Parker Free Speech Case Bears Watching

Some neighbors oppose an annexation and go about posting yard signs and dispensing fliers. Some other neighbors, who support the annexation, go to court to stop the littering. Whaddya we got here? (A) Frivolous Litigation; (B) a Federal Case; (C) Sampson v. Coffman; (D) All of the above.

Hey Folks, it’s "D". Everybody out there, lawyers, and civilians alike, keep your eye on this on one. It will go to the heart not only of free speech, but of what has happened to the profession.

Ed Lederman

Open Letter to my Fellow Divorce Attorneys

My Fellow Divorce Attorneys:

I think it’s a great idea to churn the rules, the forms, the details regularly to reward those who are paying attention. I think it’s a great idea to make the mandatory disclosure rules in the domestic civil area more rigorous, more punishing, more default demanding than in any other civil area. This is great. It is as it should be. Why? Because the more punishing the divorce process the more billable, and the more likely a psychotic otherwise inclined party litigant will choose to pay an attorney rather than an assassin.

That’s what I like, making a living and doing social justice at the same time.
And so I must here proclaim, my undying approbation of Rule 16.2. CRCP, a recent renovation of divorce disclosure and discovery that is a monument to keeping our civil litigant brethren out of our...ah hem...territory.

Yes, we keep them out because the procedural bog in which they (our fellow civil litigant brethren) are historically adept proves their downfall. In general civil the dynamics of litigation follow the money source. That which is more powerful will insist on more process. The less powerful will strive for economy of motion.

We in the divorce bar amend "more powerful" to "more psychologically powerful" and proceed to our day’s activities. And that is how it should be. Generally, financial and psychological power correspond. But not always. And it is in the marital relationship that the highest frequency of discrepancy exists. And it is in that discrepancy in which we wend our precarious way.

So far, so good about the new improved 16.2 CRCP, the Colorado rule of civil procedure dealing with domestic (marital) procedure and disclosure. But, there is one detail that augurs ill for our profession in general, the divorce bar in particular.
It is the provision that allows non attorney "Expert" to assume the status of Officer of the Court and then proceed to abuse discovery. Yes, abuse discovery something that we attorneys have to go to law school and then pass the bar to do.

Now, under 16.2, we’ve got accountants propounding abusive discovery, and getting paid to do it. Here’s how 16.2 makes it happen: subsection "g" promotes a "jointly select(ed)" expert. Once in place, that non-attorney expert can, and often will (to further the side that got him there) start propounding discovery to party Opponent. Nobody seems to be questioning just what the scope of the "Expert’s" discovery powers are. End result: Get your boy in and you win. But, fellow divorce practitioners, here’s the rub: billable for abusive discovery going to CPA’s, not JD’s. Insufferable.

The more one tries to adjust the rules of civil procedure to accommodate the dynamics of divorce the more pernicious and destructive the litigation outcome. The more billable. Fellow Divorce Practitioners, lets hew to the standard civil rules as much as possible, divorce is like any other form of civil litigation, only more so.
#
Ed Lederman, Attorney Registration # 23629