Wondering if this is normal

[Astrolink]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MN

This goes back a few years, but I wanted to throw it out there for opinion.

When my ex and I decided to divorce, our local county had a program where attorney fees could be subsidized, and you would pay based on income. It was determined that my wife and I would pay $30 for an attorney (a local volunteer) to write up a decree, then we would pay the filing fee. Abuse, etc. was not required for this program: it was strictly based on income. It was simply called the Volunteer Attorney Program.

We saw him for an hour and told him what we wanted, which was shared legal and physical custody and the separation of assets, retirement, etc.; all the usual things discussed in divorce.

Once we were done, he asked me to to wait downstairs for a moment, and he talked to my wife separately. She emerged 1/2 hour later and said she couldn't sign the decree as we had planned , as she had just learned she was "entitled to more."

She was able to continue to use his subsidized services. I had to hire my own attorney. Four years and $32,000 borrowed dollars later (which is 2 years of net income in my profession), we settled exactly the same on every issue that we presented to the attorney in the first place.

Is this considered normal or ethical? Ultimately, since we share custody, this was economically very hard on the kids.

 

[latigo]

Ethical? Definitely not!

It is a major violation of the code of professional conduct for an attorney to counsel opposing litigants. A conscientious attorney will avoid any pretense of engaging in legal discourse with persons who can be perceived as having interests conflicting with his client

Here the $30 per hour volunteer’s malfeasance was compounded by continuing to represent your wife. His or her license should have been jerked!

Normal? Unfortunately it happens all to often in domestic cases. And too often overlooked by ethics committees.

 

[latigo]

Authorities added:

“In the legal profession, the duty of loyalty owed to a client prohibits an attorney (or a law firm) from representing any other party with interests adverse to those of a current client. The few exceptions to this rule require informed written consent from all affected clients. In some circumstances, a conflict of interest can never be waived by a client. In perhaps the most common example encountered by the general public, the same firm should not represent both parties in a divorce or child custody case.”

“The same attorney cannot represent both sides in a divorce case because there will be a conflict of interest.” (Excerpt from Divorce in Virginia prepared by the Family Law Section of the VIRGINIA STATE BAR)

“ . . . the ABA has consistently adhered to the proposition that a
lawyer representing one spouse may not advise the unrepresented spouse or seek to convince that spouse to pursue a particular course of conduct. ABA Formal Op. 58 (1931), “...limit the communication as nearly as possible to a statement of the proposed action, and a recommendation that the adverse party should consult independent counsel.”; (KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Opinion KBA E-290
Issued: September 1984)