Family law sucks – in 10 years of practice I had 3 clients commit suicide and 3 that were murdered. "ugly" doesn't start to describe it, I know criminal lawyers can see some sh** but these are people who used to love each other and have children together, the saddest part to me is that I truly believe the Family Court and the Bar (via their treatment of unbundled solos) perpetuate and enhance the problems, anyway, having too much fun myself to comment further, just feel dirty even writing about it, I just wished when I practiced that the FC judges would stick to the rules and not turn every hearing into a subjective sh**show
Probably means solo practitioners who provide unbundled services.
Unbundled services are where an attorney contracts to perform a certain aspect of a case, but not to become the full attorney of record.
In Family Court this most commonly manifests itself that an attorney is hired simply to represent a client at that hearing, and once the hearing is concluded that is it. The unbundled attorney is there just for that hearing, and not to perform any subsequent work on the case(such as respond to discovery, proceed to trial, prepare documents for the next step of the process, respond to new motions, etc).
Obviously, this is frustrating and confusing for the opposing side's attorney of record, as they do not know who to serve, or who to contact, about new issues and problems that develop in the case, or simply the next step in the procedure.
If you contact the attorney you will invariably be told "don't contact me, and don't serve me with anything. I only represented him on an unbundled basis for the last hearing."
But if you instead contact the litigant, you will soon learn that the attorney is quite offended and indignant about this as the client recently came in and re-hired the attorney for the next court date as well. The attorney will then attack you at that next hearing for directly contacting his(supposedly) represented client.
In other words, unbundled representation is a lose/lose for the attorney on the other side.
If an unbundled attorney is lose/lose for the opposing side, that only fuels the perceived benefit of using an unbundled attorney. The problems I've seen with unbundled attorneys is their repetitive use of 'Your honor, I believe that XYZ' or 'To my knowledge, my client hasn't XYZ.' It just allows them constantly to misrepresent the actual situation, delay the case by making the full representation attorney do more work to undo the court's decision based on LIES that the unbundled attorney may not have known was false, but where the unbundled attorney made such misrepresentations without spending any time to determine whether such representations made by their client to the unbundled attorney were true.
It's just a big $#!+ show.
The problems in the unbundled attorney representation that both 3:02 and 6:49 identify are very real and extremely common in Family Court. Part of the blame for the existence of the problems is the nature of the procedure itself; but equally blameworthy is the court rule creating the process, as well as, how the judges interpret and apply the rule.
EDCR 5.209 is the section the addresses "unbundled services". It provides:
Rule 5.209. Withdrawal of attorney in limited services (“unbundled services”) contract.
(a) An attorney who contracts with a client to limit the scope of representation shall:
(1) State that limitation in the first paragraph of the first paper or pleading filed on behalf of that client; and
(2) Notify the court of that limitation at the beginning of each hearing in which the attorney appears for that client.
(b) Unless otherwise ordered by the court, to withdraw from representation of a client in limited services, an attorney shall:
(1) File a Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney specifying the limited services that were to be completed, reciting that those services were completed, and identifying either the name of successor counsel or the address and telephone number of the client in proper person. The attorney must serve a copy of the notice upon the client and all other parties to the action.
(2) Complete all services required by the court before filing a Notice of Withdrawal.
(3) Specify, in the withdrawal, at what point in time or proceeding the opposing party may directly contact the party represented by the withdrawing attorney.
(c) Except by specific order of court, no counsel shall be permitted to withdraw within 21 days prior to a scheduled trial or evidentiary hearing.
(d) Any notice of withdrawal that is filed without compliance with this rule shall be ineffective for any purpose.
[Added; effective January 27, 2017.]
While the concept itself is problematic and a good subject for honest debate as to the wisdom of its existence in the first place, the true problem lies with how the judges allow it to be violated by the attorneys making use of it. Under the plain wording of the rule, the attorney has made a general appearance unless they properly comply subsection (a). Once the attorney has appeared in the case (whether the comply with subsection (a) or not) they remain in the case as counsel until they properly comply with subsection (b).
With respect to the as applied problems, the attorney rarely, if ever, specifies the actual limitations to their services as required by subsection (a). The most common senerio is they show up without advance notice to the other side (or the court) at the hearing and state they represent Client X, in an unbundled capacity. They then proceed to participate in the hearing without any further explanation of their retained services, nor does the judge require them to elaborate on that point. Were they retained to simply conduct examination of witnesses (at an evidentiary hearing), make opening or closing arguments, serve as standby counsel, second chair the proceeding, etc. Then once the event has concluded, the attorney does not want to incur the cost and efforts of actually filing a proper notice of withdrawal as required by subsection (b).
Notwithstanding the clear terms of the rule, the judges allow them to simply step away leaving the questions as to whether the client is represented, who the opposing side is to communicate with, who is to do what, etc.
3:02 here again. True that they never state the unbundled status at the top of their first filed pleading. In fact, they rarely file anything. And they seemingly never bother to file that withdrawal after the hearing.
It is likewise true that in addition to unbundled attorneys making no real inquiry into the veracity of much of the unbelievable nonsense they are willing to spout on behalf of their client, they also have a tendency to inflame proceedings and make them far more expensive and complicated than they need to be.
All that is quite ironic as they represent people who(supposedly) have very little money and can afford no more than unbundled services, and these people certainly don't have money for the services the attorney argues for.
And example is that an unbundled attorney is far more likely to request an extremely expensive outsourced custody study, than is an attorney of record who is likely to realize that their client cannot afford these services, nor do the facts of the case suggest any real serious custodial issues that need to be explored. These services, performed by outside, private experts, can in some cases cost $15,000. or even $20,000.
Also, the unbundled attorney will then request a forensic evaluation on the "business" that the other side operates in addition to their full-time work. This can likewise cost many thousands of dollars and take months to complete. And this so-called "business" often consists of the male litigant, in addition to his full-time job, having been paid on two occasions, during the previous six months, $200. or $300. to help a neighbor perform a car repair. Or the "business" may consist of the female litigant, who works full-time as a cocktail server, having a "business" on the Internet selling gift baskets. The unbundled attorney will insist she is making "money hand over fist" and tripping over bags of cash at her home, all generated by this supposedly incredible gift basket business. We then learn that two years ago she sold precisely two gift baskets, and then decided she didn't have the time and that it all cost her more money out of pocket than it was worth.
Unbundled attorneys have been heard to insist they want forensic accounting, and full business evaluation, based on someone's "garage sale business", which, we find, consisted of precisely one garage sale they held(generating $180) when trying to eliminate some items when planning to move from one house to another.
Sound absurd? It is, but it is likewise true. Attorneys of record will occasionally be just as absurd, and make these same requests for custody or business evaluations, but usually not because they know it is unsupportable, plus the attorney wants to get whatever funds they can get from the client for attorney fees–a task made many times more difficult each time an attorney has to spend $10,000. or so on some outside "expert."
But an unbundled attorney has already been paid for the appearance, and most of the time that one hearing is it. They will never deal with the client again, or receive any further attorney fees from them. So, they apparently figure why not advance the most absurd allegations in court while making zero inquiry into their veracity, and why not inflame matters by asking for these paid "experts." After all, they figure they have to have something to argue and demand.
So, these are just some of the abuses visited upon clients and the system by these supposed Robin Hoods who are ostensibly there to provide services to those who would otherwise be unrepresented. But these clients just get victimized by the unbundled situation because once the unbundled attorney makes his one appearance and inflames everything, and makes it a lot more expensive, the litigant is left holding the bag.
Nelson Cohen is getting divorced and it's quite ugly so far.
Not just ugly, but a shit show to boot.
Check out Dayvid Figler's column on judges. https://thenevadaindependent.com/articles/opinion
Should be required reading.
Family law sucks – in 10 years of practice I had 3 clients commit suicide and 3 that were murdered. "ugly" doesn't start to describe it, I know criminal lawyers can see some sh** but these are people who used to love each other and have children together, the saddest part to me is that I truly believe the Family Court and the Bar (via their treatment of unbundled solos) perpetuate and enhance the problems, anyway, having too much fun myself to comment further, just feel dirty even writing about it, I just wished when I practiced that the FC judges would stick to the rules and not turn every hearing into a subjective sh**show
Curious what you mean by 'treatment of unbundled solos'?
Probably means solo practitioners who provide unbundled services.
Unbundled services are where an attorney contracts to perform a certain aspect of a case, but not to become the full attorney of record.
In Family Court this most commonly manifests itself that an attorney is hired simply to represent a client at that hearing, and once the hearing is concluded that is it. The unbundled attorney is there just for that hearing, and not to perform any subsequent work on the case(such as respond to discovery, proceed to trial, prepare documents for the next step of the process, respond to new motions, etc).
Obviously, this is frustrating and confusing for the opposing side's attorney of record, as they do not know who to serve, or who to contact, about new issues and problems that develop in the case, or simply the next step in the procedure.
If you contact the attorney you will invariably be told "don't contact me, and don't serve me with anything. I only represented him on an unbundled basis for the last hearing."
But if you instead contact the litigant, you will soon learn that the attorney is quite offended and indignant about this as the client recently came in and re-hired the attorney for the next court date as well. The attorney will then attack you at that next hearing for directly contacting his(supposedly) represented client.
In other words, unbundled representation is a lose/lose for the attorney on the other side.
If an unbundled attorney is lose/lose for the opposing side, that only fuels the perceived benefit of using an unbundled attorney. The problems I've seen with unbundled attorneys is their repetitive use of 'Your honor, I believe that XYZ' or 'To my knowledge, my client hasn't XYZ.' It just allows them constantly to misrepresent the actual situation, delay the case by making the full representation attorney do more work to undo the court's decision based on LIES that the unbundled attorney may not have known was false, but where the unbundled attorney made such misrepresentations without spending any time to determine whether such representations made by their client to the unbundled attorney were true.
It's just a big $#!+ show.
The problems in the unbundled attorney representation that both 3:02 and 6:49 identify are very real and extremely common in Family Court. Part of the blame for the existence of the problems is the nature of the procedure itself; but equally blameworthy is the court rule creating the process, as well as, how the judges interpret and apply the rule.
EDCR 5.209 is the section the addresses "unbundled services". It provides:
Rule 5.209. Withdrawal of attorney in limited services (“unbundled services”) contract.
(a) An attorney who contracts with a client to limit the scope of representation shall:
(1) State that limitation in the first paragraph of the first paper or pleading filed on behalf of that client; and
(2) Notify the court of that limitation at the beginning of each hearing in which the attorney appears for that client.
(b) Unless otherwise ordered by the court, to withdraw from representation of a client in limited services, an attorney shall:
(1) File a Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney specifying the limited services that were to be completed, reciting that those services were completed, and identifying either the name of successor counsel or the address and telephone number of the client in proper person. The attorney must serve a copy of the notice upon the client and all other parties to the action.
(2) Complete all services required by the court before filing a Notice of Withdrawal.
(3) Specify, in the withdrawal, at what point in time or proceeding the opposing party may directly contact the party represented by the withdrawing attorney.
(c) Except by specific order of court, no counsel shall be permitted to withdraw within 21 days prior to a scheduled trial or evidentiary hearing.
(d) Any notice of withdrawal that is filed without compliance with this rule shall be ineffective for any purpose.
[Added; effective January 27, 2017.]
While the concept itself is problematic and a good subject for honest debate as to the wisdom of its existence in the first place, the true problem lies with how the judges allow it to be violated by the attorneys making use of it. Under the plain wording of the rule, the attorney has made a general appearance unless they properly comply subsection (a). Once the attorney has appeared in the case (whether the comply with subsection (a) or not) they remain in the case as counsel until they properly comply with subsection (b).
With respect to the as applied problems, the attorney rarely, if ever, specifies the actual limitations to their services as required by subsection (a). The most common senerio is they show up without advance notice to the other side (or the court) at the hearing and state they represent Client X, in an unbundled capacity. They then proceed to participate in the hearing without any further explanation of their retained services, nor does the judge require them to elaborate on that point. Were they retained to simply conduct examination of witnesses (at an evidentiary hearing), make opening or closing arguments, serve as standby counsel, second chair the proceeding, etc. Then once the event has concluded, the attorney does not want to incur the cost and efforts of actually filing a proper notice of withdrawal as required by subsection (b).
Notwithstanding the clear terms of the rule, the judges allow them to simply step away leaving the questions as to whether the client is represented, who the opposing side is to communicate with, who is to do what, etc.
3:02 here again. True that they never state the unbundled status at the top of their first filed pleading. In fact, they rarely file anything. And they seemingly never bother to file that withdrawal after the hearing.
It is likewise true that in addition to unbundled attorneys making no real inquiry into the veracity of much of the unbelievable nonsense they are willing to spout on behalf of their client, they also have a tendency to inflame proceedings and make them far more expensive and complicated than they need to be.
All that is quite ironic as they represent people who(supposedly) have very little money and can afford no more than unbundled services, and these people certainly don't have money for the services the attorney argues for.
And example is that an unbundled attorney is far more likely to request an extremely expensive outsourced custody study, than is an attorney of record who is likely to realize that their client cannot afford these services, nor do the facts of the case suggest any real serious custodial issues that need to be explored. These services, performed by outside, private experts, can in some cases cost $15,000. or even $20,000.
Also, the unbundled attorney will then request a forensic evaluation on the "business" that the other side operates in addition to their full-time work. This can likewise cost many thousands of dollars and take months to complete. And this so-called "business" often consists of the male litigant, in addition to his full-time job, having been paid on two occasions, during the previous six months, $200. or $300. to help a neighbor perform a car repair. Or the "business" may consist of the female litigant, who works full-time as a cocktail server, having a "business" on the Internet selling gift baskets. The unbundled attorney will insist she is making "money hand over fist" and tripping over bags of cash at her home, all generated by this supposedly incredible gift basket business. We then learn that two years ago she sold precisely two gift baskets, and then decided she didn't have the time and that it all cost her more money out of pocket than it was worth.
Unbundled attorneys have been heard to insist they want forensic accounting, and full business evaluation, based on someone's "garage sale business", which, we find, consisted of precisely one garage sale they held(generating $180) when trying to eliminate some items when planning to move from one house to another.
Sound absurd? It is, but it is likewise true. Attorneys of record will occasionally be just as absurd, and make these same requests for custody or business evaluations, but usually not because they know it is unsupportable, plus the attorney wants to get whatever funds they can get from the client for attorney fees–a task made many times more difficult each time an attorney has to spend $10,000. or so on some outside "expert."
But an unbundled attorney has already been paid for the appearance, and most of the time that one hearing is it. They will never deal with the client again, or receive any further attorney fees from them. So, they apparently figure why not advance the most absurd allegations in court while making zero inquiry into their veracity, and why not inflame matters by asking for these paid "experts." After all, they figure they have to have something to argue and demand.
So, these are just some of the abuses visited upon clients and the system by these supposed Robin Hoods who are ostensibly there to provide services to those who would otherwise be unrepresented. But these clients just get victimized by the unbundled situation because once the unbundled attorney makes his one appearance and inflames everything, and makes it a lot more expensive, the litigant is left holding the bag.