Bad Lawyers versus Good Ones

[zachira]

Just wondering if you ever had to deal with a lawyer who seemed to be only out for himself/herself and not representing your best interests? Were you love bombed in the begining by the lawyer only to later to be blamed when you gave the lawyer feedback on what you needed for representation? Please share your stories and advice about dealing with bad lawyers and how to hire a good one.

[ForeverDad]

I had two lawyer, both good, somewhat.

My first was a former ADA, though she was inexperienced, she handled my months of separation but admitted she did not have sufficient experience for a protracted divorce struggle in another county.  She recommended a local lawyer she'd previously dealt with as opposing lawyers.  She noted his experience balanced with reasoning and understanding versus aggressiveness.

I chose that lawyer and he guided me through the divorce.  He estimated the divorce with child at 7-9 months, in reality it was 23.5 months.  He ignored my conclusions that she could have a Personality disorder such as Borderline but as the years passed (8 years in and out of court - 2005-2013) he sometimes got frustrated with my ex, one time calling her F-ing Nuts and another time said she must be a sociopath capable of fooling a lie detector.

One time I got frustrated with him and he recommended a couple lawyers he trusted could handle my case.  But I stuck with him.  I went from alternate weekends to equal time to full custody to majority parenting time during the school year.  My court clearly preferred making the least possible tweaks and that took 8 years before he sufficiently deflated my ex's entitlement bubble.

Sometimes he was even gleeful.  During the divorce she had temp custody and my preschooler's quasi-agency refused to release his records.  Twice she agreed to sign papers toallow me access but never did.  The third time he filed a petition and said that put the court in a bind, it had to protect the child's agency yet also had to protect me.  I won.  He later told me other lawyer called him asking how he had managed to accomplish that!

Another time, when I was seeking custody a couple years after the final decree...

She still had conflict as before so I returned to seek custody and majority time.  My lawyer loved one exchange with her testimony, an infamous story here.  One of my examples of conflict was how she'd sabotaged my vacation notice by claiming she wanted to observe Kwanzaa which was in the middle of my winter vacation.  While I'd always known her ancestry was mixed from the Caribbean, she had never claimed to be from African roots.  She testified "though I am not Jewish descent, I want to observe it." Clearly she had it confused with Hanukkah.  Of course my lawyer wasn't going to tell her that and her lawyer couldn't step in either.  So he kept asking her to describe her Jewish Kwanzaa.  After some three times stumbling around, her lawyer objected saying the question had been answered.  I don't recall exactly where in her testimony but at one point I saw the magistrate (His Honor BumpOnALog) fold his arms on his desk and lay his head down.

The last hearing in court we had court set aside two full days for me seeking majority time, I already had custody.  He told me he had prepared a $23K to show her lawyer.  I don't recall ever seeing his bill.  Afterward, he asked me for payment and how much I had in the bank.  He took most of what little was there but I "saved" nearly $20K off the bill.

It was during preparation of one of our hearings that he said he feared he was getting personally involved in my case, even spoke to his wife about it, first time he ever mentioned her.  His worry was that he couldn't do his legal best if his feelings got involved, he prided himself in being dispassionate.

[alleyesonme]

Just wondering if you ever had to deal with a lawyer who seemed to be only out for himself/herself and not representing your best interests? Were you love bombed in the begining by the lawyer only to later to be blamed when you gave the lawyer feedback on what you needed for representation? Please share your stories and advice about dealing with bad lawyers and how to hire a good one.

I don't know you're exact situation, but one of my biggest issues with the attorneys I've had is that they have zero understanding of PD's. They also think every case can be fit into one of three or four different categories of cases that they've dealt with in the past, and as most of us here know all too well, some of the things we endure due to our BP spouse are very atypical. If there's a way to find someone in your state - even if not in your county - that has this understanding, I would strongly recommend at least consulting with them.

[Cat Familiar]

Since my husband is an attorney, I’ve got an inside track on some particular traits of lawyers. Not all are good litigators. If you’re in a high conflict divorce, you want someone who is aggressive, not laid back. Some are great at negotiating settlements, dealing with details, and are fine if you’re in a collaborative divorce. Most folks here are not. You want a strong advocate.

Years ago when I divorced my abusive first husband, I interviewed a few attorneys. After telling an overview of my story, a female attorney paused, then looked me in the eye, “Well, you married him.”

NEXT!

You want someone sympathetic, yet clear eyed. The guy I finally chose, after a few weeks down the line in the divorce process, said, “I’m starting to think this guy is as bad as you’ve said.” That was really validating in that he was letting me know that in his professional judgment and experience, my point of view was valid. Soon after my case ended, he became a judge.

[ForeverDad]

I wished for a public feedback session on how to improve domestic court itself.  I longed to describe the hurdles I had faced and eventually overcame...

• Many courts default to preference for mothers. -My ex was facing a Threat of DV case and later blocking access to my child for 3 months though CPS told the court they had "no concerns" about me yet still she was defaulted to temp custody and majority time in two temp orders for a total of two years.  (My lawyer and others said courts do not connect adult conflict with parenting ability.)
• Many courts still routinely default fathers to alternate weekends.  Apparently society's assumption that all fathers are willing to walk away, leaving their wallets behind and be content with starting a new family or whatever is popular with the courts.  Before my failed settlement conference stbEx's lawyer suggested alternate weekends, that what he had as a divorced father.  I told him my stbEx was unlikely to like alternate weekends - for her.
• Courts prefer minimal small-step adjustments to orders.  My lawyer explained it was so the children would not be shocked by big changes.  I asked him, what if the children are shocked by too small changes?  In my case it took 8 years in small increments to rise from alternate weekend dad to full custody and majority time during the school year.  My son was still 3 in our first hearings, last court case was just before he was 12.
• Courts can make unrealistic court orders.  After my final decree my cell died on a Friday outing with my son and I posted a greeting saying to use my house phone, dead silence.  Sunday night I reviewed for any messages.  She had to hear the new greeting yet refused the working to call him on the working phone and chose to leave me scathing messages demanding to speak to her son.  We had a hearing in court the following week and she complained, her version.  The magistrate was noticeably upset that her cases were all late so, without asking my version of events, she ordered telephone availability between 8:00 to 8:30 pm.  What about evening activities such as movies, gatherings, etc?  It was even worse on vacations.  I usually took vacations in the mountains, cell service was spotty and which time zone should I use, mother's back home or where we were?  A few years later the most practical among the magistrates reversed that prior order back to "reasonable telephone contact".
• My ex made countless allegations and most of them never made it to court.  The problem was the court routinely viewed them as separate matters.  However after a few years her claims became less credible.  One example I recall was when my court ruled I could proceed with a Change of Circumstances petition seeking custody.  In the decision it noted some of her testimony was not credible (passive courtspeak for Liar) and surprisingly noted in a brief paragraph she had made a new allegation that I had choked her years before and I wasn't even asked to respond.
• I had a long list of other frustrations but don't recall them offhand in the moment.

[yeeter]

I have interviewed multiple lawyers.  The ones that I have benefited from the most:

Some will tell you what is the likely process and outcome.  Some like to shroud that in mystery with replies such as 'every case is different, we can not predict, etc'.  Its BS, they absolutely can predict what a 'typical' process is vs a 'high conflict' process, and can also predict the elements that are 'unfair'.  Its just reality, but some  lawyers do not like to face up to how unfair or crude the family court process is.

Its a process.  With guidelines. 

Ultimately most lawyers are assuming terms will be reached by both sides and it will not need to go to trial.  This means it is really about mediating/negotiating between parties (while in the back of their mind the lawyers from both sides know what the court is most likely to rule).  They like you to think it is more powerful than it is ('a judge will look unfavorably on xyz... but in reality, what might happen is a 'stern lecture' that has no practical value/impact to the day to day).  A good lawyer will admit this.

A good lawyer will also consider if they really want the hassle.  Think about it, if they have plenty of work to take on, why would they want a high conflict case?  The emotion toil and family/children devastation and destruction that it entails.  Good lawyers will often just pass on these cases.  They need to feel they are doing something meaningful by taking it on - so start out with reasonable and sane expectations yourself and it will go better.

At the same time most lawyers will say they have dealt with 'high conflict' personalities before.  It happens all the time in divorce, right?  Wrong.  It is all relative, and true personality disorders are a continuum and outside the realm of what 99% of the population, and 88% of the lawyers, have ever dealt with/experienced.  Of course they will learn this in the process, but by then it is too late and they have learned at your expense and strategic disadvantage.  So ask them for examples of true high conflict cases they have managed, and ask what the key was to getting through it.  If they tell you there is some 'key' or 'tactic' or 'trick' to use - run.  There is no magic answer.  The only credible answer is that it is limited what can be done and it will be difficult, expensive, and destructive for all involved (because that is what the courts allow) but all we can do is minimize via our own behavior, and just grind grind grind it out and hope for the best.

Bleak I know.  But the court system is designed in a way that feeds a high conflict personality to use it as a weapon.  And 'it only takes ONE to argue, when it comes to the legal process'.

[EyesUp]

It's been > 8 months since I selected my atty, and about 4 months since D was formally filed, and I feel like I'm just getting started in my high conflict case.

Other comments in this thread are consistent with my experience, e.g., you want a litigator, not a negotiator.

In terms of good vs. bad, I interviewed 20 attys. The one I wanted to retain I could not find:  i.e., experience in my county, with my judge, with uPDs/high conflict cases, with a clearly articulated POV on how to manage such cases, and with a paralegal that is equally effective if not experienced.  I did find one atty that checked most boxes, but I could not swing her retainer.  I went with my second choice, and so far it's already cost me as much as the first choice...

My atty is somewhat passive, I've learned that I need to develop the strategy and manage my case.  On a positive note, my atty did volunteer "your wife has an undiagnosed personality disorder" which was somewhat validating.  OK, we agree, now what?

I've directed my atty to ignore certain comms from opposing counsel and essentially called "foul" on certain run-the-clock maneuvers that go nowhere.  Do not get sucked into emotional sideshows.

I understand that every case is different and that our cases are often in a class of their own, however I'm still amazed that there is no roadmap, no process I can study or apply to my case. Even with the benefit of hindsight from so many here, it often feels like each decision (what to include in admissions? interrogs?) is flying blind - even with my atty's input.  Already put in for TOs, the hearing is in Nov - everything is backed up.  OK, what action, if any, should be taken between now and then?

From where I presently sit, my view on good vs. bad lawyers is:

Hire the most experienced litigator you can afford. Check off the experience boxes with as much detail as possible (REALLY understand PDs?  Check).

Pretty much all other attys - even those who pay attention and claim to successfully settle a lot of their cases - may not necessarily serve you well. 

[zachira]

I am learning a lot from everyone's posts. I hope to hear from more members and more from those who have already shared their experiences. The world of lawyers is a world unto itself and certainly nothing like most movies in which the victims get justice.
I am suspecting that my lawyer is a narcissist. He was charming at first, and now it seems he has zero empathy. I will be looking for another lawyer before I fire this one.

[shopgirl26]

I'm going to throw my two cents in here as I'm also lawyered up and beginning divorce proceedings.

I didn't realize how lucky I truly was to have found the legal team I found until I read Bill Eddy's book, "Splitting." After I finished that book, I researched lawyers who specialized in personality disorders. I called around to a bunch of different lawyers and gave them a brief rundown of my situation. One lawyer, voted the best in his city, laughed me off the phone and was super homophobic. He kept referring to my "husband" even though I corrected him and said "wife" multiple times. Finally, I told him I'd called because he was voted the best in the area, although I couldn't understand why, and hung up on him.

The team I have now (2 lawyers, one less expensive one who files all the paperwork, another senoir attorney who will go into court and argue for me) are kind and considerate. The senior attorney took my case at a discount because he was moved by my story and confident in my case and all the supporting evidence I have. He is also very validating when it comes to my wife's off the wall behaviour. He is already annoyed with her antics and will do his best to trip her up in court.

Anyway, I'm glad I shopped around because it made me realize how important it is to find a good fit.

[zachira]

Shopgirl26,
The lawyer I have now has some incredible ratings.  You are right that hiring a good lawyer is about shopping around, seeing who is actually compassionate, understands your case, especially understands how high conflict people affect a case. I have also read Bill Eddy's book.

[MeandThee29]

I was not impressed with my ex's attorney, but he had a reputation. He was known for being a "if you want the moon, I'll fight for it" type. Multiple people told me that he was an all-out fighter who skirted legal ethics and charged way more than anyone else. Without prompting, mine told me the same after I retained him but said that he had gone against him many times and not to worry. It would be messy, but we would get a good settlement.

Mine was the managing partner of a firm specializing in high conflict divorce. In the initial interview, he immediately keyed on my mention of personality disorders. He said that I would need a lot of support in what might be a long, difficult case and recommended getting a therapist who understood that. He also noted that such cases are more likely to end up in court than others and that he had gone to trial with that type of case many times, but he had also settled many of those cases without court. He had an associate that he was mentoring who was also familiar with personality disorders who would be doing the documents and some of the coordination parts. When I went to the office for the intake appointment, he gave me a folder that had an article on high conflict divorce by Bill Eddy and a list of books and websites that included his work.

Truly they were the dream team. I never doubted their advice and abilities. My ex's attorney did indeed throw mud at the beginning and asked for the moon and more. He significantly skirted client privilege and talked to mine too much and bragged to mine about how he was overcharging my ex. At the signing, mine said that he had never had opposing counsel skirt ethics that much in over four decades of practice, but he was retiring and perhaps my ex's attorney figured that he'd get away with it because of that. The young associate handled closeout which also had its drama, but he got it done. At first my ex's attorney wouldn't return his calls and emails, but his always got going again when threatened with a contempt motion. He did NOT want to be in court with my ex.

Sadly, his attorney died of COVID before everything was truly completed in closeout. My ex did not get another attorney, but we were able to get the last pieces through. My attorney commented that with the retirement of his mentor and the death of my ex's attorney, the legal and ethical mess was effectively buried. I finally was able to close my file, and of course, my attorney said he'd be there if I ever needed him again.