Divorce Lawyer immunity legislation debated

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/loc...tics-headlines
Lawyer immunity legislation debated
Senate panel holds hearing on bill to give relief to attorneys in child
custody cases

By Stephanie Desmon
sun reporter
Originally published February 22, 2006

Court-appointed attorneys who represent children in nasty custody battles
should be immune from most malpractice claims since they are especially
vulnerable to frivolous suits because one parent is bound to be unhappy with
the findings they present to a judge, legal professionals told a state
Senate committee yesterday.

Such immunity from lawsuits had long been assumed for what are called
"guardians ad litem" or "best-interest attorneys." But last month,
Maryland's highest court ruled they could be sued for malpractice, just like
any other attorney.

Montgomery County Circuit Judge Ann Sundt told legislators that the ruling
has had a chilling effect on the pool of lawyers she turns to for help in
the most difficult custody cases, the ones who act on her behalf,
interviewing all parties, checking court, school and medical records, and
visiting homes. Since the court ruling, 28 of the guardians ad litem have
asked to be removed from their current cases. She worries there could be
more.

"This case really isn't about protecting lawyers," Sundt said. "This statute
is about protecting children."

That's not the way everyone sees the bill. Some parents, who believe their
children have been harmed by lawyers who sided with abusive spouses, argued
that it would give them little recourse in cases where an attorney assigned
to their children played favorites or ignored evidence. They told
heart-wrenching tales of watching their children -- at the recommendation of
lawyers who were supposed to be protectors of the young -- be put into
situations where they became victims of abuse.

Elizabeth Ritter was so unhappy with how her daughter's attorney handled the
long-running visitation dispute with her ex-husband that she sued him, on
behalf of her young daughter. Her victory in the Court of Appeals was the
impetus for the emergency bill.

Ritter told the committee she thinks that there can be some immunity for
these attorneys, but not the broad kind under consideration. Many guardians
ad litem do honorable work, she said, but there needs to be a real
consequence for those who do not.

"This is like chemotherapy for a wart on your toe," said Ritter, who is an
attorney herself. "You don't need that. ... You can find a much more
surgically precise way to take care of this."

George Tolley of the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association said his group
opposes the legislation. "This is the worst kind of immunity bill,
protecting lawyers at the expense of children. ... It turns public policy on
its head," he said. "It exploits the worst stereotypes of our honored
profession."

The overwhelming majority of divorces that result in custody disputes are
resolved without lengthy court battles. Only in a fraction of custody cases
do courts have to intervene and assign an attorney to represent the
interests of the child.

Attorneys for the children are often paid at reduced rates, several
attorneys at the hearing said.

A handful of attorneys who serve as guardians ad litem testified yesterday
before the Judicial Proceedings Committee, telling senators that in the wake
of the court ruling on immunity, some of their cases have taken on a more
adversarial tone. One told of being warned by a parent who accused her of
bias.

Sundt said she would never want to see a child be victimized by what happens
in her court, but she also needs guardians ad litem to help her make the
best decisions she can.

"If one child is harmed, that's a terrible thing," she said. "We're doing
the best we can. But without them, it's going to be very difficult to
proceed.

"When I see a case come before me without a guardian ad litem, I know I'm in
trouble because I'm back to a he-said, she-said."


stephanie.desmon@baltsun .com

More proof that the system favors its own before it favors women.

- Ron ^*^


Dusty wrote:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/loc...tics-headlines
Lawyer immunity legislation debated
Senate panel holds hearing on bill to give relief to attorneys in child
custody cases

By Stephanie Desmon
sun reporter
Originally published February 22, 2006

Court-appointed attorneys who represent children in nasty custody battles
should be immune from most malpractice claims since they are especially
vulnerable to frivolous suits because one parent is bound to be unhappy with
the findings they present to a judge, legal professionals told a state
Senate committee yesterday.

Such immunity from lawsuits had long been assumed for what are called
"guardians ad litem" or "best-interest attorneys." But last month,
Maryland's highest court ruled they could be sued for malpractice, just like
any other attorney.

Montgomery County Circuit Judge Ann Sundt told legislators that the ruling
has had a chilling effect on the pool of lawyers she turns to for help in
the most difficult custody cases, the ones who act on her behalf,
interviewing all parties, checking court, school and medical records, and
visiting homes. Since the court ruling, 28 of the guardians ad litem have
asked to be removed from their current cases. She worries there could be
more.

"This case really isn't about protecting lawyers," Sundt said. "This statute
is about protecting children."

That's not the way everyone sees the bill. Some parents, who believe their
children have been harmed by lawyers who sided with abusive spouses, argued
that it would give them little recourse in cases where an attorney assigned
to their children played favorites or ignored evidence. They told
heart-wrenching tales of watching their children -- at the recommendation of
lawyers who were supposed to be protectors of the young -- be put into
situations where they became victims of abuse.

Elizabeth Ritter was so unhappy with how her daughter's attorney handled the
long-running visitation dispute with her ex-husband that she sued him, on
behalf of her young daughter. Her victory in the Court of Appeals was the
impetus for the emergency bill.

Ritter told the committee she thinks that there can be some immunity for
these attorneys, but not the broad kind under consideration. Many guardians
ad litem do honorable work, she said, but there needs to be a real
consequence for those who do not.

"This is like chemotherapy for a wart on your toe," said Ritter, who is an
attorney herself. "You don't need that. ... You can find a much more
surgically precise way to take care of this."

George Tolley of the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association said his group
opposes the legislation. "This is the worst kind of immunity bill,
protecting lawyers at the expense of children. ... It turns public policy on
its head," he said. "It exploits the worst stereotypes of our honored
profession."

The overwhelming majority of divorces that result in custody disputes are
resolved without lengthy court battles. Only in a fraction of custody cases
do courts have to intervene and assign an attorney to represent the
interests of the child.

Attorneys for the children are often paid at reduced rates, several
attorneys at the hearing said.

A handful of attorneys who serve as guardians ad litem testified yesterday
before the Judicial Proceedings Committee, telling senators that in the wake
of the court ruling on immunity, some of their cases have taken on a more
adversarial tone. One told of being warned by a parent who accused her of
bias.

Sundt said she would never want to see a child be victimized by what happens
in her court, but she also needs guardians ad litem to help her make the
best decisions she can.

"If one child is harmed, that's a terrible thing," she said. "We're doing
the best we can. But without them, it's going to be very difficult to
proceed.

"When I see a case come before me without a guardian ad litem, I know I'm in
trouble because I'm back to a he-said, she-said."


stephanie.desmon@baltsun .com

One more reason why we hate the lawyers -- and divorce lawyers are at the
bottom of the barrel.

There is a famous case on the internet. A woman who was married to a man
from another country told her lawyer that the husband was planning on
abducting the children overseas, but the lawyer was too busy to do anything
about it for a few weeks. Well, the husband bolted and the wife sued the
lawyer and won.

These damn lawyers want to "practice" law on us, but they don't want to be
accountable for their "malpractice." What bunk!

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/loc...tics-headlines
Lawyer immunity legislation debated
Senate panel holds hearing on bill to give relief to attorneys in child
custody cases

By Stephanie Desmon
sun reporter
Originally published February 22, 2006

Court-appointed attorneys who represent children in nasty custody battles
should be immune from most malpractice claims since they are especially
vulnerable to frivolous suits because one parent is bound to be unhappy
with the findings they present to a judge, legal professionals told a
state Senate committee yesterday.

Such immunity from lawsuits had long been assumed for what are called
"guardians ad litem" or "best-interest attorneys." But last month,
Maryland's highest court ruled they could be sued for malpractice, just
like any other attorney.

Montgomery County Circuit Judge Ann Sundt told legislators that the ruling
has had a chilling effect on the pool of lawyers she turns to for help in
the most difficult custody cases, the ones who act on her behalf,
interviewing all parties, checking court, school and medical records, and
visiting homes. Since the court ruling, 28 of the guardians ad litem have
asked to be removed from their current cases. She worries there could be
more.

"This case really isn't about protecting lawyers," Sundt said. "This
statute is about protecting children."

That's not the way everyone sees the bill. Some parents, who believe their
children have been harmed by lawyers who sided with abusive spouses,
argued that it would give them little recourse in cases where an attorney
assigned to their children played favorites or ignored evidence. They told
heart-wrenching tales of watching their children -- at the recommendation
of lawyers who were supposed to be protectors of the young -- be put into
situations where they became victims of abuse.

Elizabeth Ritter was so unhappy with how her daughter's attorney handled
the long-running visitation dispute with her ex-husband that she sued him,
on behalf of her young daughter. Her victory in the Court of Appeals was
the impetus for the emergency bill.

Ritter told the committee she thinks that there can be some immunity for
these attorneys, but not the broad kind under consideration. Many
guardians ad litem do honorable work, she said, but there needs to be a
real consequence for those who do not.

"This is like chemotherapy for a wart on your toe," said Ritter, who is an
attorney herself. "You don't need that. ... You can find a much more
surgically precise way to take care of this."

George Tolley of the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association said his group
opposes the legislation. "This is the worst kind of immunity bill,
protecting lawyers at the expense of children. ... It turns public policy
on its head," he said. "It exploits the worst stereotypes of our honored
profession."

The overwhelming majority of divorces that result in custody disputes are
resolved without lengthy court battles. Only in a fraction of custody
cases do courts have to intervene and assign an attorney to represent the
interests of the child.

Attorneys for the children are often paid at reduced rates, several
attorneys at the hearing said.

A handful of attorneys who serve as guardians ad litem testified yesterday
before the Judicial Proceedings Committee, telling senators that in the
wake of the court ruling on immunity, some of their cases have taken on a
more adversarial tone. One told of being warned by a parent who accused
her of bias.

Sundt said she would never want to see a child be victimized by what
happens in her court, but she also needs guardians ad litem to help her
make the best decisions she can.

"If one child is harmed, that's a terrible thing," she said. "We're doing
the best we can. But without them, it's going to be very difficult to
proceed.

"When I see a case come before me without a guardian ad litem, I know I'm
in trouble because I'm back to a he-said, she-said."


stephanie.desmon@baltsun .com

"Dusty" wrote in message
...


Sundt said she would never want to see a child be victimized by what
happens
in her court, but she also needs guardians ad litem to help her make the
best decisions she can.

"If one child is harmed, that's a terrible thing," she said. "We're doing
the best we can. But without them, it's going to be very difficult to
proceed.

Malpractice is malpractice. Why should malpractice be treated differently
based on the client being a child? If anything, more care should be taken
to avoid malpractice when a child is involved.

Where is the "It's for the children" crowd when you need them?

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:53:28 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Dusty" wrote in message
m...


Sundt said she would never want to see a child be victimized by what
happens
in her court, but she also needs guardians ad litem to help her make the
best decisions she can.

"If one child is harmed, that's a terrible thing," she said. "We're doing
the best we can. But without them, it's going to be very difficult to
proceed.

Malpractice is malpractice. Why should malpractice be treated differently
based on the client being a child? If anything, more care should be taken
to avoid malpractice when a child is involved.

Where is the "It's for the children" crowd when you need them?

Down at the 17% pay differential for women rally!!

A jury is 12 individuals who decides who has the best lawyer.
- Mark Twain