attorney solicitation...2010/03/27 · attorney and served upon the other party. courts do not...
TRANSCRIPT
Proposal R
e: Attorney S
olicitation
Issue
Should the S
tate Bar of M
ichigan adopt the following resolution subm
itted by theF
amily Law
Councü on behalf of the F
amily Law
Section of the S
tate Bar of M
ichigancalling for an A
mendm
ent to eithet the Michigan R
ules of Professional C
onduct or theM
ichigan Court R
ules regarding the solicitation of potential Fam
ily Law clients by attom
eys?
RE
SO
LVE
D,
that the State B
ar of Michigan supports an A
mendm
ent to eithet theM
ichigan Rules of P
rofessional Conduct (I\4R
PC
) ot the Michigan C
ourt Rules regarding the
solicitation of potential Fam
ily Law clients by attorneys.
FU
RT
HE
R R
ES
OLV
ED
that the State B
ar of Michigan proposes eithet an
Am
endment to the M
ichigan Rules of P
rofessional Conduct, $7.3 (adding â new
section "c")or. an addition to the M
ichigan Court R
ules $8.xxxx, Adm
inistrative Rules of C
ourt thefollow
ing:"In any matter involving a fam
)Iy law case in a M
ichigan ftial court, alawyer. m
ây notcontact or solicit ^ p^tty for purposes of establishing a client-law
yer relationship, where the
party and lawyer had no pre-existing fam
ily or client-lawyer relationship, until the frst to
occur of the following: service of process upon the party or fourteen (14) days has
elapsed from the date of filing of the paticulaLr c se."
Synopsis
Fam
ily Law cases involve unique risks to vulnerable pafties, as w
ell as innocentchildren, not present in other areas of out jurisprudence. T
here are no culrent restrictionspreventing attorneys ftom
soliciting legal representation of parties who m
ay engage inD
omestic V
iolence prior to being served with P
ersonal Protection O
rders or Ex P
arteO
rders intended to safeguard the parties'physical safety and preserve the financial statø
s quo
between litigants in a F
amily Law
case. This ptoposal is lim
ited to Fam
ily Law cases, insofar
as genetal civil litigation cases do not customariþ involve high conflict disputes associated
with thteats of physical or em
otional harm, or dissipation of assets associated w
ith the filingof a case.Inform
ation regatding case filings is teadily available to âttorneys through personalinspection of public filings, new
spâpers, and the Internet. There is an alarm
ing incidence ofattorneys soliciting ptospective reptesentadons before ^ parq even know
s that an action hasbeen filed, as w
ell as priot to ex þarte Otdets having been entered by the C
ourt, received bythe attorney and served upon the other party. C
ourts do not routinely issue Injunctions orex P
arte Otders the sam
e day the Fam
ily Law case is filed, and there m
ay be a delay between
the date of the filing of the case, and the time of issuance or receipt of the ex parfe O
rders bythe attotney. T
his narrow 74 day resftiction on solicitation is desþed to perm
it Service of
the pleadings pdor to ^ p^:rLy receiving "notice" via a 3'd party attorney solicitation.
The F
amily Law
Council, on behalf of the F
amily Law
Section, has been w
otking onthis issue for a year and ahalf, and is unanim
ous in its support for the proposal. In contrastw
ith the initial proposal, the current Resolution is specifically lim
ited to Fam
ily Law cases,
and the period of restriction is shortened to a bare minim
um pedod of tim
e: fourteen (14)days. T
he framing of the proposal as either a M
RP
C A
mendm
ent of ^ Court R
uleA
mendm
ent is specifically desþed to provide maxim
um flexibitity to the S
upreme C
ourt inits consideration of these issues.
Backgtound
While the F
amily Law
Council com
menced w
ork on this issue in 2008, after.lengthydiscussion and debate, C
ouncil unanimously voted 18-0 on July 30, 2009 to subm
it aproposed A
mendm
ent fot consideration by the Representative A
ssembly at the S
eptember
1,7,2009 meeting of the R
epresentative Assem
bly. The initial "inform
ation proposal" hadbeen ptesented at the A
pril, 2009 meeting of the R
epresentative Assem
bly. At the
Septem
bet 77, 2009 meeting the proposal w
as "tâbled" until the next meeting of the
Representative Â
ssembly on M
arch 27,2070.
The F
amily Law
Council view
s the issues as of such paramount im
portance that itrecom
mends that either an A
mendm
ent to the Michigan R
ules or Professional C
onduct oran A
mendm
ent to the Mictrigan C
outt Rules address this problem
. The F
amily Law
Council
does not believe that the "form" of the proposed -A
.mendm
ent (as either a MR
PC
or Cout
Rule A
mendm
ent) is neatþ as important as the critical im
portance of it being enacted. The
proposal "in the alternative" is intended to comm
unicate the flexibility of the Council on the
issue.
The curent proposal involves far nartow
et resúictions upon solicitation by attomeys
than submitted at the A
pril, 2009 meeting tn zt least the follow
ing respects: (1) the proposalw
ould only apply to Fam
ily Law m
atters, ând Q) the de m
inirzis restrictions has been reducedftom
t'wenty-one (21) days to fourteen (14) days.
Council is convinced that there is a com
pelling interest in prohibiting a pzrty fuomevading the specific term
s of ex parte Otdets involving D
omestic V
iolence & P
ersonalP
rotection, or Restraining O
tders prohibiting illegal ttansfers of assets, during the period oftim
e from presentation of an O
rder to the Court, and service upon a P
øfiy.
Thete is also a parttcular vuìnerabilty to parties receiving initial notice of the filing of
a Fam
ily Law action from
a third party solicitation for legal representation, in contrast with
ttaditional sewice of a S
umm
ons & C
omplaint and custom
ary legal pleadings. The F
amily
Law C
ouncil has grave concern over the nâtule of the third paty solicitations which ate
occurring with incteasing ftequency.
The "C
ase Codes" to w
hich this proposal would apply involve the follow
ing specificactions: D
C; D
M; D
O; D
P; D
S; D
Z; Ñ
A; pJ; P
H; P
P; oi W
. T
he application to thesepaticular C
ase Codes is targeted tow
ard application of this narrow resttiction to F
amily Law
cases only, and not apply to the remainder of out civil or crim
inal cases.
Clearþ, attotney solicitation issues involve "C
omm
ercial Free S
peech". How
ever,S
haþero v Kentacþ B
ar Associatioz w
hich is referenced in current MR
PC
7.3 does not precludeall restrictions on âttorney solicitation. In fact, S
hapero affirms that resftictions upon
comm
ercial Free S
peech are permissible.
Attached is supporting docum
entation regarding the proposal.
Opposition
None know
n.
Ptior A
ction by Representative A
ssembly
This issue w
as presented to the Representative A
ssembly as an inform
ation item at
the Aprü, 2009 m
eeting. This issue w
as tabled at the Septem
ber, 2009 Representative
Assem
bly meeting.F
iscal and Staffins Im
oact on State B
ar of Michigan
None know
n.
ST
AT
E B
AR
OF
MIC
HIG
AN
PO
SIT
ION
By vote of the R
epresentative Assem
bly on March 2712010
Should the R
epresentative Assem
bly adopt the above resolution?
(a) Yes
of
þ) No
TH
E C
ON
ST
ITU
TIO
NA
L CA
SE
FO
R
The F
omily l¡ow
Council hos becom
e extremely concerned
over the cleo r ond presentdongerossocioted w
ith solicitotionof potenfiol divorce clients w
ith informotion obtoined from
seorch ond review of C
ounty records involving new D
ivorcefilings. T
his proctice is widely referred to o "trolling" ond
roises serious issues for Fom
ily Low proclitioners.
Personol P
rolection Orders ond ex porfn O
rders connot beissued by the C
ourt without specific focluol ollegotions of
hreparoble horm, ond the C
ourt being sotlsfied thot thestotutory m
ondotes hove been mel. A
ccordíngl¡ enhy ofon 6x porte P
ersonol Prolsction O
rder or issuonce of onex porte O
rder represents o threshold determinolion by the
Coud lhot lhe potentiol for serious physicol or econom
iciniury exisls.
These C
ourt Orders m
oy be fruslroted when the first
comm
unicotion b the opposíng porty in o Divorce cose
is nôt the Sum
mons ond C
ornploint ond Ex P
orte Orders
bul o direct, torgeted solicitotaon from
o unknown ottorney.
The D
afendont moy not know
lhot they ore the subiect of oP
ersonol Prolection O
rder, or lhot o Judge is determíning
whether or not to issue on E
x Porle O
rdar preserving theslotus guo, or preventing D
omestic V
iolence, or precludingrem
ovol of the children from the S
tote of M;chigon.
Other serioug issues con orise from
o porty cleoning oulbonk occounls, concelling beneficiory designotions, ondirreporobly oltering fie slstus quo in o D
ivorce cose prior tobeing served w
ith the Sum
mons, C
omploint, ond ex porle
Orders.
A m
oior impelus behind efforts lo oddress this problem
wos
the impossioned presentotion to the F
omily Low
Council in
2008 by the Hon. John H
omm
ond, relired ludge, Berrian
County C
ircuit Courl . Judge H
omm
ond words flot "e¡s
deod Plointiff" is "one loo m
ony" moy w
ell be prophetic.T
he Fom
ily Low C
ouncil hos been prooctively involved inlhese issues for o yeor ond o holf; ít recognízes its obligolionto m
oke the publíc ond the Slqte B
or owore of the dongers
ossocioted with folling .
CO
NT
RO
LLI NG
"T R
OLLI N
G''
BY
JAM
ES
]. HA
RR
rNcroN
, lll
The F
ornily low S
ection hos proposed o simple, progm
otic,ond effective m
eons of deoling with this problem
: Attorneys
moy nof solicit client represenlolion in F
omily Low
r cosesuntil the firsl to occur of lo| foufeen (14f doys from
the filingof the C
omploint or F
omily low
ociion; or, (b] the filing of oP
roof of Service w
ith the Court.
MnpC
'7.3(ol i¡ confu¡ing, conFodlctory¿
qnd does not proclude trclling.
At ftrst blush, the proclice ol trolling w
ould oppeor to beprohibited pursuonl to the M
ichigon Rules of P
rofessionolC
onduct. specificolly'7,3 lo):
" A low
yar sholl not solicit professionol em
ploymenl
from o prospeclive clienl w
ith whom
lhe lowyer
hr;rs
no fonìly or prior professic;nol relotionship when o
sìgnificont motive lor the low
yel s doing so is lhelow
yel s professìonol goinu .
How
ever, the very sdme M
Rrc underm
ines thisodm
onitíon ot the conclusíon of '7.3lol:
... nor does lha lerm'solicí('include A
sending trulhfulond nondeceplíve letters lo potenliol
clianlsknow
n lo foce partlculor legol problems" os elucidoled
in Shopero v K
entucky Bor A
ssn., 496 U.S
. 466, 4ó8;too L. E
d.2d 475 (te88l.
A detoiled review
of the Com
mentory lo M
RP
C '7.3(ol
foíls to resolve ttre evident inconsislency between these
two posilions. T
his invites o review of the S
åopero cose forfurúE
r guidonca.
Shoperc v K
enlucþ Bor A
ssæialíon did
not involve rccFiclions on low
ycr nollíng.
Any ploin reoding ol S
hopero mokes cleor thot lhe U
nitedS
totes Suprem
e Court w
os concerned obout o "totolbo n"upon low
yer solicitot¡on :
æ
RE
PR
ES
EN
TA
TI'E
A
SS
EÍU
IBLY
- MA
RC
I{ Zf , ?ol0
Fam
ily [¡w G
ouncil Proposal
"The G
onetih¡tional Case F
or Gorrtrollng fm
lllrtgfA
ttachme4Ltl
MA
RC
H 2010
"But m
erely becouse lorgaled, direcl moíl
solicinÍon presenfs lowyers w
ilh opportunities forísololed obuses or m
ìstakes does not iustify o lolalboff on thol m
ode of proleclød speech.3"
Cleody, the fourteen (1a) doy restriction period is the
opposite of o "lotol bon". Significontly,
Shoparo does not
preclude stote regulotion of lowyer solicitoiion; the S
upreme
Court specificolly set forth one m
echoni¡m of opproved
Slole reguloliona in the form
of requiring the low¡or lo
submit ony solicitotíon
letter with the S
tote,
In contrqst wifi S
hopero, the proposol of the Fom
ily lowC
ouncil is limited lo F
omily low
coses, ond for o minim
olfourleen (14) doy period or octuol flling of o proof ofservice, w
hichever comes firsl,
ßlinim
ol re¡Fiction¡ on lor,rryer ¡olicírqfiron m
oerthc four prong C
omm
erciol Frce S
pccch tert.
Cleorþ com
merciol speech is êntitled to C
onstitutionol
Subsequent hc the C
entrol Hudnn G
os cose the United
Stotes S
upreme C
ourt loosened this test, ond sel forth therequirem
ent thol here bG o "reosonqblo f¡|" betw
een thegools ond lhe reslriction.ó
The prim
ory purposê of the "lA D
øy period" is perm
itsuff¡cient opportunily for issuonce oi E
x Pode O
idersT,
Orders, ond service upon he other
period would be totolly inodequote
ces; fourteen (14f doys is o rolionol,
Significontly, the proposed restriction does nol preclude
the otlorney from exom
ining ond inspecting public f¡les ondrecords, nor does it prohibit the direct sôlic¡totion of the
reslriction.
Our M
ichigon Court R
ules intuitively recognize the problemw
ith odvonce "notice"; o iustificolion for issuonce of onex porte O
rder pursuont to MC
R 3.2O
7lBl is the foct thot
"nolice" in ond of itself might "precipitote odverse oclion
babre on order con be issuàd."
Supprering oll fom
ily low cq¡e¡ i¡
neither ¡cosonoble nor corl effccrive.
The possíbility of physicol ossoult, kidnoping, or pilloging
the moritol eslote is reol. H
owever, is the best olbrnotive
"suppressing" oll Fom
ily Low coses? W
hile this preemptive
opprooch might oddress the problem
s hera in Michigon,
this is nol o ponoceo: ll ) Not oll, m
osl of, or very mony
Divorce coses w
ill benefit from suppression. (2) lt
is
inconceivoble thot MÍchigon C
ounty Clerks w
ould embroce
the odditionolcost ond p€rsonfower
required lo effeduotelhis suppression. (3f F
ile suppression directly impocts w
hotw
e intuilively recognize os lhe "public rightlo know".inl.
Fom
ily low cosos involve uníque considerotions
nol presentin other civil m
oïers. Personol iniury coses do not norm
ollyinvolve ossoults beM
een fomiþ m
embers, lhreots of bodily
horm, pilloging of bqnk occounts, ond the w
oste of them
orilolestqte. Fom
ily low otlorneys deol w
ifi these uniqueissues on o doily bosis.
A com
pelling orgument con be m
ode thot lha slondard ofcore Íor F
omily Low
ollorneys mondobs injunctive or ex
prle relief ot the comm
oncemenl of every high conflict
Divorce cose. H
owever, lhis rem
edy con be totolly frustrotedif the D
efendont who is the subiect of the P
ersonol Protection
Order or the lniunction is m
ode owore of the pendency of
lhe octíon prÍor lo beíng brmolly served.
ls the proposol of the Fom
ily low C
ouncil bulleþroofèH
ordly, How
ever, fie foct ùql someone other ùon on
ottorney, or o nawspqper, or o fr¡end or relolive m
oy olsobe obb to check public filings, does nol olter the foct thotA
ttorneys ore subject to o stricter code üon the publics, ondotlorneys should not be oclively porticipoling in o courseof conduct w
hich w¡ll frustrote volid C
ourl Orders ond the
public policy underlying Personol P
rotection Orders ond
lniunclions.
The suggestíon lhot low
yer trollìng "couses" ossoults orkÍdnoping or depletions of the m
oritol eslole mis*totes fie
issue. A P
erønal P
roteclion Order o¡ on E
x Poùe O
rdaris opiece of poper, ond m
ony violent oclions occur subsequentlo issuonce ond service of these pieces of poper.
The foct thot these incidents occur is neiùer o borom
eter noro heod count on lhe num
ber of ossoulls which ore ovoidsd
becouse of theír issuonce ond timely service of process. T
heM
ichigon Stolules onobling
PP
Os ond lniunctions m
irror thopublic policy of the S
tote of Míchigon m
ondoled thot certoinconduct m
ust be deterred through volid Court O
rders.
MA
tìcH 2010
RE
PR
ES
EN
TA
TN
'E
AS
SE
TIB
LY . IU
IAR
CI{ 27, ?lûIO
Fam
ily Law G
ouncil Proposal
'The G
onstitr¡tional C
ese For G
ontrc lling Ttollingf,
Atbchm
ent #lfo
The tom
ily tow C
ouncil overwhelm
ingly supports lheodoplion of o norrow
window
of t¡me to obloin ond serve
Personol P
roteclion Orders, lniunclionr, ond ex porle
Orders w
ithout the "odvonce notice" served by trollingottorneys being the trigger for irreporoble horm
. A fourteen
(l4l doy pouse in holling ís o minim
ol reslriction uponF
omiþ Low
ottorneys who hove the privilege of proclicing
low in M
ichigon.
This proposol ís norrow
þ drown, ond specíficolly geored
to oddressíng potentiol violotion of volid Court O
rdersprior to D
efendonts being served with legol process. Judge
Hom
mond "got it right" w
hen he issuod the clorion cqll forcontrolling lrolling.
Endnoþs
l, The proposed w
oiting period would not opply lo C
ivillitigotion generolly ond be specificolly lim
ited to Fom
ilylow
coses including Divorce, P
e¡sonol Protective O
rder,P
oternity ond olhor reloted mofters.
2. Ernphosis qdded lo S
hoparo excerpt.
3. Sfiopero, supro, citing ln R
e M,455 U
,S. ot 203.
4. "The S
tote con regulob such obuses ond minim
Ízernistqkes through for less restriclive ond m
ore precisom
êons, the most obvious of w
h¡ch is lo require the lowyer
to file ony sol¡c¡tolion leiler with o stote ogency.' ln R
e
N, 455 U
.S. ot 20ó"
5. Cenìral H
udson Gos &
E
lecl¡ic v P
vblic Servíce
Com
missîon, A
Á7 U
.S. 557, 564,5ó8ó9 (1980),
6. Board of lruslees v F
ox,492 U.S
. 469,480 (19891;prior decisions such os C
enlrol Hudson G
os hove neverrequired üol lhe restricT
ion be the obsolulely leost severe;
the tegt is wheher there is o "reosonoble fit" betw
een thegovernm
ent ends ond meons. P
osodos de Pverlo R
ìco
Associolas vT
ovrism C
ompany of P
uerto Rico, 478 U
.S.
328,340 (ì98ó),
Z. ln m
ony Michigon C
ounties, the Fom
ily lnw Judge w
illnot im
mediotely issue E
x Porte O
rders, ond require odoy or longer lo review
the pleodings, Afnidovits, ond
consider the scope of the iniunction. Likewise, m
ony Ex
Porle O
rders hove to be moiled 1o the ottorney for service,
which likew
ise tokes o couple of doys for delivery; thenthe porty m
usl be personolly served with fie S
umm
ons &C
omploint ond E
x Porto O
rders.
L The perm
ission lo proctice low "m
oy rightly be regordedos o privileg e"; tolk v S
tole Bar of M
ichigon, 4l I Mich
63,90ll98ll, Being on ottorney m
eons being subiectto m
ony restrictions thot the public os o whole is not
subiecf to; exomples include bú ore not lim
ited to: self-reporting of m
isconducl; IO
LTA
requirements; free speech
regording pending co$es, ond countless other limitotions
on lhe conduct of ottorneys.
RE
PR
ES
EN
TA
TU
E A
SS
EiJiB
LY . ÍIIA
RG
TI 27,2010
Fam
ily [¡w G
ouncil proposal"T
he Gonstitutir¡nal C
ase For C
ontrolling TrcilIngl,
Att¡chm
entllM
AR
CH
2O1O
Family [,aw Atûorneys Rally to Changp C.oürtRules Regard¡ng SolicitationB¡l,l,ur f. SpÉ¿¿reFÈkrf¿+Ëâ¡¡rlar*¡.oqt
F¡nils hr 11¡e¡¡rttrurnd ¡h¿ Sorc of lficbigrnhace cone rogctbcr ut e¡rIttcüpr re¡¡t¡fi d rhc MirùigrnC-rrrr R¡hr q Mi+ùræu E ulæof Profe¡u-:ou¡l Conduct toptlb¡1fi ¡olùtir.r ¡i¡¡n of rJ ienrsta&p b'c¡ ¡s'foüirtg t i¡¡dø¡cr¡k rclalir¡o¡ tirsc fqr atles¡ l{. dafr aftc¡ ænrcc ofpluf!¡. Tbc ¡toerir ef ¡bis
. rürçEr.nr is ¡he tr'¡nilr Lrr.Scrti<¡a'¡ gratc cwcru rhet¡t¡dt!ãfltdtÊ rrlÈÍinghuncs,ÊúË porêotill diclr¡ ùr üdiiri¡ûg rt¿rr tb¡t ¡ dirprcc¡ctl¡n harbcq¡ 6k{ t¡cfore¡lra prrrorr har beet roçcdsitù grrrcsr. Iu ùe èrnil,r lar'contc*t o¡¡ñ ¿¡l¡'¡oEritãirrûcâo brrctragiccorr¡cqr¡c¡srs, Ottcotimc¡, rbscaçh.r art r¡tl livùng rrn<ler rüc ¡ane roof nñçn ¡bedruortc ¡aio¡ ¡. El¿rd. Tbc drf.Ðdar rpotú. ¡r¡v h"crç rhifolf'of drrnætÞ úr¡lsncc ¡¡rd lx*.e ¡ viotru rtxt¡or¡ t(rlc-ûbg Éror¡ a ûird putt'rhar lÈ fonæ b¿¡ fu fadhwrc. Gc il¡cmct-cooüntrdthll-rbrúom<r* th¡ts¡tfm'lÉem3r*¡r¡¡fs¡¡¿¡¡Tiûlêæaç¡ctin tßsEnS¡ö ttr10 @d ücrh¡*, b tbc ¡¡¡¡accrof the grr*crrd.rngw tbat¡h¡ ¡h¡*rr*il Hû o¡ ¡eriq¡¡lr l¡¡r¡c úrc sirri¡¡ ¡n4:qr n¡r<tiho-' Tbcæbeû¡oaristúeLb(&Grcsiceofpraes.thc defi ad¡a¡.ryasecrr.dd Þaue ¡herilr tr¡üecq¡rsr'*irùrh* coplc r ôil&rm. Odrer ¡¡to¡teç* barl rçontd rlræcl¡e¡rc¡o( rer¡¡rcúi*¡r¡r¡lt¡lçberu de¡u<nldh a "uollingirtloÍner rto nrxi6er *r dtfe¡¡drr¡¡ rpoür. of tlr xrion.I¡dc<d, frnih' k¡- ø¡g i¡nphr uniçr rí*s tonùrraHc
pnrtict,¡ltrr'cll¡s toiorof,crrl driklrc¡.r¡tri.*, ¡ur¡rr.¡ pft Er¡tür nürtr :ur¡rr r¡t'&ilrr-
Tb. Füui¡y tJ$' Conqil. q bcb¡Eof¡hr 5þ¡c B¡r ofôûichiæn'r Flrmily Lr Señion. la¡ ncquc¡tcd thcncg*aatircásroblçtoadopt tleeû*iryrc¡où*io:
RESOLIT,[}, t}.ar É'cSc¡rc Barof Mtùi¡ur lr¡pport¡ün åEcÞdüÈn¡ to cLbcr rhc Mrcbigao Eula¡ ofP¡ofr¡ù¡oaf Csodsct tlfR¡El or tbc Xióig¡r¡ CqrrrRùl€i ¡Êgerdingrhc soùkit*iou of,potoial Farnih ¡ârdieurhattorncy:.
fURT}¡ER Rf,SOL\EDrhà¡ ürÉS¡*é BarofMit{rigrnpnopoær atberaa*tmclrdn¡a¡ ro :l¡¿ ülch*en Rulcr ofhofe$¡ooalçoùdr¡r¡1. f?.S{addint¡ o&¡cction'<"} g|.anâddirior¡ torheMiùi¡en4oete{c*S&scrr.ådoi¡i¡quirc R¡dc¡ofGflrtlltcfolbring:
sI¡ æ ¡l¡ttcf fñúdrg r frrütLrr qæ ûlcd h¡ tkt¡¡r¡ C¡¡r¡rsldt lly ße:!Ê1r rm or ¡oüci¡r
prny Gol prpæcr ofc¡¡¡bllrhl¡! ¡! trroncy cllerrÊLllmôtp, *rhGæ tlc rttollc¡ ùrdro prtbt or ñerfy ¡rrofcrrkrlrlæ|rdo-"l.ip. u¡il ùe fi ¡¡to ærc¡r dfu fo&rtry Íurrtcca fl $d*t ¡ ton¡bc dr¡a dûa A¡hf of úc pr¡tlcUrGrfc' trr ¡+.nfcc of ¡næø rgor ttcprty h úcclr.t
€r¡¡t¡thtbcrc¡rc æ rcsietioæ prrsoting:ttaun:frm roliclmg lcgal rcprcrcntarioro{a porn bdorc råclnürû¡a¡ t pcrmalh *:rrd sith dnucc pro(e!ùincbdirtã Ex P*rcordcr¡i¡tcndcd trrrafcgrnrd aprtgiphrrkdmd financhlrder¡.l|ïihurtßurln rcgnrtlintcæftingrirrcadity¡Í¡ilaHÊtkægbpcrsnt iüpccrimof publíc ñlinÞ end ùruugh rte ù¡tcrrrct, th¿rl ara'eleruing inckfcil¡ d ¡rranrys r.l¡düË€ drfc¡d¡nrr iafani 11. kn¡' mrttrn bf u¡.É1, bcferc tho¡c ildiridu-¿l¡ e,cnlnorr'th¡t r¡stion h¡¡bceaülcds order¡entcrcd: ThcC<r,lacil fett t}'a.tkeirrpctiorhrri*topirtie; ora.crrminorch¡ld¡tr, b+, ù+ rËcript of f¡¡r¡ilv tnr' ¡ctionr fiomthud ponlcr' $troùÉltcd uroilingrn i¡ co¡tr¡u *itl¡ thc.a!s¡nn¡rl.r' d¿¡r'irc Of¡ n¡rümonr ¡¡¡d co¡rrylnått ¡nd ofhelple*din¡p The Cq¡¡¡cil b*¡ ßr¡rre corrcrtÙr úr¡¡t thecarucstcocer qf third p¡rtt rolicitltíon$ rt'þiç! 6soccrmng eithirxreasilg ñ-egua¡<t . ¡¡d r"ùicù a¡*ofiercd
falnilyI¡wt¡ods¡bcp¡aæofnrcch-atcrtmgmrrniugilditrú¡¡l¡ro rlrc exr¡rcnrc of Þgd procrcdngt wtca. rn tocr. rbËplüPorc ¡r forcor¡Ecr<futl gnio. Attboltgh nretry f-'r'4r-lar+'pmaidoncrrfcchh¡r thc I { åælimir¡eim i¡roorl¡<rtt.ñdrl[rdd lilÊ to sceecomplctebar¡ oa rolicitsoo¡-diltcwicc of procerr n Éübc¿di û¡c p¡ofo¡ëd tesoü*þ¡l itrr l¿c¡r ¡ ¡rÊI| tD rhêrÍglrrdb.ærioû"
Ïb{i fqúrrtnlå¡irc åäÉtnåq' bara,¡renrlrorrcen¡¿¡b<r¡rrhe Fìir¡ulr| îd¡[crrcomrflltf¡rÉrsftûcpropard
rc¡oh¡rios a¡d rrant arúuÌancc rlnt thC hera irnotþrt\potcnraf Consegcnth. tbevh¡c aalcd ¡ttqrl'ãortùcb dicotr to pro,r'idccxlruplcr ef fcc¡!< ¡¡rfs¡cc¡ofproblruu lhethm'c ¡¡acoa¡ e rtrdrcfpartlcr.orrhildrcr.or otbÊri. rrh rndlilgr, Hacf fam-lr l¡rr¡¡fornel'¡fi ¡uh' bclic*.a ¡h¡r tbc proporcd ¡c+ohr¡ion i¡an¡üÌtt9 tin¡¡ plece å¡¡d û1racr re¡¡rir¡ion on a thùdt'ðtt=!¡'r Firtf .tncndrucul fighlr. lf ttnr or ilI,,oilr f(^¡hnaff lürre rro¡'t' to *rrrr, plee¡c cr¡nrrra tjhe R,, lin}rrsorh* thsrtoryclnbeinrh¡dcd in thcprerc¡dãtionro th€replç$l3ltrat*¡n nscEÈlv ù¡ llï'd¡ g0 I 0.
.REPRESENTATÍIÆ ASSETBI.Y - ¡IARCH N, ?ol0iFamity I¡w Council Proposal,"Famil¡/ l-aw Aüomeys Rally to Gfiange Gouft Ruþs] negard:ng Attorney Solicitations"
Attachment tZ
Ëù¡.Þ{årr'
qdiavfuefu'M;igÈí&
Am
y A" Y
uG
ail M. T
owng O
fCor¡nscl
ww
tr,.¡mw
uhw.com
February 5,2010
To W
bom It M
ay Concern:
Re:T
rolllng
Dear S
ir/Ïvfadam:
I have encounterod several incideirces of my clienrts being contacted by other attorneys prior to being served a
complaint for divorce,
L My client (w
ife) received a letter advising her that her spouse has filed for a divorce. She had no idea. W
efound out later that her husband w
as having second thoughts and was w
orking bard to try to reconcile andrebuild the m
aniage. rffhen my client found out th¡t he had already filod, she felt betrayed,
as he had been"so ûicd'. T
here was no ch¡nce for any reconciliation.
2. My oliø
rt (husband) filed fø a divorce. Im
mediately aftcr he frle{ the parties' son w
as hit by a car andbad a head injr¡ry, so m
y client did not want his w
ife servcd until the crisis was over and the son w
as stable.T
he wife received tw
o letters Aom
nd
that herhusbond had sued for a divsrce and that she needed representation T
his only added more fuel to the crisis
fi¡e.
Attorncys that are soliciting clie,lrts th¡t they have no relationship w
ith and are trying to directly advertiseneed to find other w
ays to get clients. There arepoüentially dangerous situations that could be præ
ipitated bythis [rye of solicitation:
o Ifa party has file4 but is F
ying to get ex parte orders enterod, the other side ca¡¡ be alerted aodclean out bank accounts and m
ove all assds because they have not yet been serrrod"
¡ If a party is w
orried because the spouse has made threats that they w
ill take a child out of søte,
the spouse is alerte4 but not sm¡ed, and rnns w
ith the child what rem
edies a¡e available?
o If there are potential dom
estic violence issues, sometim
es we need to m
ake sure that e client andthe children are out of the hom
e when the spouse is served so tbat safefy is taken into account.
Law O
ffice of Am
y Yu, P
.C.
30300 Northw
estern Highw
ry, Suite 114
Farm
Íngton Hills, M
lchigan 48334
(248)932-0100 Ofñce
Q48)932-1734 F
axayu@
amyyulaw
.com
Sincerely,
Am
y Yu, P
.C.
By: A
myY
uA
Y:w
mk
RE
PR
ES
EN
TA
TIV
E
AS
SE
MB
LY . IT
AR
CH
27,2O1O
Fam
ily [.aw G
ouncil Proposal
Gorrcspondence - A
my Y
u, Chair€lect of F
amily
law C
ouncil rc: dangers of solicitationA
ttachment #8
LAW
OF
FIC
TS
OF
HT
}"*T,:I,., .,'O
RN
BE
INB
¡ooMr¡er.u H
rr.r¡ fr{¡g¡¡¡o^N 4t304
Henry S
. Gornbeint
'Fdlcr,{n¡lc,r.n A
rrreaV 4 M
ottùæüú
Lølw
ycla
January 14,2010
MS
ELIZ
AB
ET
H A
SA
DO
WS
KI
AT
TO
RN
EY
Al LA
1V43I 6T
H S
TR
EE
TR
OC
HE
ST
ER
MI 48307
Dcar Liz:
I.am w
riting. to follow up on our te¡eplþne oonve
t"tpsr ¡ccentty, a client received one wherc I w
as apcepting service for thc wifc (the hr¡sband had
filed), and thcn the'letter came. E
ncloscd is a copy of thc-lener from lH
hT
o say the least, my client w
a¡¡ very offended by this letter as ws,rc the clients in the tw
o othercalr€s.
To m
e it is reprehensible; it givcs a very bad connotation to lawycrs, a¡rd it can bc dangø
ous.S
cveral situations come to m
ind. The firs is w
here therr is domestic violence and everything has
to be careñrlly orckstratcd to prevent someone from
being injurcd or ev€n killed. A leræ
r sent ûothÊ
perpettator of domcstic violence, w
herc evergh¡ng is.bcing carefully orchesh¡te4 ca¡¡ rcsult in
a tragedy.
The second situation w
d discussed is where som
eone files for divorcc and is waiting for a birthday,
holiday, or religious cvent, or cven a urcdding, before having thc papers served. This can be
extrrcmely upsctting and can ruin a fam
ily evenL to say the least.
A third sitt¡ation is w
here someonc is filing, but holding onto thc papers because of either
diffìculty in obuining seruice or bccausc therc ma¡ be an issua w
ithregard to ctætody oÍ evcn
aisct temoval. H
aving I lcller comc in ¡ situation like this ca¡r causc honible consequcnces.
I unde t, but
tlæaé I
sewed
itivc issues as I've discusse¡lR
EP
RE
SE
NT
AT
TV
E A
SS
ET
&Y
. ÍIIAR
CH
N, 2!010
Fam
ilYG
ortes *A
"M'L
re: sot 'can rg¡ult in
atragegy", Janr¡ary 14 ã!f0
TE
|EP
HO
NE
(zat, $+S
a.4, FA
x (2,1S) 50..C
2äl
WE
ES
ITE
T
Mary A
nneNoonan
ñlr. liliz¡bcth.4,, Sudorsski
l)ugc'frvoJnnuary 14.2010
llthcrc is anything clsc thot I c¿rn do, pleasc lct nlc know
.
Bcst rcgarcls lirr thc N
cry Ycnr.
(' \-..\\
tlenr¡,SJ tiornbcih . .
llSG
iruglinclosurc.
RE
PR
ES
EN
TA
TN
Æ A
SS
EÍIB
LY' IIA
RG
H 27, 2O
1O
Fam
ily L¡w G
ouncil Pruposal
Conuspondence
- Þhnry G
ombein, A
-A.tll.L
re: aoticiüng iS "ltprelpngibþ" E
ñd "ctn æcultin
a tragegyf', Jarurary 1+ 2O
1O
AÍtachm
e¡tt#4
Novs¡rbu 13,2009
Ruthtr
lr-Novi,lv[ 483T
:,
RE
: Richa¡rillH
oenlevs. Ruthll
Osklarid C
aunty Circ¡¡it C
or¡rt
DoarM
s.llF
In revicning cqtaiû çourt reçords ftor¡ tho Oakland C
ounty C¡ro¡it C
,ourt in Pontiac
Miohþq it appean thatyour spol¡sc hss filed divorce prococdinge against you as set
forth abovo,
In that regar{ I wquld bo ificrested in ropescnting you in thaû case. \ilith over 20 ¡æ
arsof lqg¡l þß
p6¡Éno€, I thi¡lk w
e could dnreþ an effective strdegy to dott with your case
inoludfurg dealing with iss'¡æ
rohtiag to qpousal support, child suppo4 intorim orders,
cuatody, prop€(f sottlcmüü
e¡rd the liks.
lwould tæ
hnpy to di¡cr¡s¡ ],q¡r ctsê witb you over thp phono or in m
y ofñco,{1NO
CE
AR
GE
TO
YO
U, Y
or¡ should be advísod tb¡t wo acc'rp! visa/m
c and eaqr paymortt
plans. In ærtai¡ co¡¡ct, \ryc m
ay be ablc to get your spouso to eithcr pay your rttorntryfees or geú you rcim
bursEd fqr your feço,
You c¡n oall m
e a¡?/18-224-ñ96 w
ith eny qwrtions yor nrtl h¡vo or t¡o have a free
ool¡¡ult¡tion rcgarding your cuo. I urually ha¡dlo phono cons¡lt¡tione sr¡cry-dayflncludinc S
afirrdevs end Srm
dnvcl ftom ?'fi) A
M rrntil I l:O
O P
M
You shot¡ld knsur th¡t all consulE
tìous, þ phone or in ofFcg are shictly corrffdential and
ahhough you m¿
y lrave numerous qrrostions ¿
bort tho cape tnd the ultimate outcom
e, we
can unrally ansrver all çestions you rnsy h¿ve abor¡t the c¡se in læ
s th¡n one hour.
Very tnrly yours,
AtorneyatLaw
& )-e*ler"ltv 6e$rc- tie€uvnm
ons was
oL,tr^ivd. &+
*he YvtÇ
t,i{r^l hornz
RE
PR
ES
EN
TA
TÍV
E A
SS
EiIB
LY - IIA
RC
H 27,2O
1OF
amily l-aw
Gouncil P
roposalS
amph S
olicitation: Norrem
ber 13, 20Og
Atta:chm
ent*t
S?:T
veÁ
Doconbor ll,2009
Krlrinc
mhrfud, W
4}rn
RE
: StÊ
\m
Y!.
Ortlúd C
or¡Dûy C
irouit Court
IlcarMr.
I¡ rwisw
itrg acû¡n court rcooqds ûontho Oalc¡r¡d C
or¡trty Circr¡it C
oun inPoui¡c
ìßohigü, it appoan ttat yoru opouso hu ûlcd dlvorao proooo¿
¡¡gl ¡g¡Ín* you u totfrsth úovo
I¡thrt rugprü, I *nüld bo i¡tsutod ¡¡ rcprc¡øt¡qg you io tùæ
c¡ro. With ov¡r Z
l ¡'ornof hgd tdpcic¡eo, I thl¡rk w
s oq¡ld dcrnlop ¡¡ oftcdw rffiq5¡ ûo dcal w
ith yrur øro
i¡aludhg dodiug wlth i¡n¡o¡ rchd¡g to ryor¡sd trrpporg cùild aryport futcrim
ordorq .
orobdy, prcpaty octldmont rnd tho lito.
I wflld b hppy to d¡sorrs yu¡r c¡sc w
lth you ovu tho phooo or ln ry ofico AT
NO
CE
Aß
GD
f() YO
U. Y
ou ¡hor¡ld bo ¡dyi¡cd th¡t ws üooopt rd¡r/m
o and orqt payffiplür. I¡ cüüh otlc¡, w
o u¡y bc úlo 3o gd yor¡r spot¡sc Ûo dthcr pay yû¡r üo8lsy
fto¡ ongÉyor¡ ¡dnh¡r¡cd ftiyurnftoc.
IlÑv olrrcE
g oF
You oa¡crll m
o 4 24it lÐ/üúÉ
ñwith rry qrrodonr you E
ty b¡vu oro bavo ¡ ûto
You ¡hor¡ld know
rhú ¡ll co¡r¡lt¡do¡¡, þ pbono orin oEcq^ arc uialy confidoqti¡l ¡¡d
¡lthor¡ghyd¡ ory havt u¡Ecror¡s quoüirm
r ¡boú ths o¡o rndúo ulËniþ qilom
q wÞ
omunnlly rorw
uall'quorüoor yu¡ n¡y h¡vo abor¡ttbo or¡o t¡ lc¡e thm us bour.
Vcf'tutY
Jol¡fi,
RE
PR
ES
EN
TA
TN
/E
AS
SE
TIIB
LY . iIA
RC
¡{ 27, 2O1O
Fam
ily L¡w G
ouncil Prcpasal
Sam
ple Solicitation: Iþcem
ber 11, ã109A
ttachment#5
To:
Elizabeth S
adowski
Subject:
R/A
presentat¡on
Lia ltis essential, in my opinion, to stress that, the m
ome,lrt that an abuser learns that a dom
estic
vioience victim is actinj to try to e,nd the abusg is the tm
ment of the greatest danger that the
abusen will kill or seriously harm
the victim and/or any children. rü/ell-advised victim
s plan
when they can escape w
ith the least danger to themselves and their children If a scum
bag
attorney solicites business ûomthe defendant beforethe victim
can escape - we m
ay well have a
homicide result.
Som
e very fine Justices, and a signifïcant number of W
A m
embe,rs, m
ay not be aware ofthese
facts, so obvious to domestic law
practitioners, and therefore we need to present extem
¿l studies
thåt \{rill educate our audienoe. I feel that published studies and/or reportg with a w
ar story or
two, w
ould be much m
ore effective han ahandful ofwa¡ stories alone.
I was one of those w
ho urged koeping the "safety periodn (or whatw
er it is called) short becauseI fear that too long a perioã w
odd result in rejectión of the proposat, and that is the l¡st thing we
want.
John T. H
arnnondS
aint Joseph
John Ham
mond ffbham
mond@
att.net]T
hursday, Decem
ber 03, 2009 11:46 PM
mcast netl
2009 8:08 PM
ily l-aw Listserv'
est for your comm
ents: attorney sollcitation letters
Liz: I have not had any experienoe with this situation although I have follow
ed past threadsabout it w
ith great interest.
I must say that 14 days is, based on m
ybut long gone are the days w
hen anassigned judge's cham
bers and leavekland and W
ayne oounties. ln point of fact, bothon entry of ex parte orders averaging a w
eek.ins signed ord6rs, gets the package lnto theed, it can easily þe m
ore than two w
eeks from
n my pnactice) for a client to nequest that
Iy, vacation, special event for a child, etc.
tempted to put a "period" there) untilservlce is
"Not all w
ho wander are lost.,, G
andotfLaurel S
tuart-Fink
(2481 626-s4sow
ww
.laurelfink.comw
ww
,l aurelfinkphotogra phy.com
RE
PR
ES
EN
TA
TÍV
E
AS
SE
TU
IBLY
. MA
RC
N{ 27, 2O
1O
Fam
ily l-aw G
ouncil ProP
osalE
+onespondencee regarding proU
ems I dangec
of sol¡citat¡onA
ttachment tt
From
: C
hris Cam
pbell [clcampbell@
charterinternet.com]
Sent:
Thursday, January 14, 2010 L:22P
MT
o:C
c:
SubJect:
Re: [M
l Fam
ily Law] A
ntitrolling effort
Elizabeth S
adowski w
roto:lrle know
it is
sleazy, anddegrades our profession, but
we have to .Live w
lth that sort of thing in a
free society. !{hat w
e donrt have to tolerate is the harm
it visíts
on the
people we serve.
Elizabeth S
adowskl
'family law
llst serve'
By "free society,r' you're m
aking reference to ourtraditional prefermce for a rel¿
tive lack ofregulation. W
e often hear "it's a free country, ain't it?" when som
ebody is annoyed by regulationthat lim
its their chosen behaviors. A better view
is that we should allow
unci¡cumscribed
fieedoms exce,pt w
hen they cause unaoceptable h¿rm
to others. The other day I w
as reflecting onhow
many of the new
cars are really well m
ade now. T
hey are durable, effrcient, and safe, atleast as cornpared w
ith ttreir predecossors in the bad old unregulated da>æ
. In the 1950s, them
arket oftered many vehicles w
ith flashy looks, a tørdency to n¡st aw
ay quickl¡ a fondness forlots of cheap gas, and pass€nger protections that w
ere no better than when cars usually traveled
at 20 rnph. Regulation w
as required to protect us from the clearly dernonstrable harm
s that come
from colliding at 70 rryh" It w
as required to protect us from exhaw
t emissions and gas
gazzlng.
I tend toward the absolutist end of the free speech spectrurn ge,lrerally w
ith a couple exceptions.O
ne is for corporate speecl¡ since corporations arcn't people and are legal fictiorrs created forspecific purposes (lim
ited liability and capital gathering). Another is for com
mercial speech that
has little to do with subjects of com
mon interest or curreN
rt debate. rile regulate defamatory
speech because its value, if any, is far below the level of harm
it oauses. It sesms to m
e that we
can regulate lawyer behavior w
ithout oresting any danger to public debate or good gov€mance.
WeV
e regulatod lawyer behavior õr years, restricting w
hat we can and cannot say, w
ithout anyappareirt harm
to the comm
on weal, as it w
ere. I cant reveal my clie,nt's confide,lrces. I cant
have ex parte discussions with a judge about a case. I can't bring up c€rtain subjects in court
proceedings under the rules of evide¡rce or in the face of limiting orders. I dont see aûy reaÁ
ionw
hy my im
portant libe¡ties will be affected if I can't send letters to people w
ho'll be hearing fiomthe process server soon enouglt, anyw
ay. fuid most ofus probably have a sense that, rnore ofre,lr
than not, the ones who are doing this aren't the cream
of our crop, ari) vay.
Chris C
ampbell
TC
RE
PR
ES
EN
TA
TT
VE
AS
SE
IIBLY
- MA
RC
H T
î,2O1O
Fam
ily l,¡w C
ouncil Propocal
E+
ortuepondences regading problem
s I dangersof solicitetionA
üachrnent ü6
From
:S
ent:T
o:C
c:
Subfect:
John Ham
mond w
rote:Liz, It is essential, in *y opinion, to stress that, the m
oment that an abuser learns that a dom
esticviole'nce victim
is acting to try to end the abusg is the mom
ent of the greatest danger that theabuser w
ill kill or søiously harm
the victim and/or any childrø
r. Well-advised victim
s planw
hen they san escape with the 1*s¡ denge'r to them
selves and their children. If a scumbag
attorney solicites business from the defe¡rdant before the victim
can escape - we m
ay well have a
Chris C
ampbel I [clcam
pbell @cha rter¡nternet.com
lF
riday, Decem
ber 04, 200912:49 P
MJohn H
amm
ond'E
lizabeth Sadow
ski';'Fam
ily Law Listserv'
Re: [M
l Fam
ily Law] R
equest for your comm
ents: attorney solicitationletters
Som
e very fine Justioes, end a sþificant number ofW
A m
embers, m
ay not be aware ofthese
facts, so obvious to domestic law
practitioners, and therefore we need to present external studies
that urill educate our audie,nce. t feel that published studies and/or reportq with a w
ar story ortw
o, would be m
uch npre effective han a handñ¡l ofwar stories alone.
I was one of those w
ho wged kee,ping the "safety period" (or w
hatever it is called) short becauseI fear that too long a period w
ould result in rejection of the proposa! and th¡t is the l¡st thing we
\4rant.
ln alrrcst all of my divorce c¡ìs€s, there is som
e frrm of abuse and it's uually violent. T
h¿t's a
critsrion for csse acceptance. But örtunatel¡ I live in a region Ín w
hich PP
Os are readily
granted. That is based on three things. F
irst, we have a good statute. It allow
s prompt relief and
also a prcmpt hearing at the rcspondent's request so as to provide due process in the ra¡e
instances ofwrongfirl issuance. S
econd, we have an excellent D
V shelter organization in m
ostof m
y counties, and they are very good at heþing petitionøs organÞ
e their factual statements so
as to make an effective request. T
hird, orujudges are ssrisitive to the DV
phenomenon
and theygrant P
PO
s freely when needed.
Because rnost of m
y clients have a PP
O by the tim
e the divorce is filed, the abruive situation hasalready beÆ
n t€nninated. This m
eans that the mom
ent of danger may have passed by the tim
e thedivorce is ñled. B
ut the gleater finality of a divorce, as opposed to a PP
O, m
ay pronpt a violentreaction even after a P
PO
. Or, on the other hand, it m
ay lessen the shock of tho divorce filing tothe defendant. I have not seen statistics.
If it is less comrnon elsew
here frr PP
Os to be in place w
horr divorces are filed in abusivom
arriages, perhaps the bar ought to be working to m
ake the PP
O prrrc€ss rrrcre effective in the
regions where it is not. T
he statute has made a huge difference in the lives of protected pæ
plew
here I practice bec¿use the protection is available and because violations t€'nd to be prcsecuted.
Meanw
hile, impositg som
o sort ofprotective period for attorney solicitations may be im
portant.W
here I practice, for those defendants whom
we cant serrre w
ith summ
ons & oom
plaint
RE
PR
ES
EN
TA
T]I/E
AS
SE
MB
LY - ]IIA
RC
H 27,2O
1O
Fam
ily [¡w G
ouncil Proposal
E-correspondences regnrding prcble¡ns E
dangeruof solicitationA
ttachmC
ntlS
promptly, the first notice of the divorce ñling is ofren thc leter schoduling a confere,nce w
ith theF
OC
frr tenporafy custody & sup,port interview
s. In really abusive ca.ses, we havc asked the
FO
C to w
ithhold the notice r¡ntil after seryice.
Chris C
ampbell
Frum
: M
erry McQ
ulddV lm
erry@m
cqulddylaw.com
lS
cnt F
rlday, Decem
ber 04, 2(nO 5:O
3 PM
To:
'Ellzabeth S
adowskl'
Subfcct
RE
: lMl F
amlly law
l Request for your com
ments: attorney solicitationletters
Ms. S
adorrekl:
I iare treard frorn more than one of m
y dients (l cannot now rc¡nem
ber wtrlch ones) w
tro prwlo.rsly had
been sdlcited (or whose spot¡sos w
ere eollclted) wlthln h¡rp or three da¡æ
aflq the oaso lves fll€d.F
øtunately, none of them
upre harmed because of the contact. H
or¡rarrer, luvlng boon th€ Dkector of
Probatlon at a D
sflct Court ln M
lchlgan for tu¡elve yeare handllng h¡ndred of domeetlc vlolonce m
att6rs, I
thougtil the potenüal harm ln thls practlce uns obvlorls.
I adlusted my fam
lly law practlce to indude e
dlso¡sslon with every new
dlent about the possiblllty of their spouse belng solldted by an attorney beforeure have chos€n to notlfy hlm
/her of the dlvorceac{on. Wlth tho€€ cllentrE
arbfect to poselble domestlc
violenco, I slmdy w
lll not file the case until my dient assuros m
e they are safe. ln one lnstanoe, thatrw
itlng time resulted in the abusþ€ spouso absconding w
ith werythlng the partiee' ow
ned.
I am ornbanassed on behalf of m
y prdession when I have to o<
flain this problem to new
cllents - telllngthem
that some attom
eys are so voitl of sensitivity to the possible harm they m
ay ceus€ or so deepetäteforuork that th€y uor¡ld betrave in suoh a m
antì€r.
Pleese foruard m
y sentimenb to the S
ec'tion.
Thankyor,
Mery M
cAuH
dy, P58537
1985W. B
lg Beaver, S
t. 103T
rcy, M|48084
2ß22ù1024
From
: fam
llylaw-bounces@
groups.m¡chbar.org
on behalf of Mary G
. Falcone,
P.C
. f marygfalcone@
comcast.netl
Sent¡
Frlday, D
ecember 04, 2009 2:34 P
MT
o¡ M
lchael H G
olob; famllylaw
@groups.m
lchbar.orgS
ubfect: R
e: [Ml F
amlly Law
! Sollcltatlon of fam
ily law cases by
trolllng(Trolling for dollars!
Attachm
ent¡: A
TT
(X)ls0.txt
At least tw
ica in 30 years lVe soen all chancge of reconclliation destroyod by an eage "trolling' attorney
notfilng the other spouse. ln both ingùanceg. the divorce action vras prompted by a m
lslnderstandlngthat, had there been no notics, uuould have been dropped and trave resulted ln the partlee rem
alr{ngm
anied. The noüce of the f,llng both lim
es drore a undge ln so deep that it øuld not be saved.
JMO
,M
ary G. F
alooneB
ingham F
anns, Ml
RE
PR
ES
EN
TA
TT
I/E A
SS
ET
BLY
. TA
RG
N{ 27,2O
1O
Fam
iþ l¡w C
ouncil PtoP
ocalE
-corrccpondcnccs regnrdlng p?oblqns &
dangeisof collcitstionÂ
llrah¡raa'l lß