This doesn't seem right, ...please advise.

[Barry_Archer]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? Iowa

For quite a while now I've felt there were some "conflicts of interest" issues with the court appointed public defender that had been representing me regarding my child support case, we'd bumped heads on many occasions, and whenever I had to be in the same room as the countys' CS collections attorney and the court appointed attorney, ...there was no question about it, as it was apparent, that I was on one side of the fence, and they both were on the other.

I'd raised the issues up in a discussion with him, and had asked that he please file a petition to withdraw from my case, ...he acted somewhat mad about it, but said that he would indeed file the petition. Well, I got mail from him today, it was a copy of the "petition to withdraw" form that he'd filed, ...and in his petition, he mentions that he himself wishes to withdraw, however, in the petition he mention that he had discussed my case with another public defender (mentions attorneys name) who had later on told him that they could take the case, and he recommended that the judge appoint this particular attorney to my case.

One of the very reasons that I asked him to withdraw, was because I had been told (in confidence) by one of the courts office clerks, that in nearly all the child support cases that require a court appointed attorney to represent an obligor, the court will always appoint (prefered) this one attorney in particular (the clerk was refering to the attorney that I had asked to withdraw) The clerk told me that the reasoning behind this is simply because he is "a big push over", that will not stand up for his clients, and easily will sway the other way, in favor to help assist the child support recovery attorney "get things done", ...even when it is clearly not in the best interest of the obligor.

So, doesn't it seem rather foul natured for the withdrawing attorney to have made comments in his petition, with regards to a recommendation of an attorney, that for suspicious and unknown reasons, he had already pre-discussed my case with??? Something smells fishy. What do ya do though??? Any info, advise, or suggestions would be very much appreciated.

Thanks!

Respectfully,
Barry

 

[Alias_joe]

You're in a bind on this-

check out:
http://www.ancpr.org/index.htm

 

[Barry_Archer]

Alias Joe - Thanks for the link, ...very interesting stuff.

But regarding my question, wouldn't it be inappropriate for him to make a recommendation to the judge within the petition, especially if my reasons for asking him to withdraw were based on conflicts of interest? I'd think that it'd equally be a conflict of interest for him to do such a thing within the petition.

Thanks!!!!
Barry

 

[BelizeBreeze]

It is not your decision but the court's on whom to appoint. The mere fact that your attorney is suggesting another who has an open schedule to take over the case is not inappropriate.

Now, were you the one on the grassy knoll too?

 

[seniorjudge]

Q: So, doesn't it seem rather foul natured for the withdrawing attorney to have made comments in his petition, with regards to a recommendation of an attorney, that for suspicious and unknown reasons, he had already pre-discussed my case with???

A: Actually, that is pretty standard procedure. The judge doesn't want to let one attorney out of the case unless there is another standing by.


Also, if you are letting court clerks rate lawyers...well, don't listen to them, okay?

 

[Barry_Archer]

Q: So, doesn't it seem rather foul natured for the withdrawing attorney to have made comments in his petition, with regards to a recommendation of an attorney, that for suspicious and unknown reasons, he had already pre-discussed my case with???

A: Actually, that is pretty standard procedure. The judge doesn't want to let one attorney out of the case unless there is another standing by.


Also, if you are letting court clerks rate lawyers...well, don't listen to them, okay?

As said, there were clearly not just one, but several conflicts of interest with the original appointed attorney representing my case, and he was extremely biased, ...so you're telling me that you don't see anything wrong with the idea of him having a role in finding a replacement???

That's almost like saying, "OK Saddam, it's over, ...you can no longer rule the country of Iraq, ...but go ahead and find someone that we can appoint as your replacement." ....of course it wouldn't be allowed, as he would just simply appoint one of his loser buddies that he thinks would be best to keep everything the same as it was. Maybe not the best example, but you get the point.

Thanks!
Barry

 

[seniorjudge]

Q: As said, there were clearly not just one, but several conflicts of interest with the original appointed attorney representing my case, and he was extremely biased, ...so you're telling me that you don't see anything wrong with the idea of him having a role in finding a replacement???

A: That is correct. This is a standard practice.


If you feel the lawyer has committed ethical violations, report the lawyer to the state bar or sue him or both.

 

[Barry_Archer]

That is absurd, ...in terms of overall "fairness", it makes no sense. There is no true justice if that's the way it's being done. Think of it like this, whenever they're interviewing and going about the selection of people to sit on the jury for a case, they're always very carefull in that the people that do get selected are of a neutral, and unbiased status, ...so as not to have potential problems that may arrise from jurors swaying to one side or another.

Why is it any different with regards to this type of situation?

seniorjudge - You mention that "this is a standard practice", ..but do you yourself really feel that with this sort of thing happening, that it is "fair", ..in the name of justice???

Thanks!!
Barry

 

[seniorjudge]

Q: seniorjudge - You mention that "this is a standard practice", ..but do you yourself really feel that with this sort of thing happening, that it is "fair", ..in the name of justice???

A: I do not see anything unfair about this procedure.

 

[tigger22472]

Have a few questions for you...

First off do you understand what conflict of interest actually truly means? If so you need to provide an actual INCIDENT of this because him simply not representing you the way YOU think he should is NOT conflict of interest. Poor representation, maybe but not conflict of interest. The fact that he's gone against this other lawyer, also is not a conflict of interest. The fact that he's been the attorney of choice by this judge to represent people in situations like yours is also not a 'conflict of interest.'

Secondly, Which side of the fence ARE you on and what are the circumstances of your case? This will determine if there was even poor representation at that level. Depending on the circumstances the attorney's hands may have been tied.

Thirdly, as stated what was stated in the petition is not inappropriate. If you wanted it to say YOU wanted him to withdraw then YOU could of filed it or gotten another attorney to do that for you but the fact is, he made the ultimate choice to stop representing you by filing the petition. Also, as stated by him suggesting another attorney this isn't inappropriate. It's pretty safe to assume the attorney suggested also works in the public defenders office and is qualified. He in fact was saving you and taxpayers not only the time but money. If you have a problem with this I suggest you hire a private attorney and be done with it.

 

[Barry_Archer]

Have a few questions for you...

First off do you understand what conflict of interest actually truly means? If so you need to provide an actual INCIDENT of this because him simply not representing you the way YOU think he should is NOT conflict of interest. Poor representation, maybe but not conflict of interest. The fact that he's gone against this other lawyer, also is not a conflict of interest. The fact that he's been the attorney of choice by this judge to represent people in situations like yours is also not a 'conflict of interest.'

Secondly, Which side of the fence ARE you on and what are the circumstances of your case? This will determine if there was even poor representation at that level. Depending on the circumstances the attorney's hands may have been tied.

Thirdly, as stated what was stated in the petition is not inappropriate. If you wanted it to say YOU wanted him to withdraw then YOU could of filed it or gotten another attorney to do that for you but the fact is, he made the ultimate choice to stop representing you by filing the petition. Also, as stated by him suggesting another attorney this isn't inappropriate. It's pretty safe to assume the attorney suggested also works in the public defenders office and is qualified. He in fact was saving you and taxpayers not only the time but money. If you have a problem with this I suggest you hire a private attorney and be done with it.

First of all, to answer your questions, ...yes, I most certainly do understand, in its entirety, exactly what "conflict of interest" means. I do not HAVE TO provide any such INCIDENTS, ...for what? So as to merely prove my intellectuality? I think not. However, I will stress that it has NOTHING to do with the fact that he also did not represent me the way I thought he should've. This guy was NOT up to the task, from the aspect of the mans' willingness, and his overall ability to do the job. He was a total push over, that was scared to stand up for what is "right", ...not just by my standards, but by what is considered "right", as is understood by the moral majority of people. Also too, he'd agreed that there were some irreconcilable differences that made it impossible for him to continue to represent me.

Secondly, Which side of the fence ARE you on and what are the circumstances of your case? This will determine if there was even poor representation at that level. Depending on the circumstances the attorney's hands may have been tied.

Again, there is no need for me to get into discussing the circumstances of the case, ...for what? I really don't quite see what it is that makes you THINK that I NEED to PROVE something to you. All that you, or any other reader needs to know, is that there WERE CLEARLY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

Thirdly, as stated what was stated in the petition is not inappropriate. If you wanted it to say YOU wanted him to withdraw then YOU could of filed it or gotten another attorney to do that for you but the fact is, he made the ultimate choice to stop representing you by filing the petition. Also, as stated by him suggesting another attorney this isn't inappropriate. It's pretty safe to assume the attorney suggested also works in the public defenders office and is qualified. He in fact was saving you and taxpayers not only the time but money. If you have a problem with this I suggest you hire a private attorney and be done with it

Well, you obviously haven't read the post in its entirety, ...if you had, you would have seen that I'd mentioned and discussed several problems and issues with him, and after doing so, it was clear to me that nothing was getting resolved, ...I'd asked him if perhaps he should file a Motion to Withdraw, ...to which he agreed.

Explain how exactly, he was saving me and taxpayers time and money by what he was doing. The judges all have a list of available, contractable, and appointable PD's and/or LD's. It takes no more time or taxpayers money for any judge to simply glance at the list and make a selection, than it would for a judge to read the recomendation from an attorneys motion to withdraw. In fact, it probably would take more time for a judge to, first read the recomendation of the previous attorney, then also to varify that the recomended attorney is also available and contractable.

If I had the money to hire a private attorney, then I simply would have.

Tigger - Seems you'd rather stir the author up, by questioning and even attempting to insult my intelligence, rather than simply taking the information as it has been provided, and with regards to what was stated. There was no reason whatsoever for this author to spin the story, ...if that was the case, I wouldn't even waste my time to post it, as any responses wouldn't apply to the real world situation at hand. With the fact that this board is so loosely moderated, and the select few that are allowed to moderate it ban people because they simply disagree with the person, or perhaps they were losing a pissing match or post war that they (the member with mod powers) had started themselves (they know who they are), ...I will stop myself right there, as my point was made. ........nuff said.

Barry

 

[tigger22472]

First of all, to answer your questions, ...yes, I most certainly do understand, in its entirety, exactly what "conflict of interest" means. I do not HAVE TO provide any such INCIDENTS, ...for what? So as to merely prove my intellectuality? I think not. However, I will stress that it has NOTHING to do with the fact that he also did not represent me the way I thought he should've. This guy was NOT up to the task, from the aspect of the mans' willingness, and his overall ability to do the job. He was a total push over, that was scared to stand up for what is "right", ...not just by my standards, but by what is considered "right", as is understood by the moral majority of people. Also too, he'd agreed that there were some irreconcilable differences that made it impossible for him to continue to represent me.

You were the one who started this thread saying you didn't think this was right and YOU were the one who brought up conflict of interest so yes it is important for you to provide such incidents if you are in fact asking a legal question which is what this forum is for. You can't be given accurate advice about if what your lawyer did was right or wrong without telling particulars about this incident and what YOU perceive to be conflict of interest. Again, this is a place to ask legal questions and not to come whine about stuff.

Again, there is no need for me to get into discussing the circumstances of the case, ...for what? I really don't quite see what it is that makes you THINK that I NEED to PROVE something to you. All that you, or any other reader needs to know, is that there WERE CLEARLY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. .

Well then, if there were "CLEARLY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST" as you say then you wouldn't need legal advice and you wouldn't need to know if something was legal again. Nothing you stated in your original post even comes close to conflict of interest and THAT is why as I stated above and previously that you needed to state the incidences in which you question but since you know it all already I'm really unsure why you even came here in the first place.

Well, you obviously haven't read the post in its entirety, ...if you had, you would have seen that I'd mentioned and discussed several problems and issues with him, and after doing so, it was clear to me that nothing was getting resolved, ...I'd asked him if perhaps he should file a Motion to Withdraw, ...to which he agreed..

Yeah... AND? Again, none of the problems you mentioned were conflict of interest problems! You were unhappy with his representation, you asked him to withdraw.. end of story. He filed the motion, so what if it says HE wanted to... obviously he did or he wouldn't of filed the motion. If you have a problem with his practice then report him to the bar!

Explain how exactly, he was saving me and taxpayers time and money by what he was doing. The judges all have a list of available, contractable, and appointable PD's and/or LD's. It takes no more time or taxpayers money for any judge to simply glance at the list and make a selection, than it would for a judge to read the recomendation from an attorneys motion to withdraw. In fact, it probably would take more time for a judge to, first read the recomendation of the previous attorney, then also to varify that the recomended attorney is also available and contractable.

If I had the money to hire a private attorney, then I simply would have.

Depending on the circumstances of the case depends on whether you even had a defense to argue. For instance and NCP is thousands and thousands of dollars behind in CS. The NCP hasn't paid whether it's due to being laid off of work, being disabled or just simply not paying. Either way it is owed. Is there a need for a trial? Is there a need to drag it out and accure court costs? I know people who will get a court appointed attorney to fight something that can be settled simply but they want to have that attorney because it's a right. Sure, it's a right but it doesn't mean that you have to have one. In the example I used common sense tell you that the NCP owes the support and depending on the circumstances can come to some sort of an agreement to continue payments (if applicable) and pay on the arrearage.

Tigger - Seems you'd rather stir the author up, by questioning and even attempting to insult my intelligence, rather than simply taking the information as it has been provided, and with regards to what was stated. There was no reason whatsoever for this author to spin the story, ...if that was the case, I wouldn't even waste my time to post it, as any responses wouldn't apply to the real world situation at hand. With the fact that this board is so loosely moderated, and the select few that are allowed to moderate it ban people because they simply disagree with the person, or perhaps they were losing a pissing match or post war that they (the member with mod powers) had started themselves (they know who they are), ...I will stop myself right there, as my point was made. ........nuff said.

Barry

I wasn't asking that the story be 'spun'. However, you can't expect to get clear LEGAL and sound advice by giving bits and pieces of the story. If you don't like the answers you get and you know so much about this site already then why even be here? You've obviously been here long enough to know that senior members are going to ask for prove to back up statements in order to give advice. We senior members have also been here long enough to know that when someone like you comes here and argues about having to give any kind of details about a case they are involved in there's a reason. Usually the reason is that the stuff they are hiding isn't things that make them look good. Argue with me all you want I don't care... you aren't the first... you won't be the last.. but know that I dont' come here for my health, I come to help people that TRULY want help and are wililng to accept those answers good or bad. I refuse to come here and coddle you or give you advice that either A. isn't supported by facts or B. that is based on too little information to give ACCURATE advice... but go ahead and keep it all to yourself ...I'm done with you. I have much better things to do then argue with the likes of you.

 

[Katy W.]

Why the heck don't you just request a different attorney?

 

[Barry_Archer]

KatyW - I did, and it has been taken care of, ..and the attorney I have now is far far better than before.

Tigger - I don't wish to argue with anyone, but you know damn well what I'm saying. Instead of trying to interrogate an author, why not just give advise with the thought in mind that what he'd posted is in fact the way it is. It isn't your place to decide or make a ruling on whether or not there is a conflict of interest, ...think of it as a "given",

[For Example] Given there were conflicts of interest, as well as a multitude of other issues between a client and a PD, ...............

I didn't ask anyone to help me decipher as to whether there were grounds to file the motion, ...this was a fact of matter, and was agreed upon by both him and I.

What I WAS asking, is that considering this is the case, would it then be appropriate for him to suggest a replacement attorney, that's all!

 

[seniorjudge]

KatyW - I did, and it has been taken care of, ..and the attorney I have now is far far better than before.

Tigger - I don't wish to argue with anyone, but you know damn well what I'm saying. Instead of trying to interrogate an author, why not just give advise with the thought in mind that what he'd posted is in fact the way it is. It isn't your place to decide or make a ruling on whether or not there is a conflict of interest, ...think of it as a "given",

[For Example] Given there were conflicts of interest, as well as a multitude of other issues between a client and a PD, ...............

I didn't ask anyone to help me decipher as to whether there were grounds to file the motion, ...this was a fact of matter, and was agreed upon by both him and I.

What I WAS asking, is that considering this is the case, would it then be appropriate for him to suggest a replacement attorney, that's all!

Q: What I WAS asking, is that considering this is the case, would it then be appropriate for him to suggest a replacement attorney...?

A: Yes.