A Man Who is His Own Lawyer Has a Fool For a Client

_DSC4851In 1814 British scholar and writer Henry Kett wrote “A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client”, a truism if there ever was one, and later adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States who wrote “the adage that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client” is the product of years of experience by seasoned litigators. (Kay v. Ehrler, 499 US 432, 437 (1991)

A classic example of the danger of acting “pro se” or for one’s self is illustrated by Anthony Zappin, a 30-year-old New York lawyer who made the disastrous mistake of acting for himself in his own divorce.

Married to lawyer Claire Comfort in 2013, the couple separated shortly after their son was born. Zappin’s path to self-destruction began after he entered into a consent order dated November 2013 where he agreed to have no contact with his wife and supervised access to his son.

In April 2014 Superior Court Judge Anthony Epstein found that a motion filed by Mr. Zappin was “replete with intemperate and uncivil language…redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous”. Judge Epstein also criticized his counsel skills, a comment that Zappin, a junior lawyer, took great exception to.

In May 2014 Judge Epstein rendered a further decision throwing out Zappin’s application that he reconsider his prior ruling. By this time, Mr. Zappin’s bad behavior was escalating as evidenced by the handwritten note he attached to his reconsideration motion that read “You’re pathetic! (Judicial Complaint Forthcoming)

On March 3, 2015, Justice Deborah A. Kaplan rendered oral reasons in open court that apparently displeased attorney Zappin. When she concluded she asked Mr. Zappin if there were any other matters for her to consider. He answered:

MR. ZAPPIN: I just want to make it known on the record that I am tired of the lies coming from the court and tainting of the record, knowing full well this is going to go to the Appellate Division. And we’re gonna be in the Appellate Division tomorrow, getting a stay, and then we’ll go back down to D.C. on Friday, and we’re going to open up to Ms. Comfort’s domestic violence petition, and we’re gonna have a hearing down there in from of Judge Blant, because that’s who she lied to, saying that she filed the motion and we’ll have him make a finding of domestic violence. So that’s all I have to say.

THE COURT: Are you finished?

MR. ZAPPIN: Oh, I’m finished, your Honor.

Penning the disciplinary judgment in respect of Anthony Zappin, Justice Matthew F. Cooper wrote:

(Zappin’s) “contemptuous remarks directed towards Justice Kaplan — made to her face in her own courtroom in front of attorneys, litigants and court staff — were not restricted to the statements quoted above. Without reciting the other deeply personal, and frankly outrageous, verbal attacks that plaintiff launched against Justice Kaplan when he was before her on March 3, 2015, they can only be described as words not said in civil discourse, let alone ones that should ever be uttered by an attorney to a judge in the context of a court proceeding.”

But Justice Kaplan was just one of Mr. Zappin’s victims. He also targeted a lawyer ordered by the court to represent his son’s interests, regaling her with scathing comments. Later he established a domain site in her name and on this website wrote missives like:

“Harriet You’re a very sick and greedy woman. I pray for you and hope you seek help. Also, “I intend to keep the public apprised of your misconduct and disturbing behavior.”

The child’s lawyer retained a court ordered psychiatrist to provide expert testimony, a task that was met with Mr. Zappin’s pernicious complaint to the psychiatrist’s professional organization, and although quickly dismissed, caused considerable anxiety and harm to the innocent expert.

Most damaging, however, was Justice Cooper’s conclusion that Mr. Zappin’s “ill-advised behaviour seriously calls into question his fitness to practice law” and indicates a “personality that makes (him) incapable of properly parenting the parties’ child”.

Zappin was fined $10,000. The trial to resolve the issues takes place in November 2015. After all this, one can only hope Zappin finally hires a lawyer.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Disbarred and Disgraced Lawyer Strikes Again

GEO Oct 26, 2010Former lawyer Janice L. Jessup, who practiced on Long Island New York has a dreadful discipline history which led to her resignation and disbarment in 2010. Rather than slinking away into oblivion she is again in the news for stealing $1.2 million dollars from an elderly, mentally and physically challenged client.

In 2008 she faced 13 charges of professional misconduct involving making false statements of fact and law; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; representing a client without adequate preparation; conduct adversely reflecting on her fitness as a lawyer; engaging in an impermissible conflict of interest; and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Unable to muster any kind of defence she opted to resign in 2010, an act that ensured she could not apply for reinstatement for at least seven years. Frankly, she got off lightly if her disbarment was the only punishment for her flagrant abuse of her clients’ trust. She apparently relocated to Charlotte, North Carolina and began using her husband’s surname, Jones.

It now appears the 2008 discipline charges were only the tip of the iceberg.

In 2007 she acted for Geraldine Savage, age 47, in respect of real estate inherited by Ms. Savage that was expropriated and used to build a community centre in Westbury. Lawyer Jessup convinced officials she had authorization to accept $1.2 million dollars in compensation on behalf of her client.

She craftily arranged for an imposter to pretend she was Geraldine Savage when government officials visited her home to confirm Ms. Jessup’s authority to act was legitimate and to investigate Savage’s health status. The real Geraldine Savage was resting comfortably in a residential facility, oblivious of the fraud being perpetrated.

In 2013 Ms. Savage’s relatives realized she had been duped by her lawyer. They later learned Ms. Jessup had spent all the money on herself, her family, and reimbursing other clients.

She was arrested in January 2015 for charges of first-degree grand larceny and first-degree scheme to defraud and entered a “not guilty” plea last month. The offences carry a maximum prison sentence of eight to 25 years. Her bail was set at a bond of $150,000 or $100,000 cash.

Is it just me or does it seem that cases of corrupt lawyers seem to be on the increase or is it that with the web and other social media we now hear about them much more than before?

“There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed.”
― Gautama Buddha

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Aged New York Husband His Wife’s Prisoner?

GEO#1Eighty-four-year old Martin Cassidy spent his career creating dinosaurs for the American Museum of National History.

His career began in 1972 when the museum was offered the articulated skeleton of a dinosaur, an acquisition that would cost $200,000, plus as much as $500,000 to send a team into the field to find, collect, pack, ship, prepare, and reassemble the gigantic beast. Realizing how financially impractical that was, his new calling began.

Over the years Mr. Cassidy and his team built life-like dinosaur facsimiles for museums around the world. It was while working at the museum that he became acquainted with New York pulp and paper billionaire and philanthropist Ira Wallach, whose charitable foundation provided funding for the famous museum.

Eventually he met Ira Wallach’s daughter, Kate Wallach, and before their 1987 marriage he signed a pre-nuptial agreement. Kate allegedly told him it was necessary to “make her family more comfortable”. Her father died in 2007 at the age of 97, and left her $200 million dollars.

During their 28-year May-December marriage they had five children. In Mr. Cassidy’s recent divorce court filing he deposed that while his wife luxuriates in their lavish $20 million dollar Long Island estate, he is relegated to a dark, dank area above the garage outfitted with a small bed and two rickety folding chairs.

There is a toilet, but no bath or shower, and he uses a nail pounded into the wall to hang his meagre wardrobe. His daily menu consists of canned soup and he receives $2,500 a month to meet his expenses.

Martin Cassidy explains in his filed affidavit that he is “literally and figuratively a prisoner” of his wife who he says is waiting for him to die so that she doesn’t have to share any of her large estate with him.

Kate Wallach’s lawyer, Kenneth, Weinstein, says Mr. Cassidy lives in a “beautiful home with surroundings he has chosen” and that his client’s husband is suffering from dementia. She reportedly does not wish to divorce.

A court-appointed guardian who is overseeing the process to determine his mental status has remarked that his living accommodation is “far from luxurious”.

In a recent court application Mr. Cassidy sought an order that his wife pay him $30,000 a month so he can move to his own rental accommodation. The Court ruled that pending the mental evaluation he should remain in the family home. His lawyer, Bettina Hindin, is appealing the order. She remarked:

“Imagine, solely as the result of being a divorce litigant, a court can force you to live with the spouse you are trying to rid yourself of.”

My observations? If the tables were turned and Kate Wallach was the victim of the circumstances described, a spousal support order would have been granted tout-suite, and probably for a lot more than $30,000 a month.

After 28-years of marriage and five children it is hard to imagine that a Court will not set aside the prenuptial agreement. In British Columbia these types of agreements are effective in short-term marriages with no children. Add years and children to the equation and they become less sustainable.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

JetBlue Airlines Demonstrates the Spirit of Christmas Amid the Politics of Racism

GAL & PAL #2jpgJetBlue is a discount airline with a big heart. Headquartered in Long Island, New York, the company announced they would provide free airfare to New York City for the funerals of New York police officers, Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, who were ambushed and assassinated as they sat in their patrol car in Brooklyn.

The assailant, who committed suicide after the slaying, reportedly tweeted that his murderous actions were taken in revenge for the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner.

JetBlue has offered free airfare to permit every police department in the United States to send two officers to the funeral. Millions of Americans have saluted the generosity of the airline, however, an abusive vocal minority, including professional protesters and anarchists, have denounced JetBlue by tweeting defamatory insults, such as the following:

@JetBlue is perfect example of white corporate America perpetuating white supremacy in police brutality #BlackLivesMatter”


@JetBlue yes, they are a shitty company, would not be surprised if they are racists.

Unfortunately for the pea-brained individuals behind these tweets, and thousands of others who share their supposed outrage, the battle cry of “racism” has lost all meaning. It has been so politicized over the years that it is no longer a threatening phrase due to its misplaced use. If one opines that Michelle Obama wore an inappropriate outfit to a state dinner, cries of racism will ring out. (albeit Michelle is always perfectly outfitted).

Obama’s oval office open-door policy with race-baiter Al Sharpton is another in a long-line of White House missteps. I still shudder thinking about President Obama’s public statement that “Trayvon Martin could be my son”, a missive that did nothing to help race relations in America.

I congratulate JetBlue for their corporate generosity in facilitating a large turn out for the funerals of an Asian and a Latino police officer who were murdered, only because they wore the blue uniform. How is that racist?

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang


_DSC4851If your boyfriend or girlfriend is a liar or worse, a cheater, you can “out” him or her, just like Stacey Blitsch and Amanda Ryncarz did when they posted their complaints about their former lover, lawyer Matthew Couloute, on LiarsCheatersRUS.com.

The website is designed to provide a forum for women and men whose wives, husbands or significant others have “done them wrong”, usually by engaging in one or more affairs during what they believed to be a monogamous relationship.

In the case of Matthew Couloute, a former prosecutor and Court TV analyst, when he learned that the LiarsCheaters comments were the first hits for him when anyone googled him, he sued both women for compensation for inflicting harm to his reputation and causing mental anguish and economic loss.

Ms. Blitsch was a professional roller derby skater and the mother of Mr. Couloute’s son, while Ms. Ryncarz reported that Mr. Coulote dumped her and married someone else twelve days later. The online comments from the women included “Lied and cheated his entire 40 years of life”;”He’s scum, run far away” and “Has no longterm friends. He rents or finances everything and owns absolutely nothing”.

The website makes it very clear that the material on the site is someone’s opinion and the owners of Liars Cheaters do not guarantee the truthfulness or accuracy of the posted allegations.

Last week Federal Judge Harold Baer threw out Mr. Couloute’s lawsuit saying that Mr. Couloute could not show he had suffered any professional damage and ruled the comments were not defamatory because they were “clearly hyperbolic”. The Judge said that it would be obvious to anyone that the comments were the “opinions of disappointed lovers”.

Mr. Couloute says he intends to appeal the ruling: “When you look for a lawyer and the first thing that comes up on Google is defamatory, how are you not harmed?”


Karma is a bitch….Mr. Couloute married Lauren Haidon twelve days after dumping Ms. Ryncarz, having dated for two months prior to their wedding. Ms. Haidon stood up and defended her husband when he was cyber-slammed by his ex-girlfriends, but now she says they were absolutely right!

She filed for divorce in 2012 alleging that Mr. Couloute abandoned her and their 7-month-old baby. In an August 2012 family court filing she said “Father is mentally, financially, emotionally unstable. Father is emotionally abusive.”

But it gets worse. It appears the couple may have reconciled as the New York Post this week reports that Mr. Couloute was arrested and charged with third-degree assault. The victim is identified as his wife, but no name is given.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

When Surrogacy and Adoption Goes Wrong

DSC00258_1Several months ago we read about a couple from Australia who hired a Thai surrogate so she could bear the child they always wanted. During month three of the surrogate’s pregnancy the couple were informed that the 21 year-old surrogate was having twins, one of whom tested positive for Down’s syndrome. According to the surrogate, the parents-to-be implored her to have an abortion but she refused.

When the twins were born the agency who arranged the surrogacy delivered the “healthy” twin girl to the couple, leaving behind the baby boy who also had a congenital heart defect. Once the rejection of this little boy went viral, kind people around the world began donating monies, more than $150,000, to the surrogate mother who vowed to keep the baby and was surprised and heartened by the generosity of strangers.

The Australian couple were vilified and attempted to tell their side of the story, which was that they prayed fervently for their baby’s boy health when the twins were born two months premature, but were told the baby boy would not survive more than a day.

The media storm accelerated when it was publicly revealed that the biological father, an Australian, was a convicted pedophile and his Asian wife was aware of his sordid past. At the same time, the media released information that more than 65 babies born of surrogates in Thailand for gay couples from Israel were in the hands of Thai social services, because the Israeli government refused to grant immigration visas to the children.

These stories and others tell of the difficulties experienced by adoptive parents, surrogate mothers, and other players in the world of assisted reproduction and adoption.

A new story out of New York sheds further light on the frailties of international adoption. In the case of Matter of Adoption of Child A and Child C, a Long Island couple adopted two children from Russia in 2008. The children were described as “healthy and socially well-adjusted siblings”, but their adoptive parents had reason to doubt what they had been told when both children began to exhibit serious mental health problems. The couple also learned that the children were not related and both had been victims of sexual abuse. This truth began to explain the children’s bizarre behaviour including their threats to kill the parents.

Nassau County Judge Edward McCarty III will hear the parent’s application to void the adoption which will be heard in open court although the names of the parents and the children will be sealed. Judge McCarty explained that he wanted the proceedings to be public because 18 Russian children who were adopted by American families died violently in the last 20 years, most of them only residing in the US for six months.

The Long Island children, who are 12 and 14 years-old, are presently in state mental health facilities.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Judge Trashes New York Landmark “Carnegie Deli” in Divorce Ruling

49afd8240a58bf0fb97d4a86105572c1I was in New York city last fall and near the top of our agenda was a trip to the Carnegie Deli, a landmark in mid-town since 1937 and run by the Levine family since 1976. Its claim to fame is kosher pastrami, corned beef, and their famous cheesecake, all of which they can ship almost anywhere in the world. It’s a very kitschy little place with uneven floors and plastic table cloths, but there is always a line-up.

I didn’t expect the Carnegie Deli to be featured in a divorce post, but it seems that Marian Harper Levine and her husband Sandy, who now runs the deli with her, were lambasted by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Matthew Cooper for their petty squabbles, while litigants with serious problems were put on the back burner. The audacious judge said:

“What I care more about is the fact they’ve made millions of millions of dollars on the backs of dishwashers, cleaners and pastrami slicers who make as much in a year as they’ve made in a day or two.”

This was apparently in reference to a recent $2.65 million dollar settlement reached between the Levine’s and their staff, who were cheated out of proper wages for over a decade.

Mrs. Levine’s application was to reduce the $11,00 per month she has been paying her husband in spousal support, a request that was denied by Judge Cooper. She also complained that her husband, who began an affair with the deli’s former hostess, had helped himself to huge sums of money, an allegation that was called “all smoked meat and mirrors” by Mr. Levine’s witty attorney, Donald Frank. Mrs. Levine took exception to the trivialization of her concerns by opposing counsel, a view that Judge Cooper dismissed saying:

“This is not a case where I lose sleep at night. This is not some case where I have people with disabled children, where I have people who can’t afford to make next-month’s rent”…If I made light of anything, if I joked more than I should have, if I occasionally used a sarcastic tone…it’s not that I’ve lost track of what this case is about…”

No doubt we’ll hear more about the dissolution of the Levine’s 22-year marriage…as for me, I really didn’t like their cheesecake at all!

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang