Pro Se Lawyer, Divorce Actions--Bad Ideas

Occasionally, in my Bad career I came, shudderingly, into proximity of "divorce" aka, "domestic relations" or "family law" attorneys.  Occasionally, I have encountered lawyers, divorce and otherwise, who have attempted to handle their own divorces, pro se.  Bad Idea.

How often have I advised against being your own attorney since the beginning of this "blawg?"  This same caution applies doubly to lawyers who try to handle their own complex divorces (any that involve property and children).

The New York disciplinary authorities have now suspended attorney, Anthony Chiofalo for 2 years for his conduct and outrageous assertions in pleadings filed by him in his divorce and divorce-related lawsuits.  This opinion needs to be read to be believed.  Attorney Chiofalo was quite simply insane--and that he's taking a two year suspension instead of disbarment is pretty unbelievable.  He wrote and submitted pleadings that are objectively frivolous and filled with obscenity especially of the scatological category.  He abused his knowledge to abuse and emotionally torture his family.  Disgusting.

The divorce attorneys that I knew in the 1980s and 1990s were pretty out of control.  As bad as this guy?  Yep, maybe worse.  One particular lawyer comes to mind, a brilliant African-American lawyer who fathered children outside of his marriage.  Mr. August Willfully was the target of a paternity action, which he lost. Subsequently, he was the subject of various child support actions which he lost. "Willfully" filed multiple frivolous lawsuits, appeals, and appeals upon appeals, endlessly tying up his support obligations in away that it is relatively amazing that no disciplinary actions were initiated against him.   But Attorney Willfully's conduct did draw repeated financial sanctions.  "Willfully" and his firm "LoBlo and Willfully" notoriously were the first to request sanctions when they saw opposing counsel in a position of exposure over a legal position or pleading mistake. 

Karma ghosts!

Judge Chauncey M. Depew Wants to Lick Your Butt

The Legal Profession Blawg tips to the story of the Kansas Judge who has been suspended for one year for what is described as incredibly childish and rude sex play and harasssment.  Oh, the header to this blog post is one of the charming observations Judge Depew made to one of the court's staff. Nice.The victims are female court employees. 

The opinion of the Kansas Supreme Court suspending Judge Depew raises one very importatn question, why isn't this guy in jail?

Seriously, sexting photographs of his genitalia is one thing, grabbing female court employees who have "to forcibly remove [themselves] from his grip," that's assault and battery and or gross sexual imposition.  A one year suspension, are you kidding me. 

New Jersey "Boorish" Lawyer

The invaluable Legal Profession blawg reports on the opinion of the NJ Supreme Court suspending a lawyer for one year.  NJ must be a pretty tolerant state, because this guy has had several go rounds with the authorities in the past, mostly relating to client communication problems. 

David Witherspoon's client communication problems now include soliciting sex from his clients in exchange for proposed discounts on attorney fees or as the NJ Supreme Court calls it "attempted sexual bartering."  Mike Frisch at Legal Profession summarizes as follows:

The . . . charges involved allegations that [Witherspoon] offered discounted legal services or refunds to three female clients and the daughter of a fourth client 'in the context of suggestions that they perform certain acts with him or with other women while he watched.' He told one lesbian client that her lesbianism was caused 'by a bad experience with the male sexual organ,' that she was 'looking good,' and that he 'would return $600 of fees she had paid him if she joined him on the office couch.' He claimed that these and other similar comments were made in jest.


The attorney's explanation was rejected by a district ethics committee and the Disciplinary Review Board. The DRB proposed a three-month suspension with two dissenters favoring a six-month sit down. The court here took a sterner view, although the court majority concluded that disbarment was 'disproportionate...for his boorish, insensitive and offensive, but hardly criminal, conduct.'
Justice LaVecchia, joined by Justice Albin, would disbar: 'A zero-tolerance policy toward attorneys who prey on clients, whether financially or as [he] has done, is needed to protect the public and the reputation of the profession.'"
__________________________
You know where the Bad Lawyer comes down on the exploitation of clients.  Clients are vulnerable and easy prey, the lawyer/predator is not fit to practice law.

Deposition Altercation Resulting in Disciplinary Suspension

The Legal Profession blawg reports (link is to the Florida Supreme Court decision) on a disciplinary case from Florida arising out of verbal melee at a 5 day deposition in a case involving against DuPont over a product marketed by the chemical giant.  Robert Joseph Ratiner, (pic, not Mr. Ratiner) a plaintiff's counsel was videotaped by the court reporter going wild after defense counsel reached over the table and slapped an "exhibit sticker" on his laptop computer.  Ratiner's own consultant suggested that he take a chill pill.  The court reporter is heard saying that he could not continue to work in the chaos caused by Mr. Ratiner's reaction.  The net result is that poor Mr. Ratiner drew a disciplinary action, a recommended 2 year suspension which in the Florida Supreme Court opinion should be reduced to 60 days.

Any lawyer who has put up with shenanigans at a deposition provoked by outrageous and insulting conduct by opposing counsel recognizes himself in the over-reaction of this lawyer who is paying a dear price even if it is only 60 days.  Reading between the lines, a smart aleck BigLaw lawyer, reaches across the table and applies an evidence sticker to a lawyers laptop computer--implying that the unfortunate lawyer's information will be seized and offered into evidence.  The conduct by this provocative asshole attorney for DuPont was outrageous and harassing in the extreme---unfortunately, the reaction of Mr. Ratiner was disastrous.  This should have gone no further than Mr. Ratiner recessing the deposition proceeding until the court could calm the participants.  Instead, Mr. Ratiner self-destructed and damaged his client's case and his own reputation.

I have personally been in Mr.Ratiner's shoes on numerous occasions.  As recently as last summer I asked a perfectly normal question in a 2-hour deposition and opposing counsel improperly instructed his client not to answer the question.  The behavior of opposing counsel was wrong.  After some gnashing of teeth I moved on; years ago the provocation might have escalated into a ridiculous spectacle with counsel and myself coming close to blows.  By then I was already a recovering Bad Lawyer.  Many times over the years, my hero and close friend Pat has had "road scrapes" with the sorts of characters that slap "exhibit stickers" on your materials in a breach of professional courtesy as calculated acts of provocation.

Do not take the bait.  This story stands for a very important lesson, you help neither your cause, nor your client's case by over-reacting to ridiculous deposition tactics.

Loser Lawyer Loses License

Andrew Lockshin is a goofball with the emotional maturity of a 14 year old as reflected it the disciplinary case from the Ohio Supremes stripping him of his law license "indefinitely."  In essence my Ohio colleagues tell me he can reapply for admission after two years but he's going to have to demonstrate that he's grown up.  This is from Kristin Smith Horn story at the Port Clinton News Herald  (link):

 "The [Ohio Supreme Court], in a 7-0 decision, suspended Andrew Lockshin's license to practice law in Ohio indefinitely to protect the public from him, according to the court's decision.

'This has been a challenging, disturbing and sensitive case, particularly for those who have been victimized by Mr. Lockshin's inappropriate conduct,' said Cathleen Bolek, trial counsel for the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, which pursued disciplinary action against Lockshin. 'Throughout this case, Mr. Lockshin has failed to demonstrate a sincere commitment to pursuing treatment. His failure has caused concern that he will re-offend.'

During a phone interview Tuesday, Lockshin apologized for the harm he caused people involved in his case and said he hopes they can move on with their lives. 'I'm relieved that this chapter of my life is over and look forward to moving on with the next chapter,' he said.

Lockshin, however, said he plans to leave the Fremont area and pursue a career in sales. He declined to comment further. Lockshin, 33, has been an attorney since 2002 and handled court-appointed criminal cases and other matters in Sandusky, Ottawa and other area county courts.  Since November, Lockshin has been in and out of jail on various charges, including drunken driving and falsification. He has a hearing Friday in Fremont Municipal Court on his latest case, a probation violation charge.  The charge resulted after police found him in a local tavern last month -- four days after he was put on probation. Per his probation, he was not allowed to go to bars, according to court records.  The Supreme Court's decision brought forth new details regarding Lockshin's mental state, and allegations made by former clients.

After an August hearing, the court's Board of Commissioners on Grievance and Discipline determined Lockshin acted inappropriately with clients -- all women and a 17-year-old girl -- a sheriff's deputy and a witness and missed the deadline to appeal a male client's criminal conviction. The board recommended in January the court indefinitely suspend his license.  During his testimony before the board, Lockshin admitted to having inappropriate conversation and contact with the women but denied some allegations. One client accused him of touching her breast and another said he told her he wanted to perform a sexual act on her and wanted to see her breasts.

Some clients said he asked to meet them at hotels. The 17-year-old girl said when he visited her in jail, he touched her leg and told her he was aroused. The sheriff's deputy said he discussed the size of his genitals with her.  Lockshin, however, showed a pattern in lying in depositions regarding his case, the justices wrote. Instead of taking full responsibility for his behavior, he made excuses and blamed some of the women, according to the court's decision.

The bar association and Lockshin [negotiated] a two-year license suspension with 18 months stayed, meaning [Lockshin] would actually be suspended six months.  The suspension would have included certain conditions, including a requirement he seek treatment for his behavior, Bolek said.  After the bar learned more about Lockshin's medical state and lack of treatment at the hearing, it learned a harsher punishment was necessary to protect the public, she said."
____________________________
Can you say:  A-l-c-o-h-o-l-i-c?  Seriously the universe is telling this guy that he needs to fix a big problem.  He needs to get sober, and grow up.  Amazingly, Mr. Lockshin still has a law career and a life out there, if (big IF) he can get help.  I envy him!