More on Conflicts of Interest

The Notice of Conservatees Rights Form, GC-341, issued by the California Superior Court Judicial Council states that "when a person becomes a conservatee, he or she does not necessarily lose the right to take part in important decisions affecting his or her property and way of life.   Every conservatee has the right to be treated with understanding and respect and to have his or her wishes considered.  Every conservatee has all the basic human rights and the right to be well cared for by his or her conservator."

In addition, the conservatee "keeps the right to ask a judge to replace the conservator" and "ask a judge to end a conservatorship."

In fact, the Court has the right to appoint an attorney to PROTECT the CONSERVATEE'S interests.

NOW...

Doesn't it stand to reason that if the same law firm represents BOTH the conservator and the conservatee there is a....

CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

Come on, how can one attorney claim to be representing the conservatee's best interests while his or her other client, the conservator, is robbing the conservatee blind?

My Uncle and I had the same attorney until about a week ago.  Our attorney was disqualified for, and I quote...

"The conflict arises due to the previous concurrent representation of Lori DeMartini and Paul DeMartini, clients with conflicting interests, and which calls into question the duty of loyalty to both clients."

ONE MORE TIME FOR THE RECORD...


My uncle and I DO NOT have conflicting interests

BUT...

there are conflicting interests between a conservator and a conservatee especially when it comes to Larry Siracusa, Bruce Feder and friends.

ONCE AGAIN...

How can the same attorney or even the same law firm represent both the conservatee and the conservator?  Wouldn't that be considered a...

CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

AND WHY...

does it happen every day in San Francisco's Probate Court?

Here are two examples on today's court calendar:
PCN-01-282660
PCN-07-290306

SO...


Let me make sure I understand...

Our attorney was disqualified from representing both my Uncle and I because of a conflict of interest fabrication regarding our representation...well, actually it was a blatant lie...yet Larry, Bruce and the merry band of thieves continue to do whatever they damn well please!

See my blog post....

"The Duties of the Court Appointed Attorney" dated July 4, 2011 and see all the ways  Bruce Feder, my grandmother's court appointed attorney, violated nearly everyone of my grandmother's rights!  Another post featuring this very same topic will be coming soon!

Best Practice Model...NOT!

While researching a completely different aspect of my grandmother's case, I came across a very interesting article that was written by Mary Quinn who happens to be the Director of Probate Services for the San Francisco Superior Court.  Ms. Quinn's article was published by the NCPEA..National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse and touted as a "BEST PRACTICE MODEL".

        "Probate Court Mediation Project

            by Mary Quinn

In July 1998, San Francisco's Superior Court initiated a mediation program to resolve conflicts related to trusts and estates of decedents. The mediators are experienced probate attorneys who agree to do the mediations. In selected cases, the judge formally orders the 2 parties into mediation. Building upon the success of the program (80% of the cases were mediated successfully), the court started a second mediation panel for guardianships of children and conservatorships of adults. The court selected and met with 20 local probate attorneys who agreed to serve without pay. The attorneys were provided with 4 days of training. Over twenty cases have been mediated with a success rate of 95%. Litigation has been avoided in a number of cases. In one case, conservatorship was avoided completely. The guardianship and conservatorship cases are closely monitored by the Court and an attorney is appointed for every child or elder. Only certain issues are considered appropriate for mediation, including certain cases involving elder abuse and neglect. If abuse and neglect is discovered while mediation is in progress, court appointed attorneys are charged with immediately informing the Court."

I spoke with Ms. Quinn several months ago because I was looking for a copy of a document I signed on October 19, 2009 at the end of the mediation session.  In SF Superior Court, upon the completion of mediation, the parties to the mediation must sign a document that basically recaps the mediaiton experience.  Did the mediation resolve all issues, some issues, none of the issues, etc.?  I did not have a copy so I contacted Ms. Quinn in order to get a copy from her.  After checking on my request for this document, she seemed surprised that the document was not in the file.

The parties to the mediation indicated that the mediation resolved ALL the issues in the case.  So then why are we still here?

Is it a surprise that the document disappeared from the file?  DEFINITELY NOT!

I just checked the Superior Court website and learned that a new and improved document now exists.  A surprise?   NOT!

The lies, the cover-ups, the blatant disregard for my grandmother's wishes, fears and dignity are incomprehensible!

Best Practice Model...NOT!



Back to my research...stay tuned....the next post will be a doozey!

SF Probate





Cases for August 16, 2011

PCN-01-282660

PES-02-283294

PES-03-284521

PES-04-286398

PTR-05-287611

PTR-06-288634

PCN-07-290306

PES-07-290377

PES-09-293046

PCN-10-293112

PES-11-294336 

Elvira Orly

I received the following email on August 13, 2011...

"Hello...Attorney Orly is in the process of defrauding a friend.  Please do email me back."

The message was left anonymously, and I have no way of contacting the person that sent me the email.

You can reach me at loridemartini@live.com.

Thanks,
Lori

Confusion

I am perplexed.  My Uncle Paul and I hired the same attorney.  There is no conflicts between us.  Yet our attorney was told by the judge he could no longer be my uncle's attorney....only mine.  He was disqualified as my uncle's attorney because of a non-existent conflict of interest.

The reason for my confusion...

I just read about case PCN-11-294681.  Two of my very favorite people are involved.  To my surprise, the same law firm represents both the conservator and conservatee.  Is that not a conflict of interest under the State of California's Probate Laws?

Monday

August 15, 2011


I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today!



Court Cases

Siracusa, Feder and Friends

PCN-89-232502

PCN-02-283527

PCN-01-282474

PCN-04-285598

PTR-04-286133

PCN-07-290245

PCN-08-290853

PCN-08-291018

PTR-10-293757

PGN-11-294479

PCN-11-294489

PCN-11-294681

PTR-22-294789