If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Divorce Lawyer immunity legislation debated
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Divorce Lawyer immunity legislation debated
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Divorce Lawyer immunity legislation debated
"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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Divorce Lawyer immunity legislation debated
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Child Support Guidelines are UNFAIR! Lets join together to fight them! | S Myers | Child Support | 115 | September 12th 05 12:37 AM |
The No-Blame Game: Why No-Fault Divorce Is Our Most Dangerous Social Experiment | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | May 8th 05 06:27 AM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 01:35 AM |
CS/Divorce No-spin article | Virginia | Child Support | 3 | July 7th 03 08:02 AM |
Divorce as Revolution | dani | Child Support | 0 | July 1st 03 11:42 PM |