April 19th, I posted about problems with an overly competitive lawyer. This week, the latest episode had the lawyer attempting to skulk off after biting off more than he could chew - even whining in court didn't offer any daylight for his motion. The story is illustrative of the need to win and the inability to find solutions for a problem, ultimately leading to far more costs to the clients, his own as well as mine.
My client had a support obligation - he paid support in chunks as he got paid by his employer, primarily by transferring money into a joint bank account from which his wife made withdrawals - admittedly, he didn't keep a log of what he'd paid, but he thought he was current. Along the way, his wife made a couple of transfers out of some joint assets for which he thought he should get credit. Overall, he thought he was current, especially since she had taken money out of their joint accounts.
The outcome? Keep reading....
Rather than try to discuss his claims so we could find out who was right, this lawyer ignored by letters setting forth the husband's claims, and simply filed a motion with the court to have his arrearages set. I filed my client's story, and it appeared he had actually overpaid, even if we didn't count the money his wife had taken.
At the very last minute, the lawyer then set forth a lengthy declaration trying to explain his client's response to the husband's assertions. The judge looked at the mess, and concluded there was too much disagreement - a lawyer was appointed as a special master to review all the documents and claims, and make a recommendation to the court - a special master would have more time than the judge could devote to a complicated dispute involving a lot of paperwork.
After meeting with the two parties and their lawyers [separately], and reviewing their claims and documents, he concluded that the husband had indeed overpaid support by half a month, even without giving him credit for the money that his wife had withdrawn [those are trial issues dealing with the division of property, so he will ultimately get credit for what she took].
Her claims were strange. First, she put in place a wage assignment, so his employer would take a certain amount of money out of the husband's bi-weekly paychecks - there are 26 pay periods a year when paid bi-weekly - every two pay periods equalled less than a full month - each month, the support taken out would be slightly less than the monthly amount, but about every 6 months there would be 3 checks in a month. The wife demanded he make up the difference each month, obviously having no intention to re-pay him the 3rd check she might get in a month. Once the support starts coming out by wage assignment, the husband was relieved of his responsibility to pay the full amount each month, since it would be made up along the way. In my case, he'd paid 1/2 month of support before realizing the wage assignment was in effect.
In addition, when her husband put money into the bank account she used, she would not take it all out in a single check - she would only give him credit for what she withdrew by check. If she used her debit or ATM card to take money out of the account, she wouldn't count it. When she transferred funds electronically to another account in her name, she ignored the transfers. Her attorney's position? "You prove she got the money." And, no, she wouldn't produce the statements of the account to which the funds were transferred - so we are now going through the process of subpoenaing her bank records.
Is this fun? Not for me. I have better things to do with my time, not to mention more interesting things. This is the result of the attorney's need to win - don't recognize the flaws in your client's case, don't negotiate, and without thought go forward running up attorneys fees on both sides.
When faced with the special master's report against his client, he called to take his motion off calendar, as though I would agree at that point. I wouldn't, because I had a pending request for fees and sanctions against his client for the needless and foolish motion.
Per the special master, my client had overpaid support by about $1,750 - the wife claimed he was about $3,000 short. The special master's charges? about $2,000. The attorneys fees? So far, at least 4 hours per side - at least $3,000. At best, $5,000 was spent fighting over no more than 60% of that sum. At worst, virtually all the money was wasted - two reasonable lawyers would have shared documents, narrowed the dispute, and probably reserved it until trial.
Somewhere along the line, you would hope his client would get the message that a lot of fees are going out, and little is coming back. In my next blog, I'll tell a different story, where the case could easily have gone down hill but didn't because the lawyers communicated.
