It has been awhile since I have posted an installment in this series but apparently by raising the ire of enough losing attorneys I have gained more credibility and requests for assistance. I am now getting back to a level of cases that affords me some leisure time again.
In propounding support for his effort to have the Indiana Supreme Court order me to stop assisting parents engaged in high conflict child custody battles mitigate their conflict Michael Witte has claimed that the public needs to be protected from my advice. Particularly he has claimed, “The public interest requires that Showalter be enjoined from the unauthorized practice of law.” Such a claim sounds innocuous enough and I would gladly go along with it. However, it is Witte's implication of what constitutes UPL – acting as a watchdog over attorney's actions – that will have a chilling effect on child advocates who wish to reduce parental hostilities. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
On 13 May 2014 G. Michael Witte, Attorney No. 1949-15 filed a Verified Petition to Enjoin the Unauthorized Practice of Law against yours truly. In this series of postings I will present to you some information about Mr. Witte, why Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David denied my motion to reinstate a felony charge against myself, what Indiana judge recently said I am smarter than most attorneys, and why attorney Vanessa Lopez Aguilera complained. More significantly though I will demonstrate how Mr. Witte and his ilk are attempting to harm children and deprive parents of opportunities to amicably and efficiently resolve their child custody disputes consistent with the policies of the State of Indiana.
Witte's claim that the “public interest” – which he purportedly represents – “requires” that I be enjoined from further reducing parental hostilities and neglect of children implicitly states that those who feel that my assistance is of benefit are in error. Those who declare their support of a service through a recommendation are said to endorse that service. A common marketing strategy is the use of an endorsement. This occurs in politics through other politicians or activists, products through the use of celebrities and sports stars, and academia through peer review. If Witte is correct in his assertion then let's see who is incorrect – in his view.
Previously in this series I have mentioned the Craig Scarberry case. Witte alleges specifically that it was my input to the attorney representing Mr. Scarberry that is illustrative of from what the public needs protected. That attorney, Ken Falk, who is the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, considered my recommendations, followed those and when success was achieved in the Indiana Court of Appeals told Mr. Scarberry “Don't thank me, thank Mr. Showalter because it was his ideas that got your children returned.” Subsequently while in Mr. Scarberry’s care his daughter was again able to receive necessary medical treatments that the mother refused to allow while she had custody. Mr Witte considers that a negative result.
Bryan Ciyou is a well known and respected family law attorney who specializes in appeals. A client of his was embroiled in a hostile relationship with the former spouse. Much of the hostility was the result of the client’s personality issues and the other parent’s refusal to communicate. This client is now enjoying a better relationship with the children, has a more productive life, has nearly eliminated any depression indications, and is becoming more financially secure. Additionally, the litigation has nearly come to an end although we expect some new attack to come at anytime. The parties’ children now appear less anxious and are feeling fewer effects of high conflict parenting. Mr Witte considers these negative results.
Recently I attended Justice Steven David's In-Service program and was speaking with Judge Jeffrey Edens of the Boone Circuit Court. Edens replaced Judge David when he went to the Supreme Court. Interestingly, Judge Edens represented my former wife during our dissolution proceedings. We were less than friendly with each other at that time as I felt his actions exceeded the ethical bounds by which one should adhere to when advocating for a client in a child custody proceeding. As we were discussing some of the points made during the In-Service I made reference to my continued frustration that so many of these college educated professionals don’t appear to understand what is going on with these children from the child’s perspective yet I, who didn’t attend college, is capable of doing so. Edens acknowledged that I provide valuable input on public policy and am a benefit to children. Mr Witte considers that a negative result.
Judge Edens also said not to think any less of myself because I don’t have any college training and that I am much more intelligent than many who do have college degrees. I do assure you that I have always thought highly of myself and won’t think any less of myself because I lack some worthless piece of paper.
When Craig Scarberry was desperately seeking assistance on regaining the relationship with his children after Magistrate George Pancol ruled Scarberry unfit to parent because he was “agnostic” Scarberry contacted the Office of the Governor, Mitch Daniels. While no one in the executive or legislative branch could intervene on his behalf to reverse such a miscarriage of justice Scarberry was given the name of someone to contact who could help in child custody matters. The person recommended to him by the governor’s office was yours truly. Mr. Witte considers the governor or his staff to not be intelligent enough to recommend someone of competence to Indiana citizens whose children are being harmed as a result of inappropriate or, as in Scarberry’s case, illegal court orders.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Witte has not produced one Indiana resident who has alleged that he or she has been harmed by the assistance provided by me. No one has come forward to allege that he or she needs protected from the information I offer or questions I ask. Quite to the contrary parents and children throughout Indiana thank me for providing the insights, guidance, and motivation that have improved their lives and relationships. The recommendations that I have made to Indiana legislators or judicial officers have become part of the Indiana Code, the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines, and the Indiana Child Support Guidelines. Additionally, schools and other institutions in direct contact with children have adopted my recommendations. Children throughout Indiana are experiencing better outcomes because of my actions.
That is precisely what I want. I don’t want awards, I turn down offers of acknowledgement, and I don’t want the State or anyone else providing emolument for my public policy input. The only reward I seek is the personal satisfaction of knowing that the effects of high conflict parenting and divorce are being mitigated for the children.
That also is precisely what Mr. Witte doesn’t want. He wants to see litigation continue, parents bitter and hostile towards each other, parents emotionally and financially devastated, and ultimately for children to suffer the adverse consequences which result in more legal proceedings and presumptively the use of attorneys. Mr. Witte is all about the money -- money going to attorneys. The only threat I pose is lose of revenue for attorneys. It is Witte from whom the residents of the state of Indiana need protected.
UPDATE
I have received a settlement proposal this week from the Disciplinary Commission. It is currently being reviewed by interested parties. I will do a post about it soon.
Upcoming segments in this series will include
XII - The Response Filed
If you would like to also contribute any information about this matter or participate in the Response then please contact me.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Engaging in the Unauthorized Practice of Law in Indiana - Part XI Who has recommended me and my Conclusions
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Engaging in the Unauthorized Practice of Law in Indiana - Part IX Interview with the Complainant: Attorney Vanessa Lopez Aguilera
On 13 May 2014 G. Michael Witte, Attorney No. 1949-15 filed a Verified Petition to Enjoin the Unauthorized Practice of Law against yours truly. In this series of postings I will present to you some information about Mr. Witte, why Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David denied my motion to reinstate a felony charge against myself, what Indiana judge recently said I am smarter than most attorneys, and why attorney Vanessa Lopez Aguilera complained. More significantly though I will demonstrate how Mr. Witte and his ilk are attempting to harm children and deprive parents of opportunities to amicably and efficiently resolve their child custody disputes consistent with the policies of the State of Indiana.
Response to Petition to Enjoin the Unauthorized Practice of Law * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
State of Indiana
v.
Stuart Showalter
When public agencies, resources, and monies are spent in enforcement actions we hold as a society that they should serve the public good. They should not however be used to vilify, harass, or impede upon the liberties of another individual. Civil courts and civil causes of actions are available remedies for people who feel they have a legitimate grievance with another individual. This is not to say that an individual cannot be the target of an enforcement action. Individuals are primarily the targets of public enforcement actions but public enforcement is to be on behalf of the people. In this case Mr. Witte is to be acting as relator for the public rather than surreptitiously on behalf of attorney Vanessa Lopez Aguilera. Lopez-Aguilera has been disingenuous in offers to settle a child custody action in which she represents a mother who abandoned the children to strangers, refuses to participate in parenting time, and is primarily concerned with financial matters. She has also alleged criminal unauthorized practice of law. So, I wanted to ask her why she has chosen to engage Mr Witte into her personal vendetta and why she feels so intimidated by me. I posed some questions to Ms. Aguilera and provide her responses as follows.
I started by telling her of my ongoing effort to inform and assist parents in obtaining competent family law counsel and a series of articles about family law attorneys and particularly about reducing parental conflict. I thanked her for providing her insight into child custody matters and entertaining my questions. I asked about her thoughts on the best way to resolve child custody disputes but got no answer as to a “best” method although protracted litigation appears to be favoured by her. Likewise, she provided no strategies to mitigate conflict among parents. As for her preference of mitigating conflict or engaging parents in an intense child custody battle she didn't have an answer although her actions seem to speak toward a preference for the latter.
An interesting revelation was when asked about the behaviours or qualities that she believes a good parent reflects, she had no answer. This may be because she is not exposed to parents who have positive parenting qualities as demonstrated by her client selection. I asked about one case in particular in which her client physically abused the child and then abandoned the child to people she claimed were not know to her well enough to make a character judgment. I asked for her to logically justify her claim that that parent should have primary custody of the child. Not surprising though she would not discuss this ongoing case.
I then asked about attorney traits and strategies. I described attorneys who use a strategy of attrition to try to win a case by doing things like filing repetitive and numerous interrogatories along with other motions in an effort to increase a responsive parent's legal bills. I asked if she did that but she would not answer although her record clearly speaks for itself in this regard. As for what traits she believes defines a competent attorney her response was eerily similar to that of parental qualities – unresponsive.
Finally I asked for a brief statement that I would present as a direct quote here as to what she believe makes her an ethical family law attorney who serves the best interest of children. Not surprisingly she was also not responsive to this question.
In my discussions with my client, whose wife is represented by Lopez-Aguilera, and his attorney I expressed my parenting advice and thoughts about the judicial officer who will hear the case. Not surprisingly the court filings and responses by the client to Lopez-Aguilera have clearly intimidated her and with good reason – my clients get favourable results from the courts. While my clients, under my tutelage and with the assistance of legal counsel, make good decisions and file competent and effective pleadings with the courts Lopez-Aguilera takes this as the unauthorized practice of law.
Keeping in mind that the Indiana Supreme Court has yet to choose to define the practice of law in its rules we are left to determine this on our own based upon the reasonable person standard. Just as with all clients of mine complained of and the one upon which Lopez-Aguilera bases her spurious claim, my clients have the assistance of legal counsel. Consistent with the opinion by the ABA House of Delegates on Undisclosed Legal Assistance to Pro Se Litigants “A lawyer may provide legal assistance to litigants appearing before tribunals 'pro se' and help them prepare written submissions without disclosing or ensuring the disclosure of the nature or extent of such assistance.[en1] This does not, directly or by inference, mean that non-lawyers assisting a pro se client through the turmoil of a legal proceeding are engaging in the unauthorized practice of law as Lopez-Aguilera and Witte believe and propound to the Indiana Supreme Court.
Thus, what Lopez-Aguilera has sought to accomplish – protracted litigation amongst combative parents – by her false allegations is not consistent with the ABA's opinion nor the subjective UPL standards. Although I believe that it conflicts with the ABA opinion and the relevant rule[en2] in the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct Lopez-Aguilera did obtain a court order for my client to disclose the name and nature of the attorney and assistance being provided to him. I think it would be technically valid and fun to ask for it to be certified for interlocutory appeal but, since her client has failed miserably at being a parent and Lopez-Aguilera is nothing more than a boiler-plate attorney it doesn't matter what she knows about my client.
Upcoming segments in this series will include
X - Who has recommended me and what I recommend
XI - The Charges
XII - The Response Filed
If you would like to contribute any information about this matter or participate in the Response then please contact me.
Notes
1] This opinion is based on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct as amended by the ABA House of Delegates through February 2007. The laws, court rules, regulations, rules of professional conduct and opinions promulgated in individual jurisdictions are controlling.
2] Indiana Rule 1.2(C) A lawyer may limit the scope and objectives of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Friday, June 6, 2014
Engaging in the Unauthorized Practice of Law in Indiana - Part VII The Factual Allegations: Advertising that I am an Attorney
On 13 May 2014 G. Michael Witte, Attorney No. 1949-15 filed a Verified Petition to Enjoin the Unauthorized Practice of Law against yours truly. In this series of postings I will present to you some information about Mr. Witte, why Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David denied my motion to reinstate a felony charge against myself, what Indiana judge recently said I am smarter than most attorneys, and why attorney Vanessa Lopez Aguilera complained. More significantly though I will demonstrate how Mr. Witte and his ilk are attempting to harm children and deprive parents of opportunities to amicably and efficiently resolve their child custody disputes consistent with the policies of the State of Indiana.
Response to Petition to Enjoin the Unauthorized Practice of Law Paragraphs 5 - 12 Advertising as an Attorney
5] True * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
State of Indiana
v.
Stuart Showalter
In charging an act of wrongdoing it is a principle of law that the alleged facts support the conclusion. In common parlance this is the reasons for the charge. It may be more formally known as the factual basis or in criminal law – probable cause. In this and some upcoming postings I respond to the particular factual allegations as put forth by Mr. Witte in his Verified Petition. Today I move on to the vaguely veiled general accusations that I am engaging in the unauthorized practice of law which in this first part relates to advertising as an attorney. Each numbered paragraph corresponds directly to the allegations in the Verified Petition.
6] The link shown is to a page on my website. I have attached a copy of this page, as of 03 June 2014, hereto as Exhibit A.
7] This paragraph ends with “and be just a phone call away . . . .” What Witte omits by text and context is the remainder of the sentence “. . . even in the middle of the night, when your emotions or anxiety overwhelms you.” which relates to the purpose of providing emotional or spiritual support of life coaching. I have tightened the language on this page in an attempt to remove possible interpretation by readers that I may be acting in place of an attorney.
8] This paragraph is directed to attorneys who wish to direct me in assisting them and specifically contradicts Witte's allegations in ¶¶33-36.
9] Similar to ¶8 this paragraph is directed to parents represented by attorneys and is intended to convey the importance of the long-term parent-child relationship. While attorneys may speak in “legaleze” which their clients may not understand I either translate to layman's terms or let the attorney know that the client appears bewildered. This specifically contradicts Witte's allegations in ¶¶33-36.
10] This paragraph refers to a section of the website that was not placed under my “services” as it was far from complete, should have had privacy settings limiting it to “administrators” only and when complete will be directed primarily toward assisting attorneys not experienced with appeals or helping them or their clients find competent appellate counsel. The privacy settings on this page were changed on 15 May 2014 to remove this page from public view. The page Client Portal was also open to public viewing although it should have been accessible only to current clients and has been changed.
11] This paragraph contains a portion of the page referenced in paragraph 10. Specifically, it notes Mr. Showalter's “appellate team” which includes himself, a clerk that can assist with formatting, house counsel, and outside attorneys who specialize in appeals. This paragraph describes work to be done by attorneys or under the direction of attorneys and specifically contradicts Witte's allegations in ¶¶33-36.
12] This is an otiose statement as it does not support Witte's allegations in ¶¶33-36. I could just have easily said that I can perform most of the acts necessary to build a space shuttle – tightening screws, connecting wires, applying glue, welding, etc -- while leaving the most complex actions to those specifically trained for them.
In short what Witte has alleged in this section relating to advertising is that I am promoting that I am an attorney. Yet nowhere on my website do I indicate that I am an attorney. Quite to the contrary I specifically state on my client contract:
By signing this agreement, I, _______________________, acknowledge that I have been advised by and am aware that Stuart Showalter and his associates are not attorneys, mental health professionals, physicians, financial planners or securities dealers and are not providing specific advice as a substitute for that provided by those professionals unless those professionals specifically acknowledge their discipline.
Just as Witte alleged in regards to Jennifer Bonesteel and her phantom client, that when I say I am “not” something that I must be that, he makes the same logical fallacy here. His conclusions that I am engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by assisting parents to manage their lifestyle while going through a custody proceeding or helping them find an attorney is misplaced. Very few attorneys would agree that their practice is to try to find an attorney for clients who come to them for assistance. Using Witte logic it would be like a Wal-Mart greeter directing you to go to Target when you ask where something is located.
Keeping in mind that the Indiana Supreme Court has yet to choose to define the practice of law in its rules we are left to determine this on our own based upon the reasonable person standard. Thus, it becomes would a reasonable person conclude that helping settle a person's anxiety, preparing them physically and mentally for court appearances, improving their parental behaviours, and helping to find legal counsel if needed would constitute engaging in the practice of an attorney for which lay people should be barred.
Upcoming segments in this series will include
VIII - The Factual Allegations: Suppositions
IX - Interview with the Complainant: Attorney Vanessa Lopez Aguilera
X - The Charges
XI - Who has recommended me and my Conclusions
XII - The Response Filed
If you would like to contribute any information about this matter or participate in the Response then please contact me.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
