FOREWARNING CLIENTS ABOUT CRIMINAL, ILLEGAL, AND UNETHICAL ACTS LAWYERS AND LAW FIRMS COMMIT AGAINST THEM
I got asked by someone if I had any recommendation for a probate lawyer. I’ll answer this in a regular Facebook posting in case my answer would be helpful to anyone else in looking for a probate lawyer or other kind of lawyer:
The main reason I’m commented on the major Connecticut civil case named D’Attilo v. Koskoff et al is so that others may be forewarned about the types of criminal activity and criminal networks one is likely to run into in working with many lawyers. The chances of having to deal with criminal activity at a law firm increases with the size of the firm. Thus as larger and supposedly estimable law firms in Connecticut, the corporate law firms Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder and Day Pitney engaged in relatively complex criminal activity and related multifaceted legal malpractice to swindle the D’Attilo family out of millions of dollars from a large medical malpractice award when the family was their clients. In my case — as recurrently written about at Facebook often with references to my book — lawyers at the Pullman and Comley corporate law firm, now with close ties to governor Malloy, stole thousands of dollars of medical films of mine when I was a client. So as you see, being a client of a law firm and paying it for services including informing you relevantly and fully about significant matters concerning the situation or reasons you went to it in the first place is no assurance that criminal acts will not be committed against you.
As I found in my own experiences and as I see in studying the D’Attilo v. Koskoff case, the guideline for many lawyers is not whether something is criminal, illegal, or unethical, but whether they think they can get away with the crime, illegality, or unethical action. But there’s really no way to know beforehand. This depends on how the lawyer or law firm sizes you up. In the case of the D’Attilo’s, as noted in the complaint, they are working class with high school educations. In my case, although I have a M.A. in philosophy from Georgetown and was a highly literate person doing book reviewing and editing of manuscripts, I was a novice in the legal field. Obviously, the Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, the Day Pitney, and the Pullman and Comley law firms saw us as clients who were suckers, and the firms went ahead to commit wide-ranging crimes harmful to each of us.
In my comments on the D’Attilo case, I have stressed the complaint as a basis for comprehending the case and a reference to understand its unfolding as seen with court filings found online at the Connecticut judicial website and the content, arguments, positions, and aims of individual filings. In answer to my forewarning about criminal activity and actions by one’s own lawyers one would run into damaging to one’s interests as embodied in a case, I will note that the complaint done by the D’Attilo’s lawyer Howard Altshuler or under his direction in 38 pages in 281 numbered paragraphs describes the numerous various criminal, illegal, and unethical acts in the chronology of these. The amended complaint is 58 pages, 416 paragraphs. I recommend reading at least the original complaint (12/23/2014) to grasp the basics of the case and follow its unfolding logically and coherently if you’re interested enough for this. However, if you want to get an idea of the full range of the criminal, etc. activity the supposedly leading law firms are being sued for, the RICO-like network, and harms caused to the D’Attilos, you should read the amended complaint (1/27/2015) too since this is obviously a considerable expansion of the crimes, etc., recorded in the original complaint.
Part of the case against the supposedly leading Connecticut law firms concerns probate issues. At different places, the complaint and the amended complaint too describe how lawyers at either firm individually and in coordination, cooperation, and conspiracy with lawyers at the other firm fraudulently, deceptively, and self-servingly set up trusts for Danny D’Attilo born with severe birth defects costing the D’Attilos far in excess of what this would ordinarily cost; paid for consultants and services far in excess of what these would ordinarily cost (to ones appearing to be crony accomplices); appointed themselves representatives (called guardian ad litem, GAL, i. e., legal guardian) for Danny D’Attilo both disregarding clear conflict of interest and also enabling continuation of the deception and expansion of the swindling; and submitting to probate judges and courts misleading documents. This is criminal activity I recall off the top of my head. Review of the complaint and amended complaint would give rise to additional criminal activity and legal malpractice I could relate.
Although the question I received concerned probate specifically, criminal activity by lawyers and legal malpractice can be committed by lawyers in any area of the law. One of the ways to protect oneself in a relationship with a lawyer one assumes is working toward the ends one seeks leading one to enter into the relationship in the first place is to learn what one can which is germane to the matter and to the ends one seeks from studying respective statutes, reviewing similar cases, reading layperson’s works or self-help guides, and such. The more one learns, the better protected one is. But in many cases this would give rise to the question of why if one is putting in so much time to learn the right things does one need a lawyer at all?
The answer to this question is that (as I found in my pro se cases against the criminals at the Pullman and Comley law firm) lawyers have a lock on the system. If you try to work in the legal system on your own no matter how capable you are or how knowledgeable you are to avoid the probability of being cheated by a lawyer you hire for services, you’ll in all probability encounter corrupt, obstructionist, and hostile judges, court employees, opposing lawyers, prosecutors, so-called law enforcement people, and others throughout the legal system with a vested interest in keeping it privileged and closed despite written, professed, and statutory claims and legal support that it be impartial and open.
As I have found in my experiences and I expect will be seen with the resolution of the D’Attilo case too, outcomes will in no way change this circumstance lawyers have created whereby they can commit criminal activity at will and count on the support and often the involvement of judges, state’s attorneys, politicians, and others. In my case, state’s attorneys took on the role of protection racket for the criminal Pullman and Comley lawyers and accomplices. In the D’Attilo case, while they will probably “win” the case in that they will come away with some monetary award, the lawyer criminals will remain in the system free to commit future crimes and victimize future clients. The lawyers will remain in their positions and likely even thrive at the Kosskoff Koskoff & Bieder and the Day Pitney law firms. Indeed one of the named defendants, Michael Koskoff, is a relative of the founder of the Koskoff firm. And as I often report with respect to my case, since being recognized as a criminal for theft, false statement, perjury, witness tampering, and other crimes, James T. Shearin has become chairman of the Pullman and Comley law firm.
The conspicuous position of individuals such as Koskoff and Shearin at the respective law firms signals what the presiding ethics are at the firms and the image they want to project. While the public finds such so-called, cynical ethics and related image of being above the law repugnant, other law firms, local, state, and Federal so-called law-enforcement agencies, and the politicians who receive much of their support from the firms in return for political and financial benefits play their part in perpetuation of the manifestly criminal, corrupt legal system.
Finding that crime pays big time in money obtained, professional advancement and admiration, and notoriety and prestige within the legal and political fields, lawyer criminals and their law firms are not open to reform. This monolithic construct controlled by its worst elements is what individuals such as the one asking me if I could recommend a probate lawyer or any other individual seeking legal representation faces. It’s a circumstance everyone outside the legal system should be aware of (those in the system already know about the circumstance), and ones motivated to or involved in activism should work to break apart in the interests of respectable democratic society.