief, as I did, and we compared professional notes in our efforts to serve our respective clients.

I don’t know if barbara knows I am a practicing Christian, but I know she knows that I would never skirt my duty to my clients or to the rule of law because of my religious beliefs. After all, the Bible tells us to “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s”, the ultimate statement on the intersection of Christianity and secular authority. When Jesus spoke these words the lawyers and Pharisees “marveled” at his wisdom.

Other lawyers speaking in favour of the motion also focused on the historical travesties visited upon gays and lesbians, one even referenced the Holocaust. A criminal lawyer told a tale of a gay client who stabbed a woman 99 times and linked it to his Pentecostal upbringing.

A bencher who had voted against Trinity published an article before the June 10 debate comparing the segregation of African-Americans in America’s southern states to his opinion of the inevitable result of Trinity’s community covenant which disallows sexual relations between unmarried spouses or married same-sex spouses.

Lawyers arguing against the motion, seeking to endorse the bencher’s earlier decision, could not match the often inflammatory rhetoric of their impassioned colleagues.

These lawyers argued the law. They reminded the members that B.C’s Human Rights Code specifically exempts religious groups. They confirmed that Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to a private educational institution, its purview of protection is against fundamentally unfair governmental action.

They relied on the Supreme Court of Canada’s earlier decision in Trinity Western University v. B.C. College of Teachers where the Teacher’s College tried to block Trinity-educated teachers from becoming members and teachers in B.C. and failed.

They implored their colleagues to recognize the myriad of legal opinions from some of Canada’s brightest legal minds, and the opinion of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, yes, even that bastion of liberal thinking, all of whom supported Trinity Western’s position.

There is an expression that is common amongst lawyers: “if the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts”.

It seems that many of B.C.’s lawyers embraced the well-spun facts, and ignored the law.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Parental Alienation Leads Court to Call Father a “Wallet”

Originally posted on Children First Blog:

Lawdiva’s Blog   –   Canadian Lawyer  Georgialee Lang – Her recent story on Parental Alienation

There are many divorced fathers in Canada who believe they are nothing more than a “wallet” in their children’s eyes. It is rare however, for a judge to confirm that status in Reasons for Judgment, but that is exactly what Mr. Justice Gray did in his recent decision in Veneman v. Veneman 2012 ONSC 6324.

Mr. and Mrs. Veneman separated in 2004 after 11 years of marriage. Mr. Veneman left the family home but maintained the financial status quo and enjoyed a good relationship with the children, ages 8 and 11.

The apparent bliss of separation disappeared, however, when Mr. Veneman commenced a personal relationship with a woman he met on the internet. His ex-wife’s reaction was venomous as revealed in vulgar emails from her to Mr. Veneman where she called his girlfriend an…

View original 617 more words

“Where Have All the Fathers Gone?”

10950859361151CDP Lawdiva will be participating in a Pre-Father’s Day Virtual Media Conference on June 4, 2014 from 1 pm to 2 pm Pacific time, online http://www.newswise.com

Jason Patric, the actor (best known for his roles in Lost Boys and Speed 2: Cruise Control) and activist, who is fighting to be an equal parent, will join three nationally known parenting experts in a virtual media conference Wednesday, June 4, the week leading up to Father’s Day.

This online event comes at a time when 53% of women under 30 who have children are not married*. That statistic predicts a generation of children with little or no father involvement – a potential threat to society and a troubling development for America’s children.

MEDIA EVENT WILL FEATURE:

* Jason Patric – actor, activist, and founder of Stand Up for Gus

* Dr. Warren Farrell — author of Father and Child Reunion

* Georgialee Lang — Leading Women for Shared Parenting

* Dr. Ned Holstein – founder and chair of the National Parents Organization

WHEN:

Wednesday, June 4
4 pm – 5 pm EDT

WHERE:

Online via http://www.newswise.com
Journalists must pre-register; click here to register.

Among issues the four speakers will explore:

* Why aren’t more fathers more involved with raising young children – and where have all the fathers gone?

* What are the implications for America’s future?

* Are there larger issues involved in Stand Up for Gus and Jason Patric’s battle for co-custody of his son? Or is this just about cases of in vitro fertilization?

* How are women becoming a political force for the equal involvement of both parents?

*What role do family courts play in keeping fathers apart from their children

* Any and all questions from media.

KEY QUOTE:

Warren Farrell says: “Today we consider it unfathomable that the world of work could neglect the contributions of women. We will soon consider it unfathomable that the world of our children is neglecting the contributions of their dads. The result is overburdened moms; fathers who feel unvalued; children doing worse in more than thirty areas in which they could be excelling.”

ISSUES & ANGLES:

Issues and story angles the presenters will discuss during the online media conference:

–Jason Patric, actor, activist and founder of Stand Up For Gus; http://www.standupforgus.com

– Everyday-life examples of what he and Gus did together that Gus has been deprived of for more than a year;
— Why he’s fighting for Gus and all the kids who are being deprived of their dad;
— What he’s learned about how the system treats dads.

–Warren Farrell, PhD, author Father and Child Reunion; http://www.warrenfarrell.biz

– What the research shows about why children do better when fathers are equally involved;
— What dads do that provides checks and balances to what moms do – and why those differences matter;
— The conditions that must prevail for a child raised in a non-intact family to do as well as a child raised in an intact family.

–Georgialee Lang, J.D., of Leading Women for Shared Parenting; http://www.lw4sp.org

– Why mothers need to make the equal involvement of both parents a top priority for their children;
— How women and mothers are becoming a political force toward this end;
— Why Leading Women for Shared Parenting is redefining the “maternal instinct” as providing a child with both parents.

–Ned Holstein, M.D., Founder and Chair of the National Parents’ Organization; https://nationalparentsorganization.org

– What’s happening in the U.S. and Canada about the challenges fathers face on a legal level;
–Which states and provinces have implemented the most progressive legislation?

Journalists: Click here to register for the online conference.

* Child Trends, 2012. Drawn from U.S. Census data.http://www.childtrends.org/index.cfm. Cited in Jason De Parle and Sabrina Vavernise, “For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage, The New York Times, Feb. 17, 2012,” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

Dr. Amy Baker critiquing Caplan’s article on Parental Alienation in Psychology Today

Georgialee Lang:

An excellent article from blog “Children First”.

Originally posted on Children First Blog:

DR. AMY BAKER: PARENTAL ALIENATION IS CHILD ABUSE
Psychology Today has finally wised up. Not long ago the magazine ran a truly scurrilous article by Paula Caplan that was supposedly about Parental Alienation Syndrome, but simply recycled a few old and utterly meritless claims. Those claims are routinely made by anti-father advocates who fear that PAS may deprive mothers of custody. Of course that’s correct; any parent – mother or father who engages in parental alienation deserves to lose custody. Put simply, parental alienation is child abuse. The Caplan article in Psychology Today frankly described PAS as a theory that fathers use to take children from mothers. The fact that that is simply untrue (PAS supporters have said for years that alienators can be male or female) detered Caplan not in the least. Nor did the fact that the science she cited is long outdated and at least one of…

View original 888 more words

5 Big Lies About Shared Parenting

_DSC4179 - Version 2Canada’s MP’s will continue their debate on Saskatchewan MP Maurice Vellacott’ s private member’s bill C-560 on shared parenting on May 27, 2014, with a vote expected to follow days later.

Recent polls from Nanos confirm that 80% of Canadians want a change in the way custodial decisions are made and the chaos in our family courts has united parents, lawyers, and judges to insist on real reforms to eliminate the soul-destroying financial and emotional devastation wreaking havoc among Canadian families who dare step a foot into the litigation pond.

So the passage of the bill should be a fait accompli, nest-ce pas? Not so fast….

It appears that both Liberals and New Democrats have changed their views on shared parenting since the 1998 Joint House of Commons/Senate Report entitled “For the Sake of the Children”, a much-heralded report commissioned during Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s tenure, where politicians of all stripes recommended that shared parenting be implemented to enable divorced parents and their children to maintain a close and continuous relationship after marriage breakdown.

That was then and this is now, and today the Conservatives alone stand to support an initiative whose time is well over due. You ask, if Canadians support shared parenting why wouldn’t their political leaders follow suit?

That puzzles me too because the psychological literature in the 1990’s regarding custody, access, and parenting was rife with findings that favoured a maternal preference, while today those old wives’ tales and custody myths have been demolished by cutting-edge, international research, such as American Dr. Richard Warshak’s 2014 treatise on shared parenting that has garnered the written support of another hundred experts in the field.

So what kool-aid are they drinking? It appears that many of the political naysayers are guzzling the views of the Canadian Bar Association, who purport to represent the views of Canada’s lawyers, who I say, have got it wrong. So what is the truth about shared parenting?

1. Shared Parenting Means Giving Up the Best Interests of the Child Test. NOT TRUE

-A rebuttable presumption of shared parenting does not abandon an examination of what is in a child’s best interests, it merely codifies the position that both parents, if fit, have a shared responsibility to parent their child.

2. Shared Parenting Focuses on Parental Rights Rather Than Children’s Rights. NOT TRUE

- Shared parenting permits children to have a real relationship with each parent, which is their right and a parent’s obligation.

3. Shared Parenting is Strictly a Men’s Rights Issue. NOT TRUE

-While men have been the primary victims of our custody laws, women are also affected as parents, grandparents, partners of parents and supporters of a fair and just system of family law. An American- based group “Leading Women for Shared Parenting” with international membership, voices women’s concerns about outdated custody assumptions.

4. Shared Parenting is Not What Children Want, They Want One Home. NOT TRUE

-Renowned American psychologist and parenting expert, Dr. Joan Kelly, dismisses the myth that kids want to live with one parent and highlights the negative consequences of one-parent homes.

5. Shared Parenting Only Works for Older Children and Teens. NOT TRUE

-Dr. Warshak’s research shows that the misguided notion that children under six-years-old are too young to have overnights with both parents has done a frightening disservice to children and parents alike.

If we had implemented the recommendations from 1998, Canada could have led the way down a path that is being adopted by multiple countries and many jurisdictions in the United States. Will we allow our lawmakers to miss the boat a second time? I hope not.