|
ETHICS in Collaborative Law Attorney David Weinberg ...Unethical? Or Not? You Decide. "Using demonstrations and discussions, a series of hypothetical ethical dilemmas will be explored. A facilitated conversation about the situation as well as a brief review of the law or practice in the relevant area." (class description) Presented by: George Richardson,JD; Michael Lowy, JD; David Weinberg, JD |
|
|
Ethics and Collaborative Law : David Weinberg, Mediator or Tax Cheat? Ann Bradley, MA (David Weinberg and Michael Lowy get a lot of praise from their peers. This isn't surprising. Law is a closed shop. Behind closed doors they do things that would surprise many, but certainly not all, of their peers.) Who do you believe and why? Does confirmatory bias play a role in social norms and group behavior? The dynamics of age, gender, SES level and other factors always play a part in bonding experiences. What is more bonding than believing a cohort group with similar problems? In this case we have two self employed men who cheat on their taxes. I know that one of them has stopped. But I don't know if David Weinberg has. What happens when it becomes apparent your attorney doesn't "get it" when you are abused and bonds with your spouse? What happens when the dynamics of being the target of a narcissist, bully, sociopath, abuser, etc. are not on his radar screen? I use David Weinberg as an example because of an experience I had with him. Meeting David Weinberg marked the beginning of my awakening to the fact that the legal system and its handmaidens are often slothful, corrupt, and disengaged from client's problems and that gender plays a role, the issues of employment play a role, and people you can't relate to are dispensable and obtain disinformation. I entered Weinberg's office with my husband, traumatized by his recent admission, "I owe you a lot of money. I keep a double set of books. I also shred invoices, they never even get on the books." This was two years after separation, in which income had increased dramatically, while he told me there was no money. I used my separate property while he hid cash which to this day has never been disclosed. (still true in 2008). It was a hellish wound: he stole my inheritance and my income and found friends (Jeff Kaufman) in the legal profession to give him "attaboys" and assist him in concealing fraud from the court. (Jeff told the pro tem judge, "Fraud is ok, everyone does it.") We saw David Weinberg to interview for mediation and told him of the fraud and hiding of assets Jim had done. He laughed. Jim had found a buddy. I was horrified. When he heard about the tax evasion, he continued a conversation with Jim about the problems of self employment. Finally finished, he turned to me and said, "Why don't you just forget what Jim did and get on with your life?" I was invisible, a problem to be ignored. JIm raged at me outside Weinberg's office. I learned that whenever he was validated in his fraud, his sense of entitlement grew and grew. What the attorneys never saw was his rage. It was private and it was vicious. They aided and abetted my spiral into fear and powerlessness when they ignored his fraud. Weinberg promised to send papers to us about mediation. He never did. Although Jim's breach of fiduciary duty is considered serious in the Family Code, in practice self employed attorneys often ignore it. Our income wasn't large enough for anyone to care about me and I depended on the income to pay attorney fees. I was not a desirable client. Women who speak up about the fraud are made to pay - in one way or the other: loss of custody, finances, income, home, medical help, and deeply and profoundly they suffer the loss of respect of those who take their money purporting to protect them. This analysis explains it well. (private correspondence with a woman who writes about divorce and custody in Israel): "Impoverished single custodial motherhood
and loss of custody are the
current
David Weinberg, whose professional and personal lack of ethics crashed into my psyche and my world, is respected by my former attorney Michael Lowy and the two, along with their friend, George Richardson, teach ethics. It is wrong. We women and children have to live here, in the shadow of their power and punishment for crimes we did not commit, only the hubris of speaking out against theft of money, children, time and justice. There is no hypothetical ethical issue here. Let clients speak of real ethical issues these men create and expect us to live with. David Weinberg, who does your taxes? Your bonding with my former spouse over the problems of self employment taxes and asking me to forget the evasion and fraud and how it harmed me, disqualifies you from teaching ethics. "In family court women
are put in a defensive position for
various political and social reasons. It is always a position of
less power. I have long known this, as do most attorneys.
The power imbalance is our intimate partner and only
partly overcome by defensive postures." Ann Bradley
|