Saturday, August 31, 2019

THE PGE MINDSET FOR WILDFIREZ, YES, FIREZ!

..PGE SAYS SHUTOFFS ONLY IN SELECT AREAS ???




Monday, August 19, 2019

Is Limited Scope Right for Your Case?

Limited scope representation helps self-represented litigants in California




What this basically means, is that an attorney can, in Family law, handle only certain aspects of a case, such as, for example---- JUST domestic violence, but NOT the divorce, or the child support, or the mediation recommendation......OR, for example, JUST the adoption of the mediation recommendation [which is typically done at the law and motion hearing], OR, just the issue of whether or not supervised visits are warranted temporarily, etc.

How this helps litigants who do not have a full time attorney--it can enable clients to:

  • Prepare their documents legibly, completely, and accurately; · 
  • Prepare their cases based on a better understanding of the law and court procedures than they would have if left on their own; 
  • Obtain representation for portions of their cases, such as court hearings, even if they cannot afford full representation; and
  • Obtain assistance in preparing, understanding, and enforcing court orders.


 This assistance can reduce the number of errors in documents; limit the time wasted by the court, litigants, and opposing attorneys because of the procedural difficulties and mistakes of self-represented litigants; and decrease docket congestion and demands on court personnel.

In focus groups on this topic, judges indicated a strong interest in having self-represented litigants obtain as much information and assistance from attorneys as possible. 

They pointed to the California courts’ positive experience with self-help programs such as the family law facilitator program, which educates litigants and assists them with paperwork. These programs, however, cannot meet the needs of all self-represented litigants and, because of existing regulations, must limit the services they can offer.

               If you need some targeted legal help, call us today!  (530) 359-8810

Thursday, August 15, 2019

Why Pay to Settle When You can Win?

https://buttecountyfamilylawlawyer.blogspot.com/2016/11/why-pay-to-settle-cases-when-you-can-win.html

In the above post from another blog site done in the past, I clearly explain how some cases get "settled" due to family pressure and a very unethical/mean spouse who simply took advantage of the other spouse. I personally will never, ever represent a client into doing that which was done in the specific case detailed, because it is inherently wrong, unfair, and not ethical in my opinion. I had the client fire me because I would not engage in a division which was in my opinion, basically illegal.

If you read the link, you will understand there is a HUGE, HUGE-- difference in the way attorneys handle their clients. I do not believe it is ethical to allow a client to engage in what was done (but the next attorney  was gung ho to settle the case with the poor client as the definitive loser overall financially? That won't happen on my watch.)


Any spouse making $27k/year while other spouse is at $80k a year, should not be bailing out of the marriage and taking nothing, especially when the $80k/year spouse had over $100k of debt accrued without the spouse even knowing about it? That forced the family into bankruptcy.  Attorney herein will definitely litigate on most issues and maybe even settle cases, BUT will not allow a client such as in this case, to lose almost everything, because it is inherently wrong. It's true, attorneys are allowed to let clients hang themselves if they choose to do so financially--but when this type of situation happens, attorney will not do anything of the sort. I will choose to be fired because I do not believe it is a good practice to allow clients on their own accord, while under huge pressure, to cave in and then regret it later.  And I am certain this client will regret it later.

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

Pro Se Family Law Case of the Century-- Court Finds for Husband

In this case the trial court had ordered $9,000 in attorney's fees to a wife during a divorce case, citing disparity in the wife's gross income as a court clerk of $5,135/mo and that of her husband, who grossed $8,333/mo. as a law librarian. 

When the husband appealed the fee order, he pointed out that not only was his income not substantially greater so as to support such a large attorney fee award, but that he has significant costs and expenses including child support and spousal support, after which he was not left with enough income to pay attorneys fees.

Past cases have clearly emphasized that the court should consider need and ability to pay, but this case is unique in that the court specifically considered the husband's actual expenses and also considered his hefty child and spousal support obligations in determining that it was unfair to make him pay attorneys fees under these circumstances.
If your spouse is requesting that you pay his or her attorneys fees, you should definitely cite this case and argue the same logic, that after you are ordered to pay child support and spousal support that you just don't have money to meet your monthly budget --- and then pay your spouse's attorneys fees on top of all that. 

CLICK ON THE WORDS FULL TEXT BELOW, TO READ THE CASE....

     Click ---- to read the case  [full text]

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California.

ALAN S., JR., Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Orange County, Respondent; Mary T., Real Party in Interest.

No. G041034.

    Decided: March 18, 2009

         You will almost never find a case like this.
It's almost enough to make one cry in realizing sometimes there is Justice in this world today but it doesn't come easy..... and NOTE-- the Husband was making over $8,000 a month (which in Los Angeles area, doesn't go too far. ]


CONTACT ATTORNEY 530 359 8810 IF YOU NEED HELP ON YOUR LEGAL CASE WHETHER IT'S FILED ALREADY OR NOT!