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