March has been declared Ethics Awareness Month.  Although it started out as  a weeklong acknowledgement, by professionals in the financial industry back in 1990, it has since evolved.  Today is has been broadened to the entire month of March and to other industries acknowledging it.

          It is very challenging in family law, divorce law and criminal law cases to adhere to some of the ethical obligations attorneys are required to.  In New York, our rules are somewhat are nationwide standards imposed upon attorneys. So in child custody, child visitation, child support, paternity, divorces and domestic violence, sometimes the requirement to follow ethical obligations are often times countered by attorneys’ personal, moral and idealistic beliefs.  Particularly as the attorney for the child, there are too many times when my initial reaction is to do what is “right” as opposed to what is “ethical”.  However, because I took an oath that must be upheld, I always internalize my initial reaction and do what is “ethical”.  Here I want to explore some of the practical instances where both of these principles collide, particularly in representing the parents.

          In child custody cases, as the attorney for either parent, it is inevitable that personal beliefs about which one is the more “fit” parent arises.  In a situation where, for instance, the custodial mother has always been the primary caregiver-prepares meals for the children, dresses the children, tends to them when they are sick, takes them to doctors appointments, encourages practice of religion, encourages and supports social activities/engagements, fosters a relationship with the noncustodial parent but fails to encourage, support or get involved with their academics or school activities, should that custodial parent be provided with representation that supports her maintaining custody?  Or should the noncustodial parent who puts education first prevail in a child custody case?  Well, morally, depending on one’s own personal beliefs, one may say that there is almost nothing else in children’s lives that deserve more emphasis than academics.  However, as the attorney for that custodial parent, advocacy on behalf of that client must be done zealously.  Pursuant to the Disciplinary Rules, an attorney must not fail to carry out the contract of employment, shall not prejudice or damage the client during the professional relationship and shall advocate on behalf of that client zealously.  Furthermore, if the attorney is aware of controlling legal authority that is in the noncustodial parent’s favor in the same or very similar circumstances, he/she is obligated to reveal such information to the court if the other attorney does not, when presenting the case.

          In child visitation cases, conflict typically occurs when the custodial parent refuses the noncustodial child visitation or when the custodial parent insists on supervised visits.  As attorney for the custodial parent, unless there is proven history of domestic violence, child abuse or drug/alcohol abuse, exercising zeal and diligence in advocacy can be quite a struggle.  For attorneys who firmly believe that all parents should have free and unfettered access to their children, the tension in representing custodial parents who do not share in this belief presents a very difficult task.  However, pursuant to the Disciplinary Rules, the attorney must not intentionally fail to seek the client’s objectives through reasonable and available means, despite his/her personal views.  This, however, does not mean the attorney can not express his/her opinion; it just restricts the application of that opinion to the client’s overall objective.  In situations like these it is sometimes very helpful when the attorney for the child reports that the his/her client’s position or the attorney for the child’s position (where he/she substitutes his/her own judgment) actually supports the attorney’s personal view.  Conversely, as the attorney for the noncustodial parent who has been the aggressor in domestic violence incidents, the drug or alcohol abuse or the child abuser, the conflict is just as profound.  What is the attorney to do when the client/drug abuser discloses that he/she is still using drugs but continues to insist on visits.  Well, the ethical rules do not limit its applicability in this particular circumstance.  The attorney still has an obligation to advocate zealously on his/her behalf, not prejudice or damage the client and more importantly, preserve the client’s confidences (except where permitted by another Disciplinary Rule or required by law). 

         The same holds true in child abuse/neglect cases.  As attorney for the noncustodial parent who is the abuser, in domestic violence, child abuse or drug abuse cases, there is typically an overwhelming conflict in ethically representing the noncustodial/abuser parent.  Many times both parents, and/or “persons legally responsible”, may be parties in child abuse/neglect cases.  It is not uncommon for one of the parties to pay for both parties’ counsel fees (since it is a conflict for one attorney to represent both parties).  In a situation like this, it may not seem so odd that the paying party directs a) how the attorney represents his/her client; b) how the attorney advises the client or c) even how the attorney communicates with the client.  This however, clashes with ethical rules.  The attorney must exercise professional judgment solely on the client’s behalf, disregarding the desires of others where it might impair the attorney’s own judgment. 

          In child support cases, the challenge is not minimized just because the Child Support Standards Act governs.  There are still many situations where ethics are tempted by moral and personal judgments.  Many of us are sympathetic to noncustodial parents who have other legitimate financial obligations that limit their ability to provide for their children as provided by the statutory guidelines.  Noncustodial parents who have not and do not run from their obligation to support their children, are at times unduly burdened by the obligation mandated by the statute.  As the attorney for the custodial parent, it can be unnerving to know that the noncustodial parent may be forced to resort to, what most of us would agree, is somewhat demeaning living arrangement, particularly where that party has child visitation at that home.  However, again, the Disciplinary Rules does not permit personal views to compromise our ethical obligations.  In addition, as the attorney for the noncustodial father, particularly, even questioning paternity or filing a paternity action may pose an ethical problem if that attorney does so solely for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring the custodial parent. That attorney could not even advise his/her client to not pay the court ordered child support, even though paying is improbable, unless he/she has a good faith legal basis to challenge the order.

          In divorces, innumerable ethical obligations arise, putting the attorney in compromising positions.  Full disclosure in divorce cases is paramount to providing adequate and competent representation.  However, there are instances where it is tempting to advise a client to omit some information, not necessarily to mislead the other party but to avoid other consequences.  For instance, a client may want to leave out rental income on his/her Net Worth Statement because of possible tax implications.  However, ethically speaking an attorney can in no way participate in the commission of a crime, must try to talk a client out of committing fraud and must report the fraud to the court (as long as the confidences or secrets rules are not violated) if the client refuses to.  How about where the client mentions that after shopping around he/she found a realtor (who will sell the marital residence) that charges a commission a lot less than other realtors.  Can the attorney use this information for his/her personal use, in selling his/her own home?  Maybe not, pursuant to the Disciplinary Rules, not without the client’s permission. 

         Many of these cases involve domestic violence criminal elements that also pose ethical challenges.  Where during an appearance at the divorce proceeding, for instance, the attorney and his/her client are in the hallway and the other party assaults his/her client in front of the attorney.  That attorney may have to withdraw as counsel if he/she may need to be a witness in the domestic violence criminal trial.  Or the attorney may choose not tom put his/her defendant/client on the witness stand, despite the client’s insistence, in a domestic violence criminal trial where that decision is based on their professional judgment.  By far one of the most challenging positions attorneys are put in is in circumstances where their client has disclosed the intention to commit a crime; there are several factors the attorney must take into account before exercising discretion in whether or not to disclose that information to the authorities. 

         Although many of these rules may be excused by another provision of the Disciplinary Rules, there are some that are explicitly prohibited.  Some situations are not as clear cut as others and require that the attorney exercise sound judgment.  Although I discussed several rules here there are many more that may apply in the described scenarios. The bottom line, it is not easy to have to juggle some of the most widely accepted, germane principles in morality with ethical requirements imposed upon us.  However, it gets to the point where we (at least for some of us) rationalize being forced to choose ethics over morality by the good we provide in the end.

Feel free to contact my office to discuss your case.