NY - Corrupt justice: what happens when judges' bias taints a case?

The Guardian

When Margaret Besen, a 51-year-old nurse from East Northport, Long Island, filed for divorce from her husband in March of 2010, she believed justice was on her side.

Judge William Kent’s preliminary ruling seemed like a first step toward compromise. Margaret and Stuart Besen, who agreed their marriage was beyond repair, would remain in their suburban Suffolk County house, living in separate rooms – and keeping away from each other – while sharing custody until a resolution could be reached.

But within weeks, the situation deteriorated. Stuart Besen, a politically connected attorney for the town of Huntington, had an anger problem, Margaret told authorities. The couple’s screaming matches left Margaret feeling intimidated and their children – a daughter, 11, and son, 7 – terrified, she said. So in August of that year she obtained an order of protection prohibiting Stuart from harassing her. Three weeks later, Stuart entered Margaret’s bedroom and hovered over her as she slept, she told police. They arrested him for violating the order, reporting that Stuart had stared down at Margaret with his arms folded on three consecutive nights. She got temporary possession of the family home.

In the years that followed, Besen’s hopes for an equitable settlement dwindled as she battled a series of harsh and hard-to-explain decisions against her. Though she could never prove anything, she suspected that the scales had tipped for reasons unrelated to the evidence in her case. If true, Besen faced what experts say is one of the most troubling threats to our nation’s system of justice: judges, who, through incompetence, bias or outright corruption, prevent the wronged from getting a fair hearing in our courts.

“The decorum and bias and the perfectly unethical behavior of the judges is really rampant,” said Amanda Lundergan, a defense attorney in Royal Palm Beach, Florida, who confronted a nest of judicial conflicts in her state’s rapid-fire foreclosure rulings – dubbed the “rocket-docket” – following the housing market collapse. “It’s judicial bullying.”

Full story: The Guardian

CT - Judge Says Lawyers Can Face 'Emotional Distress' Damages in Professional Malpractice Lawsuits

The following was published on September 28, 2015 in The Connecticut Law Tribune. While the original case which resulted in this ruling originated as an automobile accident - the basis might/ could be used in Family Court where we see lawyers fail to represent their clients.

CT Law Tribune

A judge's recent ruling in a legal malpractice case against a Madison attorney allows a former client's claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress to remain, a decision which some in the legal malpractice defense field call "troubling."

Sharon Burns of North Haven sued her former lawyer, Ira Grudberg, in Superior Court in New Haven in 2014, asserting he failed to properly represent her in litigation which arose from an automobile accident.

In December 2014, Burns filed a four-count complaint against Grudberg. The first count, which claims legal malpractice, alleges Grudberg was negligent for failing to respond to discovery requests and for representing Burns when he knew he lacked the resources or time to do so diligently. The litigation also claimed breach of contract, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Full story: CT Law Tribune.

If you are having issues in Family Court we would encourage you to find us on Facebook and share what you have been going through.

W.VA Williamson attorney under investigation

Williamson Daily News

WILLIAMSON – In a W.Va. State Supreme Court ruling on Sept. 30, Lauren Thompson, Williamson Attorney, has been held in contempt of court and denied eligibility for guardian ad litem and any other court appointments until an investigation is concluded in the untimely filing of response briefs in two child abuse and neglect appeals.

According to legal dictionary.com, guardian ad litem is defined as “a guardian appointed by the court to represent the interests of infants, the unborn or incompetent persons in legal actions.”

On Wednesday Oct. 14, Thompson released a statement. Thompson said, “During the current Office of Disciplinary Counsel investigation I must refrain from making direct public comment on the allegations against me. I must instead trust in my decisions, past and present, and the process.”

In a Memorandum Decision filed by the Supreme Court the document states that, “by orders entered on April 16 and March 13, Ms. Thompson was directed to file a respondent’s brief or summary response on or May 20, 2015. Ms. Thompson failed to file the response briefs by the May 20, 2015 deadline.”

Full Story: Williamson Daily News