Kudos to Susan Herman and the NCVC for addressing crime victims in this new book and initiative
http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbID=DB_ParallelJustice156
Parallel Justice for Victims of Crime a new book by Susan Herman, former executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime, envisions a parallel, dual-path to justice--requiring society to help repair the harm done to victims while holding offenders accountable for their crimes. This approach would revolutionize our justice system by establishing and funding an official set of responses to victims of crime.
"We are so proud to publish Parallel Justice for Victims of Crime," said Jeff Dion, acting executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime. "Susan convincingly sets forth a vision of justice that reflects our best hopes for victims and our nation's highest ideals."
"We spend billions of dollars every year on a system that deals with criminals. It's time to invest in helping victims of crime rebuild their lives."The Parallel Justice Project was established originally by the National Center for Victims of Crime to advance a new vision of justice for victims of crime. The concept of parallel justice informs all of the National Center's work in helping victims rebuild their lives.
Parallel Justice elevates the goal of helping victims rebuild their lives to a fundamental component of justice. Parallel Justice requires us to decouple the pursuit of justice for victims from the administration of justice for offenders. Under a system of Parallel Justice the societal message to victims would be, "What happened to you is wrong and we will help you rebuild your life."
Parallel Justice Framework
Parallel Justice requires society not only to hold offenders accountable for the harms they have caused, but also to honor a separate social obligation to repair the harm caused by crime. Learn more about this vision of justice for crime victims.
Parallel Justice in Practice
The National Center worked with three communities to test the feasibility of the Parallel Justice concept as a new paradigm for society's response to crime. Learn more about the work of these communities and guidelines for implementing Parallel Justice in your community.
Parallel Justice - Bars and Bandaids aren't enough.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Do attorneys have the authority to issue subpoenas in post-judgment motion practice ?
http://www.njfamilylawblog.com/blog/2009/01/do-attorneys-have-the-authority-to-issue-subpoenas-in-post-judgment-motion-practice.html
In the absence of definitive legal authority to the contrary and based on tradition and practice, they issue subpoenas to gather information from parties and non-parties sometimes even before any motion has been filed with the court. Examples of non-court ordered post-judgment subpoena requests include seeking tax returns, personal and business bank statements, salary information from employers, disclosure from e-bay on sales, and testimony from police officers.
An editorial in the January 2009 issue of the “New Jersey Family Lawyer” discusses this issue and advises attorneys to proceed with caution with post-judgment discovery, stating, “[i]t does not appear that there is a sufficiently clear policy in the rules precluding a post-judgment subpoena, but an alternative argument could be made, because there is silence of the rules on this issue.”
The editorial discusses in detail the Monmouth County trial court opinion in Welch v. Welch, where an attorney issued a subpoena prior to filing a post-judgment motion with the court and the evidence was excluded when the motion was heard. The editorial does not take a position, concluding that “the entire issue should be considered and addressed by the Supreme Court Family Part Practice Committee.”
Neither the opinion in Welch nor the editorial in the "New Jersey Family Lawyer" discuss the NJ Supreme Court decision in Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 157 (1980) which clearly states that post-divorce discovery should only be ordered by the court once a prima facie case of changed circumstances has been made.
The right to conduct depositions, subpoena witnesses and participate in unfettered discovery as part of post-judgment motion practice would obviate the need for any prima facie case of changed circumstances to be made before financial disclosure is ordered. Attorneys who subpoena opposing parties employment records or tax returns, therefore violate the principals set forth in Lepis by not first meeting their burden of making a prima facie case of changed circumstances before seeking court ordered discovery.
After a divorce, parties have a right to privacy that must be respected in the absence of a showing of need to the court for the information. Id. (“We recognize that individuals have a legitimate interest in the confidentiality of their income tax returns.”)
My take on this is that absent a court order there is no authority for an attorney to issue a subpoena in post-judgment motion practice and those attorneys that do run the risk of sanctions for abuse of the discovery process. However, there is the need for clearer guidance on this issue in the New Jersey Court
Family law attorneys need to be more responsible when accepting cases and pursuing a client's ex. Law firms need to put controls in place to monitor their attorneys instead of focusing on their bottom line.
The liability of the divorce litigator.
http://www.divorcesource.com/NJ/ARTICLES/gruber23.html
In the absence of definitive legal authority to the contrary and based on tradition and practice, they issue subpoenas to gather information from parties and non-parties sometimes even before any motion has been filed with the court. Examples of non-court ordered post-judgment subpoena requests include seeking tax returns, personal and business bank statements, salary information from employers, disclosure from e-bay on sales, and testimony from police officers.
An editorial in the January 2009 issue of the “New Jersey Family Lawyer” discusses this issue and advises attorneys to proceed with caution with post-judgment discovery, stating, “[i]t does not appear that there is a sufficiently clear policy in the rules precluding a post-judgment subpoena, but an alternative argument could be made, because there is silence of the rules on this issue.”
The editorial discusses in detail the Monmouth County trial court opinion in Welch v. Welch, where an attorney issued a subpoena prior to filing a post-judgment motion with the court and the evidence was excluded when the motion was heard. The editorial does not take a position, concluding that “the entire issue should be considered and addressed by the Supreme Court Family Part Practice Committee.”
Neither the opinion in Welch nor the editorial in the "New Jersey Family Lawyer" discuss the NJ Supreme Court decision in Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 157 (1980) which clearly states that post-divorce discovery should only be ordered by the court once a prima facie case of changed circumstances has been made.
The right to conduct depositions, subpoena witnesses and participate in unfettered discovery as part of post-judgment motion practice would obviate the need for any prima facie case of changed circumstances to be made before financial disclosure is ordered. Attorneys who subpoena opposing parties employment records or tax returns, therefore violate the principals set forth in Lepis by not first meeting their burden of making a prima facie case of changed circumstances before seeking court ordered discovery.
After a divorce, parties have a right to privacy that must be respected in the absence of a showing of need to the court for the information. Id. (“We recognize that individuals have a legitimate interest in the confidentiality of their income tax returns.”)
My take on this is that absent a court order there is no authority for an attorney to issue a subpoena in post-judgment motion practice and those attorneys that do run the risk of sanctions for abuse of the discovery process. However, there is the need for clearer guidance on this issue in the New Jersey Court
Family law attorneys need to be more responsible when accepting cases and pursuing a client's ex. Law firms need to put controls in place to monitor their attorneys instead of focusing on their bottom line.
The liability of the divorce litigator.
http://www.divorcesource.com/NJ/ARTICLES/gruber23.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)