|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyers rip
report on family law court
By Guy
Ashley A group of Marin attorneys
has issued a scathing critique of a citizens' commissioned report on the
Marin judiciary, calling on the report's author, a New York private
investigator, to retract her allegations of widespread misconduct within the
local family court system. The attorneys include several family law specialists
who were criticized in the report earlier this year by Karen Winner. They say
their reputations have been sullied through "one-sided'' and
"unsubstantiated'' allegations contained in Winner's report, which was
issued in February after citizens paid her about $10,000 to review several
Marin family law cases. "Ms. Winner's just a pen for hire,'' said San
Rafael attorney Terence Colyer, a target of Winner's wrath. "How can
someone claiming to be an investigator get away with talking to only one side
of a dispute? She never contacted me or my client or any of our witnesses.'' Indeed, attorneys behind the new critique said
disgruntled Marin litigants hired Winner to "buy revenge'' for rulings
with which they were dissatisfied, all the while supporting Winner's claim
that she provided an objective review of local court cases. The point-by-point critique, titled "Rebuttal
to Winner Report,'' is the result of a month's collaboration by seven
prominent family law attorneys in Marin. One of the lawyers, Mauna Berkov, said the group's
analysis uncovered numerous reasons to doubt the veracity of Winner's report. "We have discovered at least 37 factual errors,
15 unidentified sources for facts and 57 facts that rely upon losing
attorneys and litigants for credibility,'' she said. The group also asserts
that Winner may have violated state law by publicly releasing confidential
juvenile court records. Winner said yesterday she is not troubled by the
backlash of criticism. "These lawyers' efforts to shoot the messenger
seem like a gimmick to me,'' she said. "My conscience is clear about
what I wrote.'' Winner said she has no plans to retract her
allegations. "I would like a public apology from these people for trying
to pull the wool over the public's eyes,'' she said. Winner is an investigative reporter whose recent
book, "Divorced from Justice,'' discusses how women and children
nationwide routinely get the shaft from lawyers and judges in family law
courts. She has issued similar reports critical of local court systems
throughout the country, including in Santa Clara and Sacramento counties. Her report on the Marin family court system was
hardly noticed in local legal circles when it was released at a February news
conference at a Corte Madera hotel. But the report's assertions of a pattern of
misguided rulings in custody cases - and an inside network of attorneys who
place opportunities for legal fees before the interests of the parents and
children they represent - resonated with many citizens who felt their family
problems had been exacerbated by the local courts. Citizens rallied together in defiance of the courts
and initiated a petition drive seeking to recall one of the primary targets
in Winner's report, Superior Court Judge Michael Dufficy. But the outcry did
not stop there; a loose-knit cadre of court critics has since emerged that
also has targeted two other judges, Lynn Duryee and Terrence Boren, and Marin
District Attorney Paula Kamena for recall. With signatures now being gathered in the four
recall drives, Winner's critics felt it was more necessary than ever to shed
light on her work. "We feel the public has been grossly misled,''
said Clay Greene, a San Rafael family law attorney and co-author of the
report. "Somebody needs to let the public know that this report is based
on half truths and incredibly poor research.'' Supporters of Winner said the critique is timed to
divert attention away from the recall effort at a critical time. Martin Silverman of San Rafael, who contributed
money to pay for Winner's report, said he believed the critique was part of a
public relations campaign the legal establishment is now waging on behalf of
the four officials. The three judges targeted for recall have hired Mill
Valley political consultant Don Solem to lead a campaign to counter the
recall effort. "I'm not at all surprised those who receive
favored treatment in this court would try to denigrate the recall movement,''
Silverman said. "They have a lot to lose.'' Winner's critics said the critique is about
fairness. They say her report failed to meet minimum standards for
investigative reporting, and that the public should know that she disregarded
basic conduct for fairness and balance. On this issue, the attorneys
consulted with a Bay Area expert on journalism ethics, Peter Sussman. Sussman
did not read Winner's report, and said he specifically stayed out of the
fray, but counseled the lawyers on the tenets of the code of ethics that he
co-wrote on behalf of the National Society of Professional Journalists. Sussman said yesterday that ethical journalists test
the accuracy of the information they report, exercise care to avoid errors
and seek to balance their stories by obtaining information from as many
relevant sources as possible. Winner's critics say she failed on each count, and paid
attention only to information that would reflect poorly on the jurists and
attorneys who had drawn the ire of the people who hired her. "She's so reckless with the truth that she even
says I own an office that I've been renting for the past 51/2 years,'' Colyer
said. The critique issued yesterday attempts to refute
many of the "findings'' that are the backbone of Winner's report. For instance, Winner found that Judge Dufficy and
Court Commissioner Sylvia Shapiro, another family law jurist in Marin, "routed
court-ordered child and family support to favored lawyers and court
appointees for their fees, so that children did not receive full child
support payments.'' Winner's critics said she failed to report that
attorney's fees for children have been legally determined to be in the form
of child support for which both parents are obligated. Only when a parent
refuses or fails to pay their share of these fees is a child-support payment
used to satisfy this obligation, they say. Referring to another case, Winner wrote that a
court-appointed psychologist removed himself from a heated custody case
"after the validity of his findings were cast in serious doubt.'' But
according to the critique, Winner failed to report that the doctor wrote to
the court that he removed himself because the mother in the case had
threatened him. Winner also writes about the same case that a doctor
testified in court that the mother "had been abused at the hands of her
husband.'' No doctor testified in court on this subject, according to the
lawyers critical of Winner's report. While the lawyers say they tried to focus on the
substance of Winner's report, they also took the opportunity to take a few
swipes at her style. In one sentence critical of the local court's
handling of a child-custody dispute, they note, Winner used the words,
"apparently,'' "questionable,'' "seemed orchestrated,''
"possibility of collusion'' and "seems plausible.'' "A cub reporter would be fired for this type of
innuendo,'' the lawyers wrote. Contact reporter Guy Ashley via e-mail at [email protected] |
||