A downtick in serious legal trouble

  • Article by: JANE FRIEDMANN , Star Tribune
  • Updated: May 15, 2011 - 6:39 AM
  • 3
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 3 of 3
ebenezerMay. 22, 11 5:46 PM

Seems like they must have missed a bunch...this looks like a pretty small list based upon the dealings I've had with attorneys the past few years.

1
0
azjayzJul. 17, 11 5:24 PM

I agree with the first comment- i commented on shiffers article regarding vulnerable adults, about my elderly moms case in minnesota, and throughout the entire litigation period, attorneys AND the judicial officers have made many violations; the most recent is this factual sequence: a hearing takes place to address an accounting and request for more money for my mom; there are 13 parties total in the case. During the hearing, the Judge invites only TWO attorneys back into his chambers(The two attorneys do NOT represent all sides in the case). While back there, the judge invites only the two attorneys to submit to him "proposals" for how "they" wish to aleviate further objections/conflict in the case. Next- the judge and attorneys exit the chambers and enter the courtroom. Judge and both attorneys do not tell any other parties what they discussed, do not disclose that the judge had invited proposals from just two parties. The eleven other parties have NO CLUE that the judge started an action between the court and two attorneys. A short while later, ALL parties receive an order in the mail that states the judge has appointed two new parties according to the secret proposals submitted to the court. Eleven parties are confused about what has happened-so i decide to ask my moms attorney- and he tells me HE submitted a proposal to elect one of the new appointees, and the other attorney must have proposed the 2nd appointee. None of the eleven other parties had been notified of the action, nor were we given a chance to submit our own proposals, nor were we allowed to be heard on the matter prior to the court issuing the order. result: two new appointees will cost my ALL parties hundreds of thousands of dollars...which will financially benefit ONLY the APPOINTEES. Here is the kicker: the judge now expects ALL parties (even the excluded eleven)to participate/cooperate with the new appointees (one is a group who will "examine the family relationships") and depending on any communication we may have with the appointees, we could then be forced to pay the fees involved for the communication. The added bonus: the two attorneys who secretly started the ex parte action? They do not feel they have to participate or cooperate with the two new appointees. How do ya like THEM APPLES??

0
0
azjayzAug. 27, 11 4:52 PM

Attention all Readers!! I just received word from the Judicial Board that the Judicial Board considers it ethical and acceptable for a Judge to call just TWO parties back into chambers(even though the case involves THIRTEEN PARTIES), and then to ask the two parties to submit proposals for their suggestion to a resolution of the case, then for the Judge and two parties to NOT NOTIFY ANY OTHER PARTIES about the proposals and NOT TO ALLOW THE OTHER PARTIES TO BE HEARD ON THE MATTER...and the Judge then receives the proposals from the two parties and REACHES A DECISION regarding the proposals, while no other parties have knowledge or the opportunity to object/respond/participate or be HEARD on the matter before that decision was made by the Judge. YES. according to the Judicial Board, this is entirely ACCEPTABLE CONDUCT FOR A JUDGE. Does this seem ACCEPTABLE to YOU????

0
0
  • 1 - 3 of 3

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: Can the Wild rally to win its playoff series against Colorado?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT