When Obnoxious Lawyers Converge, Clients Are Not Well-Served

One of the worst possible scenarios for those unlucky enough to be involved in a lawsuit is when their respective lawyers are at each other’s throats. You may think you are being well-served by an aggressive, boorish lawyer whose focus is on denigrating and insulting opposing counsel, but you are not.

On the other hand, as a client you should be happy if you know or see that your lawyer has a good working relationship with opposing counsel, as you can be sure that the resolution of your case will not be hampered by ill-will between lawyers.

Oddly enough, some clients are disturbed when they see cooperation between their lawyers, misreading it as a sign of weakness on their lawyer’s part. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, there are lawyers who are so well-known for their cranky, obnoxious behavior that other lawyers refuse to take on cases where Mr. or Ms. Miserable is on the opposite side.

A recent example of bickering lawyers arose in a courtroom in Chicago, where last week the final act of an ongoing legal saga came to an end, with Judge Raymond Mitchell ordering both lawyers to resign from the case and their clients to retain new lawyers.

Lawyers Joel Brodsky and Michael Meschino treated their clients and the court to months of disturbing behavior while representing their clients in a business dispute, taking potshots at one another in open court, with no concern for their lack of professionalism and decorum.

At one point Mr. Brodsky called Mr. Meschino a “moron” and a “liar”. Meschino responded with words like “fat, short, and bald” complaining that “Brodsky was constantly shaking his bald head, so that a light was shining on me”. Over time, when the lawyers were in court, up to four sheriffs were present in the courtroom and on two occasions Mr. Meschino was escorted out of the courtroom by sheriffs.

Outside of court, threatening and insulting emails were the norm, and discovery of each party took place in the courthouse rather than in the privacy of a court reporter’s office, as is the usual practice.

Judge Mitchell advised Brodsky and Meschino that a copy of his order would be sent to the Illinois Attorney Discipline Commission so that appropriate action could be taken by the Illinois Bar.

Joel Brodsky is certainly no stranger to ethics complaints. He was the lawyer that acted for former police office Drew Peterson, who was accused of murdering his third wife Kathleen Savio.

Before the case was finished Mr. Brodsky was replaced by new counsel, an event that did not sit well with him. His public comments after his departure as counsel “shocked” the trial judge and resulted in an ethics investigation.

After Drew Peterson was convicted, the animosity between Brodsky and successor counsel, Steven Greenberg was so intense that Brodsky sued Greenberg for defamation, suggesting that Greenberg was a “pathological narcissist”.

Not surprisingly, Brodsky also suggested that Mr. Meschino was mentally ill.

While emotions can run high in hard-fought litigation, the behavior cited by Judge Mitchell has no place in our justice system and the harshest punishment should be levied against lawyers who embarrass themselves and the administration of justice. Sadly, it is their clients who suffer most.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Custody Battle Poisons Children

Parents who fight over child custody and access bring out the worst in themselves and often poison their children along the way. Divorce lawyers who are stuck in the middle of high conflict family disputes often remind their clients that children deserve both a mother and a father, and that a child immersed in conflict is usually headed for a disastrous future.

Frequently, the worst of these types of conflict peter out once the children mature, interact with their peers and begin to think for themselves. Some parents also eventually recognize that their anger hurts them more than it does their ex-spouse…but not always.

A recent court case in Illinois illustrates the worst possible outcome where parents refuse to put their children first and instead continue with angry reprisals and revenge, apparently oblivious to the seeds of destruction they are sowing, for themselves and their children.

In Miner and Miner v. Garrity 2011 IL App (1st) 1103023-U the Court of Appeal dealt with a lawsuit brought against Kimblerly Garrity, mother of the plaintiffs, Steven and Kathryn, who were 20 and 18-years old when they commenced their lawsuit.

Their father, attorney Steven Miner, together with two other attorneys, filed the suit for them which claimed damages of $50,000 each, alleging their mother had intentionally or negligently inflicted emotional distress on them during their young lives.

Mr. Miner was quick to point out in media interviews that he tried to talk his two children out of filing the lawsuit, but they insisted. His protestations are unbelievable in view of the claims he advanced on their behalf.

The Garrity/Miner marriage ended after ten-years in 1995. Mr. Miner was awarded sole custody of Steven and joint custody with his ex, of Kathryn, who resided primarily with him. So how bad an access parent was Kimberly Garrity?

The children’s grievances included their distress when their mother tried unsuccessfully to obtain primary residence of Kathyrn. She also allegedly treated the children unequally, requested medical receipts from their father before she would pay her one-half share, and referred to their father as a “Disneyland” dad.

Worse yet was the claim that when her mother began living with another man, Kathryn’s distress caused her to gain weight, which was only exceeded by her mother’s gall in taking a new name when she remarried, a change that upset Kathryn.

Even more petty was Steven’s complaint that his mother forced him to wear a seatbelt when he was 7-years old, and Kathryn’s upset at her mother’s refusal to take her to a car show. Both were also slighted by either no birthday or Christmas cards, or cards that were declared inappropriate and contained no cash or check for them.

One of the “inappropriate” cards from American Greetings showed a table full of red tomatoes with the centre tomato wearing googly eye glasses. The card read “Son I got you this birthday card because it’s just like you…different from all the rest.” On the inside Steven’s mother wrote “Have a great day! Love and Hugs, Mom xoxoxox”. How insensitive!

Not surprisingly, their litany of childish complaints impressed no one and simply confirmed their outrageous sense of entitlement, immaturity and lack of gratitude. Their father’s role in their claims of “bad mothering” deserves even greater rebuke. His participation was both contemptible and shabby.

Needless to say, their lawsuit was thrown out of court, as it should have been.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Gay to Straight Therapy Banned in Calfornia

Controversial “gay conversion” therapy will no longer be used in California to treat children 18 and under who seek to change their same-sex attraction to heterosexual attraction.

Governor Jerry Brown recently signed a Bill prohibiting state licensed therapists to engage in treatments intended to assist gay and lesbian kids to change their sexual preference, a law that comes into effect on January 1, 2013.

Proponents of the new law argue that therapies designed to alter a minor’s sexual orientation have been scientifically shown to be ineffective. Homosexuality as a psychiatric diagnosis was completely removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health in 1986, and in 2005 the American Psychiatric Association rejected the proposition that therapy could be useful for those who wished to “go straight”.

In 2007 Professors Stanton Hope from the prestigious Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois and Mark Yarhouse from Regents University in Virginia Beach joined forces in a study to test the APA’s theory that therapy was of no use.

Thirty-five of their original 98 participants dropped out almost immediately, leaving 65 research subjects at the conclusion of the study. The data was obtained through the organization called Exodus International, a Christian group whose mandate is to give homosexuals “freedom through Christ”.

Drs. Hope and Yarhouse published their results, finding that 23% of their group reported no change, 30% opted for celibacy, 20% embraced their orientation, while 23% reported they were “cured” with no harmful psychological aftermath.

However, critics say their lack of scientific rigour suggests their research is flawed and unreliable. Others say that their results do show behavioral changes, which are different from changes in sexual orientation.

What exactly is conversion therapy? It has been described as encompassing intrusive aversion treatments, drug therapy, Christian informed psychoanalysis, and spiritual intervention. Critics say the treatment brings on shame, grief, and anxiety causing patients to suffer depression and increased suicidal tendencies.

Critics of the new law have already filed lawsuits challenging the legislation on the basis that it breaches constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. They say the law is a disgusting abuse of government powers and a tyrannical interference with parental rights, who alone should determine how to help their child.

Until the law is overturned, a result that I believe is highly unlikely, therapists who continue to practice “gay to straight” therapy will be disciplined for unprofessional conduct.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang