Truyện Ma Có Thật Lời nói đầu tiên gửi đến các bạn . Đây là trang web truyện ma có thật được sưu tầm từ nhiều nguồn trên mạng . Tại TruyenMaCoThat.Net các bạn có thể Doc Truyen Ma và Nghe Truyen Ma cực kỳ rùng rợn. Được những nhân chứng sống kẻ lại mang đậm tính ma quái Việt Nam. buc anh ky quai 2 Truyen ma Co That Ma là một khái niệm trừu tượng, một phần phi vật chất của một người đã chết (hay hiếm hơn là một động vật đã chết). Theo quan niệm của một số tôn giáo và nền văn hóa, con người gồm thể xác (mang tính vật chất) và linh hồn (mang tính phi vật chất). Khi thể xác chết, linh hồn xuất khỏi thể xác. Nếu linh hồn đó không có cơ hội đầu thai hoặc nơi trú ngụ chung với các linh hồn khác mà tương tác với cõi thực có con người sẽ gọi là “ma”, “hồn ma”, “quỷ”; nhưng nếu các phần phi vật chất đó tương tác với cõi thực của con người theo tình cảm, theo trách nhiệm được giao của các tôn giáo thì lại gọi là “hồn”, “linh hồn”, “thánh”, “thần”, “thiên sứ” . Và khi Doc Truyen Ma và Nghe Truyen Ma của TruyenMaCoThat.Net các bạn nhớ là nó chỉ mang tính chất giải trí thôi nhé các bạn đừng nên tín quá nhiều cũng như cố gắng tìm mọi cách để nhìn thấy ma nhé thật không tốt chút nào ??? . Chúc các bạn có những phút giây giải trí thật sử thoải mái cùng với TruyenMaCoThat.Net Truyen Ma Co That – Doc Truyen Ma Co That – Nghe Truyen Ma Co That miễn phí tại TruyenMaCoThat.net truyen ma nguyen ngoc ngan truyen ma kinh di mystoningtongarden.com

Six Ways to Handle Your Own Divorce More Effectively

Most of us realize that divorce – especially one in which children are involved – is best faced with the assistance of an experienced family lawyer. This is equally true when self-employment, substantial assets or –just as important — substantial debt complicate finances.

Still, while divorce rates reportedly fell in the depths of the Great Recession, marriages held together by nothing more than inadequate cash flow cannot last forever. Proof of this is the skyrocketing percentage of divorces being prosecuted and defended without benefit of counsel.

If you find yourself in a situation where divorce is both inevitable and urgent, and the funds to retain a lawyer are completely out of reach, there are still steps you can take to protect your interests at minimal cost as a pro se litigant. Here are 6 ways to survive divorce without formal legal representation:

1.) Visit your state’s judicial web site. You can usually find it easily by searching your state’s name and the word “judiciary” or “official web site” There you will find a wealth of information on a variety of subjects many of them specifically created for do-it-yourselfers. The judicial web site will also provide you with links and templates to forms that will be needed in your divorce action. Simply browsing these forms may alert you to options you hadn’t considered. If your spouse has access to funds that are out of your control, one such option is to file a motion asking the court for an allowance from your spouse sufficient to secure legal representation once the case is underway. While not in such an immediate way, a temporary order of alimony might also help level the playing field.

2) Ask for fee waivers. Filing fees and fees for process servers can run into hundreds of dollars. If you qualify, you may be granted waivers of these fees by simply filing the appropriate application and supporting financial information.

3) Become a smart observer. Don’t wait until your hearing is scheduled to visit the courthouse. Learn when motion sessions are being held and when contested divorce cases are being heard. These sessions are almost always open to the public. Once you have sat through several contested hearings and a few uncontested divorces, you will know much more about the process and you will also be alert to some of the hurdles you might otherwise not have anticipated.

4) Find out whether your courts have dedicated pro se assistants. If so, these individuals may be able to help you sort through the paperwork to make sure you have all the documents the judge will require in order to go forward with your hearing. Be careful though. Pro se assistants, just like other judicial personnel, are not allowed to offer you legal advice. This means, for example, that while they can tell you whether your written agreement is in proper form, they cannot advise you about whether it is fair or whether you have covered all of the issues.

5) Don’t skip the discovery process. Although non-lawyers cannot sign subpoenas, court clerks generally can do so on your behalf. If you are counting on your estranged spouse to provide you with full information about income, bonuses, overtime, retirement accounts, spending history and more, you are making the most common and, in the long term, costly mistake that pro se litigants make –one that handily outstrips any short-term savings realized by foregoing legal assistance.

6) Consider engaging a lawyer as coach. This can be a win-win situation for both lawyer and client. The lawyer’s risks are minimized when he or she remains in the background and is not attorney of record. This is because once a lawyer becomes attorney of record in a case courts can require the lawyer to continue working on the case even if he or she is not being paid. Even if the lawyer is eventually allowed to withdraw from representation, losses have already accrued that may be uncollectible or, at best, difficult to collect.

From the point of view of the litigant, using a lawyer as coach has a number of benefits. While a lawyer acting in this capacity cannot attend hearings or negotiate with others on your behalf, he or she can help with any and all other aspects of preparing for negotiation or trial. What’s more, since a lawyer acting as coach is not responsible for the ultimate outcome of the case, she has the freedom to assist in limited ways according to your own needs and budget. For example, one client may want legal assistance just for preparing documents and for guidance in gathering financial information about the other party. Another individual may feel comfortable sorting out the numbers but need assistance in preparing for a hearing by organizing exhibits and questions for witnesses, or by planning overall strategy and argument to the court. Still others who have reached a tentative agreement with their spouse might simply want a lawyer to review the financial affidavits and draft agreement and offer an opinion about whether it is fair and complete. Finally, it is not unusual for litigants to seek legal assistance – either coaching or full representation only after they have run afoul of procedural rules and feel that they have reached a roadblock in their case.

Some lawyers charge their normal hourly rate for divorce coaching but others may be willing to charge a substantially lower hourly rate for these so-called unbundled services. Lawyers are quite accustomed to discussing fees; so never feel shy about asking. Our own firm charges less than half our regular hourly rate for divorce coaching services.

While self-representation – at least at the outset of a case – might be unavoidable, it is no cause for surrender. Every new challenge brings with it the possibility for ingenuity and growth.


Appellate Court Says ‘Normal’ Visitation Expenses Don’t Justify Lower Support

BLOGgasPump

In a case set to be released on May 21, 2013 the Connecticut Appellate Court has overturned a lower court’s ruling that lowered the child support of a visiting father from a presumptive amount of $100 under existing guidelines to $75 as a result of the mother’s relocation within the state.

The trial court in Kavanah vs Kavanah found that Leo Kavanah’s costs in traveling back and forth between Southington, Connecticut and Monroe, Connecticut were ‘extraordinary’ within the meaning of Connecticut’s child support guidelines as they address reasons for deviation from presumptive support amounts.

The higher court held that the trial court had not sufficiently explained the basis for its conclusion that Mr. Kavanah, who had been ordered to do the driving for visitation, would be incurring extraordinary expenses — as opposed to normal expenses — as a result of his wife’s relocation.

This, alone, would not necessarily affect future cases assuming that parents seeking deviation for this reason were careful to present evidence of their visitation costs and that judges ordering deviation were careful to make specific findings about why they were reducing support.

However the Appellate Court did not stop at finding fault with the thoroughness of the lower court’s decision. In addition, they cited with approval another Superior Court decision, Weissman vs. Sissell, in which the court had observed that “[m]any non-custodial parents have some transportation costs to see their child—for parents living within driving distance of each other, for example, the non-custodial parent is likely to pay for fuel and other costs picking up or dropping off the child,
but these ordinary expenses usually do not warrant a deviation from the presumptive amount.’’

Appeals are expensive and, in the case of family law, difficult to win, so it is relatively rare to see a support case with so little at issue reach the Appellate Court.

This is not to say that the difference between $100 and $75 was insignificant to the parties in this case or to other divorcing parents. Certainly the Kavanah case has not closed the door on deviations for low-income individuals for whom in-state or other short-distance travel costs are burdensome, but it raises the bar for how the issue must be presented to the courts and makes it imperative that the court be reminded to make appropriate findings to justify why — in a particular case — transportation expenses that might be normal for some people are extraordinary in the context of the individual circumstances of the family before the court.


Husband Who Lost Lion’s Share of Assets in Divorce Misses Deadline for Appeal by One Day

Talk about being a day late and a dollar short!  In Michael Farren’s 2010 divorce, the trial court found  that Mr. Farren had destroyed his substantial earning capacity by physically attacking his wife and ordered that 75% of the marital assets be awarded to her.

Unhappy with the outcome, Mr. Farren filed a post judgment motion with the trial court on the 20th day after judgment –just under the  wire to preserve his right to appeal the decision.  But there was a problem.  After initially stamping the motion “FILED”, the clerk noticed that Mr. Farren had forgotten to pay the required filing fee for a post judgment motion and faxed the motion back to him.  Mr Farren paid the fee and re-filed the motion the following day but the trial court refused to hear the motion because of the late filing.

After an appeals process that has taken almost three years,  the Connecticut Appellate Court in a decision released  this morning denied his appeal, agreeing with the trail court that one day late is still late.

That wasn’t the only fatal mistake Mr. Farren made regarding the rules of procedure.  The rules required that he file a memorandum of law together with his motion. He hadn’t.  Ms. Farren moved to dismiss the motion and won.  Mr. Farren argued that because he  had corrected the oversight by filing a memorandum after the fact, no harm had been done.  The trial court was not persuaded.   Again, the Appellate  Court agreed with the trial court that rules are rules and strict enforcement of them can never be error.

It is not possible to tell from the decision whether Mr. Farren was representing himself at trial. He appeared pro se in Appellate court but was joined by counsel on the brief.  In a way it doesn’t matter whether the deadlines were missed by a pro se individual or by his lawyer.  The result was the same.

Mr.  Farren may never have  been able to alter the division of assets in his divorce case had be been allowed to bring his appeal on the merits, but he didn’t get the chance.  This was an appeal restricted to issues of procedure.

The role of the Appellate Court in situations like this is not to substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge, but just to determine whether the trial judge committed clear error or an abuse of his or her considerable discretion.  In this case, all the trial judge had done was enforce the rules of court.

Lawyers often speak among themselves about the difference between deadlines and “drop-deadlines.”  In this case, at least for Mr. Farren, failing to file his post-judgment motion within the 20 day appeal period was a drop-deadline — a lesson that took  three years to hit home.  Appeals are long, arduous, and costly and in the case of family law, not often successful.

In this era of increasing pro se litigation, it is important to understand that courts are not necessarily willing to bend the rules depending on the experience or lack thereof of those who appear before them.


Alimony Order Against Unemployed Lawyer Overturned

In a decision to be released next week, Keller vs. Keller,  the Connecticut Appellate Court has overturned a hefty order of alimony and support entered by a Superior Court judge.

The Defendant husband held a law degree from Columbia University and was licensed to practice in two states.  After a brief practice, he had gone into finance and most recently had owned a hedge fund that had , at first, done very well but had later turned sour. At the time the order entered, the fund was closed. The evidence showed that  Attorney Keller had no income and the family was living on borrowed money and the last of their liquid assets.

In Connecticut and elsewhere, judges may make orders of alimony and support based on a finding that the payor has earning capacity even if he or she is unemployed or underemployed.  Tn the Keller case, the judge did just that, finding that Attorney Keller had a gross earning capacity of $25,000 per month.  Based on that finding, the court ordered him to pay combined alimony and support of $9,000 per month during the pendency of the case.

The Appellate Court overturned the order, not because the lower court did not have discretion to consider earning capacity but because the court failed make a finding as to Attorney Keller’s net earning capacity.   Under Connecticut law, orders of alimony and support must be based on net income whether that income is real or merely imputed.

The lesson for litigants hoping to obtain orders against their unemployed or underemployed spouse is to present evidence specifically on the subject of what they believe their spouse could earn after taxes.


Divorce — Does it Matter Who Files First?

A new article on Forbes.com by Attorney Jeff Landers gives a nice overview of the reasons to gear up early once you sense that divorce may be one outcome of your marital problems.

While Jeff seems to suggest that divorce dirty tricks are the exclusive province of men, in our experience the risks and considerations he outlines in this otherwise informative article apply to both genders.

Landers points out that consulting an attorney early can not only provide you with a crucial checklist for contingency planning, but can also assure that your spouse won’t beat you to the punch by consulting several of the best area lawyers simply to disqualify them from representing you.  He also notes that starting the action assures that if the matter goes to trial down the road, you will be the one, as the plaintiff, to present your case first.

Our clients in Connecticut should also know that by filing for divorce certain Automatic Orders take effect the moment the divorce papers are served on their spouse. These orders prevent the other party from doing a number of things including moving out-of-state with children, hiding assets, taking sole ownership of joint assets, changing locks on the marital residence, changing beneficiaries on existing insurance policies and more.  The full text and a summary of the Automatic Orders can be found here on the Connecticut Judicial Website.

Bottom line? While you’re hoping for the best and working on your marriage it also makes sense to prepare well for the worst


NEW CONNECTICUT APPELLATE COURT FAMILY CASE ILLUSTRATES PERILS OF DIY APPEAL

After more than 20 years of marriage that ended in divorce in 2003, Connecticut resident Peter Larson seems to have been no stranger to the courts.  When he returned to court in 2010 to seek a reduction of child support and alimony orders, he had two previous efforts at modification under his belt and  probably felt confident that he would win his pro se bid for relief.  After all, his income had gone from about $85,000 in 2003  to about $21,000 and he was unemployed.

And, in fact, he did come away with some degree of success without the help of a lawyer. The trial court recalculated his child support dropping it from its original level of $347 per week to $115 per week. In addition the court reduced his alimony order to $1 per year — not a permanent victory on the alimony front, but still an important win.

Unfortunately, Mr.Larson’s former wife, Matilde, did hire a lawyer who filed a  counter-motion for contempt seeking past due child support and attorney’s fees.  Ultimately, although he received a break in his current orders, Mr. Larson was also ordered to pay almost $100,000 in past-due support and was also ordered to pay almost $27,000 in attorney’s fees.

In a per curiam decision of the Connecticut Appellate Court scheduled for release next week, the Court upheld the trial court’s action.

As he had at the trial court level, Mr. Larson represented himself on appeal. His arguments of error were;

  • The trial court hadn’t reduced child support enough
  • The trial court should not have found him in contempt of prior orders
  • The order of attorneys fees was excessive because the fees were unreasonable

The Court’s response to these claims makes it clear that Mr. Larson would have benefitted from consulting with a lawyer before filing his motion and, later, before filing his appeal.  First, the court stressed the enormous discretion accorded to trial courts by appeals courts in family matters.  It is never enough on appeal that the appellate judges might have decided the case differently.  This means that strategic errors at the trail level can rarely be corrected on appeal.

Second,  Mr Larson would have been cautioned that, because he was not fully in compliance with existing orders,  he should have expected a counter-offense if he chose to seek a modification.  Based on the amount of the arrearage that the court found, it is clear that his former wife had tolerated his non-compliance for a very long time up to the point that he made the first move in 2010.    To the extent that Mr. Larson thought his current financial situation would — or even could — protect him from being held in contempt for falling behind, he was  mistaken and any experienced lawyer would have made that clear to him.

Third, he would have been advised that law that requires courts to consider the respective finances of the parties when allocating responsibility for attorneys fees in divorce cases, does not apply in enforcement proceedings where there has been a finding of willful contempt.  In such cases, attorney’s fees can be shifted to the party who failed to obey a court order as a simple matter of punishment.

While Larson complained that he had not been given a fair chance to challenge the reasonableness of the fees, the appellate court noted that, not only had the trial court afforded him the opportunity to do that, but  had actually scheduled a separate hearing for that very purpose.  Although Larson attended the hearing he did not, according to the court, present any evidence on the subject.  It is not unusual for inexperienced litigants to expect the trial judge to take the lead in a factual inquiry.

In a 201o op-ed piece published in the New York Times entitled “A Nation of Do-It-Yourself Lawyers”  John T Broadrick, chief justice of New Hampshire, and Ronald M. George, chief justice of California, stressed the disadvantages faced by litigants who, for financial reasons, feel compelled to go it alone.  The authors urged members of the bar to step up to help mitigate the problem by offering so-called unbundled legal services so that litigants who could not afford comprehensive representation could nonetheless receive limited assistance in the form of consultation, coaching, and help with document preparation.

What many do not understand is that limited representation can be a minefield for lawyers since the rules in many states do not adequately protect them.  We cannot reasonably expect lawyers who would otherwise be willing to play a supporting role in a lawsuit, to risk taking responsibility for the final outcome of litigation they do not fully control or to be required to provide additional or even comprehensive services without remuneration.

Still, in every community there are lawyers who recognize the problem and who are willing to address it as long as roles are clearly defined and the expectations are clear.  When the stakes are high, it makes sense to seek them out.


TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES IN DIVORCE COURT – HOW NOT TO COMPOUND MISTAKES MADE DURING MARRIAGE

A recent decision of  the Connecticut Appellate Court in the case of Felicia Pierot Brody vs. Cary Brody illustrates what can happen when the focus of a divorce case shifts from the issues in the marriage to the credibility, or lack thereof, of one of the parties to the case.  In the Brody case, one thing that happened was that a lot of personal information became public – e.g., the husband’s awkward excuse for stashing condoms in his travel bag.  Another consequence: Brody was ordered to pay $2.5 million in lump sum alimony even though his prenuptial agreement was meant to prevent that and even though the court  was unable to ascertain his income.  The trial took place in 2010. Recently the Appellate Court has ruled against Brody on all six issues he raised in his appeal.

For all most of us know, Mr. Brody might have told the truth from start to finish. However, the judge found him not to be credible which, as the finder of fact in a civil case, she was privileged to do.

Any judge will tell you that the best way to appear to be truthful is simply to tell the truth.  Still, any divorce lawyer who’s practiced as long as I  have, has encountered more than one client who is shocked to learn that their lawyer expects them to be honest.

What kind of  lawyer wouldn’t help you hide your assets, understate your income or cover up your extramarital affairs?  The answer:  any good one.  Yet, despite our best efforts, there are plenty of folks who remain unconvinced that honesty is the best policy even when the truth isn’t pretty.

The fact is, there isn’t much that happens in a marriage that the judge hasn’t heard before.  Also, there can be two very different sides to every story even when the story is told by honest people.  Your secret spending or infidelity might have led to enormous drama in your household, but in divorce court, might barely cause a ripple.  Unless, that is, you  deny the deed and the judge isn’t buying it.

Brody was not a divorce between members of the 99% although the basic issues were fairly universal. There was an issue of   irresponsible spending — in this case  buying  one too many Ferrari automobiles , a  wine cellar, and an airplane.  There was an issue of suspected infidelity with no proof other than a few unused condoms.  There was a business purportedly in decline — in this case the Defendant’s hedge fund.  There were some  “he-said-she-said” claims of verbal abuse.  All matters divorce judges deal with day in and day out.

No case in Connecticut goes to trial without first going through at least one formal attempt at settlement usually with the assistance of a judge or court-appointed Special Master.   Most cases settle before trial.  Of the small percentage that do not, only a handful are appealed and those few find little success in overturning the decision of the trial judge.

In this case, the Defendant raised a number of issues that might have served him well during settlement  negotiations.  His business really had been embroiled in litigation with the SEC, for example,  and the prenuptial agreement arguably  offered him protection from a lump sum alimony award that would have to be funded by liquidating personal assets.

At trial, however, the judge found him not to be a credible witness.  For one thing, he had admitted testifying falsely under oath in an earlier divorce proceeding that his wife had commenced but later dropped.  Back then he had denied removing his wife’s jewelery from a safe, but had later come clean.   Added to that was the finding that the Defendant had stonewalled during the discovery phase of the trial  pretending that certain documents sought by the Plaintiff didn’t exist.  With those two strikes against him,  the case was pretty much over.  The Plaintiff, whose  personal net worth at the time of the marriage had been 29 million, and whose dividend income from her separate property was approximately $100,000 annually was awarded alimony and, tacitly, the designation of honest litigant.


IN THE NEWS: CAN DAVID BEAT GOLIATH IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT?

A  recent pair of  California lawsuits has caught the attention of the whole country because –at least at first glance — each case presents an irresistible tale of triumph in a battle between the little guy and the giant.

In the first, Heather Peters, a California Honda  owner, opted out of a pending class action suit against the car company based on alleged defects and misleading promotions regarding its Civic Hybrid model.  If Ms. Peters  had not opted out, she might have become eligible, eventually, to receive a few hundred dollars in cash and some  vouchers toward the purchase a new Honda.  This was the settlement that had tentatively been approved for each of roughly 200,000 plaintiffs  in the class action suit.

Heather, who had paid thousands more for the hybrid versionl of her Civic, , thought this was not enough to  compensate her for her losses.  Instead, she brought her  own small claims suit against the car company.  She won the case and was awarded $9,867 in damages. This was just shy of the maximum allowable award in small claims court under California Law — $10,000.

The second recent small claims success story to make national news was smaller but no less impressive.  This one, too, was brought in Californiat where Matt  Spaccarelli, a man who had purchased an unlimited data plan as part of his cellphone deal with AT&T, found that his service had been “throttled”  — slowed to a crawl once his usage reached a certain arbitrary level.  He, too, won his case and was awarded $850 by the small claims court.  Not exactly a life-changing sum, but enough to buy a bit more phone service and, more importantly, to send a message that unlimited data should mean just that — unlimited.

If only that were the end of the story.  Unlike Connecticut, California allows appeals from the judgment of small claims courts.  According to the AP,  At&T announced its intention to appeal  Mr. Spaccarelli’s judgment as soon as the  ruling was handed down.  Ditto for Honda when Ms. Peters won her case.

So, with no appeal option in Connecticut, could it work more smoothly here?  Not exactly.  While Connecticut does not allow appeals from small claims judgments, it does provide an option whereby defendants sued in small claims court may file a motion to transfer their case to the regular Superior Court docket before it ever gets heard.  Not only does this restore the option for appeal but it also slows down the process considerably and opens up the possibility of trial by jury which makes prosecution more difficult for non-lawyers.

On the other hand, as these two cases demonstrate, pursuing legitimate consumer complaints through the small claims process can catch the attention of the consuming public and of the offending company and thus exert pressure for reform.  Sometimes it can even result in a simple victory.

In the Honda case, the plaintiff  happened to be a retired lawyer.  This undoubtedly came in handy in strategic planning. Ms. Peters was prepared with plenty of admissible evidence to prove her claims regarding  gas mileage  and had even lined up a witness described as a Honda whistleblower.

Ms Peters helped along the publicity buzz that grew out of the case by publicizing it before the hearing.  This drew coverage from a variety of far-reaching media including NPR, Fox News, USA Today, The Los Angeles Times and more. She also launched a web site to encourage other affected Honda Civic owners to follow her lead by opting out of the class action and filing suit on their own. Ms. Peters even re-activated her law license in order to help other plaintiffs prosecute their cases.

How this will turn out for Ms. Peters and for other Honda owners who did not opt out  by the February 2012 deadline remains to be seen, but one thing is certain — Ms. Peters managed to deliver a stinging public relations blow to the company that will sap some of the sweetness from the otherwise stunningly favorable settlement  they had so far achieved in the class action suit.

The effect of Mr. Spaccarelli’s small claims  win on other AT&T subscribers will be less dramatic. This is because, as part of its subscriber contract, AT&T precludes both class action lawsuit and  individual suits in courts of general jurisdicion by its customers — a clause previously upheld by the Supreme Court, according to Boston.com.

Still, depending on the amount of publicity the case generates, this could theoretically be a double-edged sword for AT&T since it has, itself, ruled out the opportunity to deal efficiently with large numbers of claims in the context of class action litigation or to play hardball by moving cases out of small claims.  From the point of view of the consumer, though, this means that AT&T has less incentive than Honda to fight individual cases commenced in small claims courts — potentially good news for consumers.

For those who opt to pursue their consumer complaints through the small claims system,  it is worth noting that rules differ greatly among states. In Connecticut, for example, the maximum recovery in small claims court is $5000 although the cost of filing the suit is only $75 — less than in California.

Moreoer, lawsuits are not the only route to vindication for disgruntled consumers.  Each state’s office of the Attorney General has forms and procedures for filing consumer complaints.  Consumers need to be aware that by filing an official complaint they are normally consenting to be called upon to act as a witness in any action brought by their state as a result of the complaint.

Many Connecticut residents may remember how , in 2003,  New London native, Casey Neistat and his brother Van produced a 3 minute video calling attention to the problem of iPod’s short-lived irreplaceable battery and Apple’s unsatisfactory response to their personal complaints.  According to Wikipedia, the video received more than a million hits on  the Internet in its first six weeks and  soon thereafter caused Apple to announce a new battery replacement program for the device as well as an extended warranty.

This is just one more example of how one or two individuals willing to make waves can lift up millions who find themselves in the same boat.


UNBUNDLED LEGAL SERVICES – IF YOU MUST DO IT YOURSELF, DON’T GO IT ALONE

The mission of the American Bar Association’s Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services is to make courts and the justice system more accessible to everyone.  These days, the Committee’s work has become exponentially more difficult because, at the same time more and more individuals lack the income and resources necessary to hire lawyers, courts – including courts in Connecticut – are increasingly underfunded.  Last summer,  Connecticut’s  Chief Administrative Judge, Barbara Quinn, made the scope of the crisis abundantly clear in her report to the legislature. In it, Judge Quinn outlined a myriad of across-the-board cutbacks made necessary by severe cuts in the budget of the judiciary affecting every facet of operations in the State’s courthouses.

This means that judges are increasingly overworked, courtrooms are increasingly understaffed, and the pressure to settle or streamline cases is stronger than ever. Rambling, unfocused hearings in which litigants are unprepared and proper procedural groundwork has not been laid,  waste precious court time and cannot be accommodated.  While Connecticut, like most states,  makes an effort to provide document preparation and other basic services to support to self-represented litigants, those programs are also stretched to the limit. Law libraries in many parts of the state, once a front-line resource for pro se litigants have closed due to budget cuts making matters even worse.

Faced with this reality across the country, the ABA Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services has made recommendations designed to make it easier for lawyers to “unbundle” their services in order to make legal support and assistance more available to individuals who cannot afford to retain a lawyer to provide comprehensive representation in their cases.

In the course of representing a client in any type of litigation, lawyers perform a wide variety of services.  These include drafting and serving pleadings, collecting evidence, analysing cases and setting goals,  drafting settlement offers, developing trial  strategy,  writing briefs,  and arguing on behalf of  clients at hearings and trials.

When a client retains a lawyer to prosecute or defend a lawsuit, the lawyer typically files a document known as an appearance, and thereafter becomes responsible for  performing any and all of the functions necessary to bring the case to a conclusion.  As part of that process, the lawyer remains available to consult with the client at all steps of the procedure and to provide advice and guidance whenever it is needed.  The lawyer also becomes responsible for keeping the client informed about new developments in the case, and of upcoming  events.

Because the scope of full representation is so broad and comprehensive, lawyers in most types of cases — with the exception of injury, accident and malpractice cases — charge clients a retainer designed to cover some or all of the anticipated time and expense that will be devoted to the case.

For too many people in this bad economy,  the cost of full representation  may be out of reach.  For those individuals, the choices are limited.   They may choose not to participate at all in the litigation or may enter a so-called pro se appearance, signalling to the court that they will  be representing themselves. At a minimum, this ensures that they will receive notice of scheduled hearings and other events in their cases.

The unbundling of legal services is designed to provide a middle ground for those individuals.  The growth of so-called virtual law offices is part of this trend.  Many of these businesses are little more than document preparation services while others offer broader and more skilled support.

Brick and mortar law firms are increasingly willing to offer limited services to clients who must  represent themselves in court.  The most straightforward unbundled service is document preparation at the commencement of a case. While it may be convenient to pay for such service, the bare-bones documents needed to start a lawsuit are generally available at no cost through each state’s official judicial website or at the office of the appropriate court clerk.

The more difficult part of any case comes after the initial papers have been filed. Unbundled services beyond the opening salvos of a case  include case analysis,  preparation of litigation checklists, procedural guidance, ghostwriting of legal memoranda and briefs, review of proposed agreements, preparation of subpoenas and document requests,  and coaching in preparation for depositions or hearings.  None of these services are generally available through court-sponsored pro-se assistance programs since they fall under the category of legal advice.  Under existing rules, court personnel including pro-se assistants, clerks, judges, and others are precluded from offering legal advice of any kind.  Mere document preparation assistance does not cross that line, but more substantive assistance does.

Unfortunately, most states still do not allow lawyers to file so-called “limited appearances” that would allow them to argue at a hearing on behalf of a client without committing to full ongoing involvement in the case, so court appearances generally cannot be part of the unbundled services lawyers are able to offer.

For those who cannot afford to have a lawyer speak for them in court, it is still worthwhile to seek out experienced counsel who will meet with them to perform some or all of the other services  that go into case preparation and development.  By unbundling those services, lawyers can perform specific tasks on a flat fee or hourly basis depending on the needs and budget of the client.

In the past, lawyers have been reluctant to offer services related to litigation on a piecemeal basis. This is because no amount of quality document preparation or coaching can guarantee that the client will achieve satisfactory results. For that reason lawyers worry that based on their limited involvement they may be blamed for  difficulties or setbacks — whether forseeable or not — that the client might later encounter.   Now, though, with the growing support of both the bench and bar oversight bodies, lawyers have become more willing to work with clients in limited capacities as long as those limits are carefully outlined in an appropriate engagement letter.

For anyone otherwise facing a lawsuit alone, where the stakes can be high,  unbundled legal services can be a life-changing investment.


DOES CONNECTICUT NEED TO REFORM ITS ALIMONY LAWS?

According to a recent article in USA today,  Connecticut groups have joined  a growing movement  to revamp alimony statutes that some consider out-dated and punitive toward the payors of alimony.

Advocacy groups, such as New Jersey Alimony Reform, cite anecdotal  reports of onerous orders under which individuals have been forced to pay lifetime alimony despite job loss, failing health, or improvements in the financial circumstances of the recipient.

Reform proponents want, above all, to limit the duration and to cap the amounts of alimony  by creating formulas tied to the income of the parties and the length of the marriage.

Opponents  argue that strict formulas are likely to cause more injustice than they cure especially since judges already consider a range of equitable factors when fashioning alimony orders and need to be able to tailor awards to the needs and circumstances of each family.

In September of 2011, Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick, signed into law a new act that provides, among other things, specific term limits for alimony.  The Massachusetts law also limits the amount of alimony to  no more than 30% to 35% of the difference between the parties’ gross incomes at the time the order is issued.  Under the statute alimony can be set below these caps especially if the recipient does not establish sufficient need. The new Massachusetts statute also allows the court to terminate, suspend or modify alimony upon a finding that a recipient is cohabiting with another adult — action that has long been permitted under Connecticut law  in any case.

In contrast, rather than capping alimony awards,  the Connecticut alimony statute  mandates a case-by-case analysis of the issue based on a long list of factors including  the length of the marriage or civil union, the causes of the breakdown, the age, health, and occupation of the parties, as well as their respective skills and earning capacities.  This allows the court to project how the parties are likely to fare in the future, relative to one another, depending on the amount of alimony ordered.

In Connecticut, the group at the vanguard of the movement for alimony reform maintains a web site that is surprisingly non-specific about the ways in which members consider the existing Connecticut statutes to be defective. Instead, the group invites members to post so-called  “horror stories” about their own cases.

To the extent that reform groups suggest that non-modifiable lifetime alimony is the norm, at least in Connecticut, they are misleading potential recruits.

Because Connecticut law generally allows for modification of alimony when the financial circumstances of the parties have changed, an agreement or order to the contrary must specifically preclude modification.  While non-modifiable alimony orders are not altogether uncommon, they are most often the product of negotiations between the parties through which the recipient of alimony accepts a lower amount in exchange for a promise that the alimony will continue for a specified period of time.

According to the USA Today article, a bill concerning alimony reform is likely to be presented to the Connecticut General Assembly this year.

Because the issues are not simple, any effort at reform must be carefully considered.  New legislation, if it is to bring positive change, should be thoughtfully drafted in a way that allows courts to address the legitimate concerns of both parties.  Any reforms designed to protect the interests of one group without also safeguarding the rights of another will not satisfy that requirement, nor will changes that merely bring uniformity into the process without balancing the need for certainty with the overriding goal of treating all parties fairly.

As always, we welcome your comments.