Total Pageviews

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Absent Attorney Costs Woman her Company




Absent attorney costs woman her company
By WILLIAM J. GORTA

Last Updated: 12:30 AM, October 25, 2010

Posted: 12:30 AM, October 25, 2010

Comments: 0 More Print A Queens woman who says her company was stolen from her can't recover the business -- or void a $2 million judgment -- because of a clerical error, according to court papers.

Christine Persaud is appealing a ruling in which she lost everything when her lawyer missed a court appearance and a Brooklyn judge refused to accept the attorney's excuse that he was in court on another matter.

Persaud last year was battling an arbitrator's ruling granting half of Caring Home Care, plus $2 million, to financier Abraham Klein when her then-lawyer, Eugene Levy, notified Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Arthur Shack that he had an appearance in Queens on the same day.

Klein's lawyer refused to go along with the routine request, and Shack awarded a default judgment against Persaud, 42.

"I worked so hard to build that company since 1997," she said. "They stole my business."

Klein's lawyer, Mendel Zilberberg, declined to comment. Levy did not return a call for comment.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/absent_attorney_costs_woman_her_wW1NRBHDYYsbCucSpH5Z8M?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=#ixzz13LjuoXvy


=

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Attorneys hit with sanctions for frivolous case




Lawyers for Ron Perelman hit with sanctions for frivolous caseThe

Chairman of Revlon, Ron Perelman (who is one of the richest men in the world), recently lost a very heated and ugly probate lawsuit (or more specifically, several different lawsuits), in which he sued on behalf of his ex-wife's estate. Claudia Cohen had named Perelman as her executor shortly before she died in 2007.

So who did Perelman sue? None other that the father of his ex, Robert Cohen, who was infirm, partially paralyzed and in his eighties at the time. The Probate Lawyer Blog's article discussing the case has all the details.

We found the case, and Perelman's efforts in particular, especially troubling. And we certainly aren't the only ones.

In fact, the New Jersey judge who presided over the case recently ruled that Perelman's lawyers are to be sanctioned because some of the claims they filed were frivolous. He specifically took issue with their claims Cohen should not be permitted to change his estate plan because he had allegedly "promised" his daughter (who later died) an equal share of his estate.

The judge said that no "competent attorney" could have proceeded with the claims. In fact, Perelman was the only witness to offer testimony on the topic, and he never even said there was a "promise". Yet this lack of evidence didn't stop Perelman's lawyers from grilling Cohen during a lengthy cross-examination (during which Perelman could barely speak because of his Parkinson's disease). The judge's ruling called this "harsh and painful".

Because of this ruling, Perelman's legal team will have to reimburse Cohen a portion of the $14 million legal bill he spent defending the lawsuits. Cohen's attorney said the amount owed by Perelman's lawyers will reach into the millions.

It's very rare for a judge to order these types of sanctions based on a "frivolous" lawsuit. The American legal system has always employed the concept that each side pays their own attorney fees, except in special circumstances. A frivolous claim (such as one done in bad faith, or without a valid factual or legal basis) is one of the exceptions to the general rule, but it's not often employed, especially in a case of this magnitude.

You can read more about the Judge's ruling, and even read the actual transcript from the court hearing, from Law.com. The transcript (while quite long) is actually very interesting ... at least to probate and estate planning attorneys like us.

We have to applaud the judge's ruling in this case. He sent a message that it is not ethical to subject an infirm and elderly man to a terrible legal onslaught based on the argument that he shouldn't be allowed to leave his assets as he chose, merely because he previously expressed an intent to do otherwise.

How can their ever be certainty with wills, trusts and other estate planning documents if disgruntled family members (or even disgruntled ex-spouses of family members who died), can challenge every document simply by claiming that the person really intended to leave their money in another way?

Posted by: Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of Trial and Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! and co-founders of The Center for Probate Litigation and The Center for Elder Law in metro-Detroit, Michigan, which concentrate in probate litigation, estate planning, and elder law. Andrew and Danielle are husband and wife attorneys, professional speakers and consultants across the country.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Vanessa Kachadurian-Federal Court Telephonic Conference with Judge

This was just sent to me and it is SO FUNNY!!!






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICTrVUvYqDo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBLZodDFfjY


Watch how the judge's photo slowly changes, this is the brundt of jokes with the legal community.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Friday, October 8, 2010

Vanessa Kachadurian - Why Do Lawyers Lie: Narcissism


Thanks, for sending this article! Great stuff, it explains it all. So much is about their ego and not about justice. Lawyers honestly have a type of God complex, as Doctors, adoption agents, priests, politicians. When they start boasting about Awards and honors that were not earned but handed out on a regular basis by a letter writing campaign or other uncredible means look out. This is also true with those that claim to be "loved" by everyone. (Look out Sally Field) Hitler, Bernie Madoff and Ted Bundy also recieved many honors and awards.

Why Do Lawyers Lie? One Word: Narcissism
Arthur D. Burger


08-22-2008

How many of you have deliberately misstated important facts to a court? Silence. Mmm hmm.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

As a litigator myself, I can easily think of two examples when opposing counsel did just that.

When I was a very young lawyer handling my first evidentiary hearing, my client, whose alimony obligations I was trying to reduce, had a housing allowance of $4,000 per year as a government employee living abroad -- which we fully disclosed. The lawyer for my client's former wife kept bringing up the allowance, and each time he did so, somehow what came out of his mouth was $40,000, not $4,000. Each time I had to stand up and correct him. Surely, stating the wrong number once could be an honest slip, but how could one explain the repetitions?

Much later in my career, in a hotly contested lawsuit, opposing counsel repeatedly accused me in motions papers of "altering documents," without bothering to mention that the so-called "alterations" were plainly marked redactions pursuant to the rules, properly identifying in each instance the claim of privilege being invoked.

I wondered, "What are these lawyers thinking?" Even from a Machiavellian standpoint, how could they expect to gain anything from such easily rebuttable distortions?

So as a lawyer, I went to someone who I thought could explain this phenomenon. That's right -- a psychiatrist. And he was not at a loss for words.

Richard Ratner, a board-certified psychiatrist since 1973, has many lawyers as patients in his clinical work and also serves as a forensic psychiatrist in bar disciplinary cases and other types of litigation. He says a lot of "psychopathology" takes place in litigation, for a variety of reasons.

First, he notes that lawyers, generally, and litigators, in particular, tend to "have generous helpings of narcissism," which he says can be both good and bad. Narcissistic people, he states, "want to go out of their way to shine and make themselves look terrific." This is a good thing to the extent it motivates them to work hard and be prepared.

The problem, he says, comes when you put such people in the crucible of litigation, which after all is a competition with winners and losers. He says that this competition aspect creates a polarization of issues and, for narcissistic people, places their fragile egos directly onto center stage.

Ratner explains that extremely narcissistic people are so "needy for the affirmation of success," that the idea of losing is seen as unbearable. They will therefore use the psychological defenses of "rationalization" and "denial" to enable themselves to intentionally mislead -- and even lie -- if they believe that is the only way to win.

Ratner states that as a result of this rationalization and denial, they do not see themselves as having done anything wrong. Instead, they see themselves as justified , because they were acting for a "higher purpose." He explains that the power of rationalization can be enormous. It can even be seen in such horribly extreme examples as when the killing of innocent civilians by terrorists is seen as "heroic."

It is useful to understand this dynamic in our adversaries so we know what we are up against , and see the element of insecurity and desperation driving such behavior. It is also useful, however, to examine ourselves and look for similar symptoms.

None of us likes to lose, and nearly all of us, at times, get carried away in litigation by a certain "bunker mentality," through which we see our side as "good" and the other side as "bad." Ratner says that it's important to take one's own temperature during the course of a contentious case to assess whether you have maintained perspective. One good way to do this, he says, is to discuss the case with a colleague or at least to take time to calmly review the record and look at the facts.

Indeed, I recall instances where I have feverishly scrawled angry epithets in the margins of my copy of opposing counsel's briefs, filled with righteous certainty that they have misstated the record or mischaracterized a court decision -- only to review the record, or look up the cited case, and see that, at least to some degree, they had a valid point that needed a thoughtful answer.

Without taking a few moments to review the record or read the cited case, I might have been prepared to lunge out with angry misstatements of my own. Who knows? Perhaps at times I have done so.

Being aware of Ratner's observations provides a tool for us to periodically look at ourselves, which should work to our benefit by allowing us to avoid court sanctions, see the strengths of an opponent's case or simply avoid looking silly.

Our clients want us to fight hard -- and to win. But we can do that best if we keep our wits and see reality. If that requires putting our egos in check, so be it. After all, it's doctor's orders.

Arthur D. Burger is a director at Washington, D.C.'s Jackson & Campbell and is chair of the firm's professional responsibility practice group. He represents law firms and lawyers in matters related to professional ethics.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Vanessa Kachadurian-Attorneys in Texas, Sex and their Clients.


Great article in the WSJ sent to me by my attorney friend in Los Angeles, CA. Why are Attorneys allowed to make the rules of conduct laws for themselves? Is this more of the Fox in the Hen house?

By Ashby Jones
Most states have adopted an ethics rule that prohibits a lawyer from engaging in a sexual relationship with a client.

Texas doesn’t have that rule. But whether it should is currently dividing the Longhorn State’s bar. Click here for the story, from the Dallas Morning-News.

According to the story, for seven years, lawyers working on behalf of the Texas Supreme Court have been drafting new rules of conduct for the state’s lawyers. The biggest sticking point throughout that time has, according to the story, been the so-called “sex with clients” rule.

A draft of the rule has been put on the table. Now, however, many lawyers are arguing against it, saying it could lead to frivolous malpractice charges.

Those who support it, however, say it protects vulnerable clients from being arm-twisted into unwanted sexual relationships.

As written, the rule states that lawyers (a) won’t condition representation on having a client engage in sexual relations, (b) won’t solicit sex as payment of fees and (c) won’t have sex with someone the lawyer is personally representing unless the sexual relationship is consensual and began before the attorney-client relationship began. It also excepts spouses.

Some lawyers, like Ginny Agnew, a practitioner in Austin, are troubled by a loophole in the rule that she says would permit an attorney to begin and continue a sexual relationship with a client so long as the client is transferred to another attorney in the same law firm. That provides no protection at all to vulnerable clients, she said.

“When you have a situation where lawyers are the ones who hold the keys to the courthouse for many people … that is a potential situation of abuse,” Agnew said.

At the same time, Rich Robins, a Houston attorney, said the the new rule would lead to a slew of lawsuits from unhappy clients.

“How can a lawyer disprove potential accusations of amorous manipulations and the like unless all prior interactions are elaborately recorded through both audio and video means?” asked Robins, in an earlier e-mail to Texas Lawyer.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Vanessa Kachadurian: Vanessa Kachadurian- Chicken Shit Attorney of the ...


Vanessa Kachadurian: Vanessa Kachadurian- Chicken Shit Attorney of the ...: "AND THE WINNER IS? UGLY REDHEADS RUN IN THIS FAMILY. HE HATES OBAMA, DECLARES HE IS A CHRISTIAN YET HANGS OUT WITH LAWYERS THAT ARE LIBERAL..."

His name is P A T S Y

Vanessa Kachadurian- Chicken Shit Attorney of the Year



AND THE WINNER IS?
UGLY REDHEADS RUN IN THIS FAMILY.
HE HATES OBAMA, DECLARES HE IS A CHRISTIAN
YET HANGS OUT WITH LAWYERS THAT ARE LIBERALS
WILL DO ANYTHING FOR A BUCK
EVEN CONSPIRE AND ASK PEOPLE TO DO ILLEGAL THINGS.
WE ARE ON TO YOU, WE KNOW YOU ARE READING EVERY WORD
THE COMMUNITY IS UNFORGIVING YOU LITTLE WORM