Collusion between divorce attorneys?

[Natey]

(Names have been changed to protect real identities)

Client C1 tells his attorney A1 that he will only consider a settlement/mediation if his wife (W1) will consider returning some of his belongings. A1 either never tells W1's attorney (A2), or A2 never tells his client W1 about this settlement offer. Instead A1 and A2 file all kinds of motions, withdraw filed motions, postpone/continue hearings, etc. delay going to trial (no trial date as of yet), etc. A2 even charged $1,000 for a less than 30-minute appearance in a CA Family Court just to postpone a motion!

C1 speaks to W1 about a year later, and learns that W1 was never informed of his request to consider settlement on the condition of the return of said belongings (which W1 would have been willing to consider).

Would this be considered a collusion between A1 and A2 to misappropriate the marital estate of C1 and W1?

 

[army judge]

(Names have been changed to protect real identities)

Client C1 tells his attorney A1 that he will only consider a settlement/mediation if his wife (W1) will consider returning some of his belongings. A1 either never tells W1's attorney (A2), or A2 never tells his client W1 about this settlement offer. Instead A1 and A2 file all kinds of motions, withdraw filed motions, postpone/continue hearings, etc. delay going to trial (no trial date as of yet), etc. A2 even charged $1,000 for a less than 30-minute appearance in a CA Family Court just to postpone a motion!

C1 speaks to W1 about a year later, and learns that W1 was never informed of his request to consider settlement on the condition of the return of said belongings (which W1 would have been willing to consider).

Would this be considered a collusion between A1 and A2 to misappropriate the marital estate of C1 and W1?

Collusion is not a crime.

Many people confuse collusion with conspiracy.

Every act planned in consort is not a conspiracy, nor is every act of conspiracy a crime.

The action planned in consort (conspiracy) must be a crime.

Two or more people could collude to plan a surprise birthday party.

That would not be a crime.

Five people could come together and plot to rob Mr. Big Bucks.

A mere discussion of robbing Mr. Big Bucks, alone, is not a conspiracy.

If Boss tells Bandit1 to get us some guns, and tells Bandit2 to get a drawing of Mr. Big Bucks' home, and meet tomorrow to finalize our plans, that could be the beginning of a conspiracy to commit robbery offense.

Bandit1 gets 4 guns.

Bandit2 gets the drawing.

The group reconvenes on the morrow, and Bandit1 has 10 guns (2 for each conspirator); the crime has been committed.

But, if Bandit3 says, no way, this is crazy, man.

Bandit3 leaves the room, he is NOT part of said conspiracy.

I won't continue, other than to say, conspiracies are very complicated.

To commence the conspiracy, an act(s) must be done to instigate the conspiracy.

This act(s) must be germane to completing the said crime.

They are extremely difficult to prove.

I see nothing to indicate a conspiracy in your scenario.

That is ASSUMING, it was e\what you believe it to be in the first place.

What you describe is not a crime.

Why?

How do you prove your allegations?

If your scenario was anything, it MIGHT have been a failure to act on the part of C1's attorney.

The problem with that assertion would be, how would C1 prove that?

C1 and W1 are divorcing (or divorced).

It isn't beyond belief that C1 is now lying to W1.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, if it isn't memorialized; it never happened.

What you describe is summed up as speculation or supposition.

Speculation is not actionable under our laws.

This website discusses ethics, as pertains to how CA attorneys (attorneys in general) must behave in conducting client affairs.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/ca/narr/CA_NARR_4.HTM

 

[Natey]

http://dictionary.thelaw.com/collusion/ describes collusion as fraud.

 

[army judge]

http://dictionary.thelaw.com/collusion/ describes collusion as fraud.

Your point would be?

I wasn't seeking an answer.

 

[Natey]

You indicated collusion wasn't a crime. Isn't fraud a crime?

 

[army judge]

Fraud is a crime.

You haven't produced an evidence of a crime.

You have mere suspicion or supposition.




Sent from my iPad3 using Tapatalk