The
lawyer on appeal for a woman who wants to be appointed as her husband’s
conservator, in place of his daughter by a first marriage, has been derided by
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal based on his effort to
become, additionally, lawyer for the conservatee.
Justice
William W. Bedsworth wrote the unpublished opinion in each of two cases, filed
Tuesday, dealing with the conservatorship of Edward Raymond who, since January
2016, has been in need of care.
In Conservatorship of Raymond, G056805, Orange Superior Court Judge Jacki C. Brown’s
order appointing Raymond’s daughter, Darlene Azar, as the conservator was affirmed.
In that case, Laguna Beach attorney James G. LeBloch contested the appointment
of Azar over his client, Dawna Ludwig—and also argued that he, not then-Deputy
Public Defender Jon Feldon (now a private practitioner), should have been
appointed by Brown as attorney for Raymond.
At the
May 3, 2016 hearing at which Feldon was designated as the attorney for Raymond,
LeBloch represented that he had drafted Raymond’s estate plan and, accordingly,
was still his attorney.
In Azar v. Ludwig,
G057920, the appeals court affirmed Orange Superior Court Judge Ronald L.
Bauer’s order disqualifying LeBloch from representing Ludwig in an action
brought against her by Azar, in part on behalf of her father and his estate,
alleging elder abuse and fraud. The complaint accuses Ludwig, 69, of
fraudulently inducing Raymond, 84, into marrying her.
No
Standing
Bedsworth
wrote in Conservatorship of Raymond:
“To
the extent LeBloch is appealing on his own behalf—which appears to be the
case—the appeal is dismissed. LeBloch is not a party to this proceeding, and he
has no standing to appeal on his own behalf. He also does not represent the
conservatee, Raymond, so he has no authority to speak for Raymond. The obvious
conflict of interest represented by his current representation of one of the
adversarial parties—Ludwig—would also militate against his appointment as
Raymond’s attorney, even if we could consider such a thing.”
His
purported appeal was dismissed.
Evidentiary
Support
The
decision to appoint Azar as conservator for her father, who is in a nursing
home, was found to be supported by the evidence. The justice said:
“In
this case, the court had plenty of evidence to support its choice of Azar over
Ludwig as Raymond’s conservator. The court alluded to this evidence in the statement
of decision: Ludwig’s refusal to listen to healthcare providers, her obvious
financial motivation for seeking to care for Raymond at home, her disregard of
others’ needs and her self-absorption. Even if Raymond could have been safely
cared for at home, Ludwig was not the person to be entrusted with this task.”
Bedsworth
remarked in a footnote:
“Ludwig
rather unwisely characterizes the epic as a ‘Cinderella type story,’ a conflict
between a stepmother and a stepdaughter. Apparently Ludwig has forgotten that
in the Cinderella story, the stepmother is the villain.”
Incongruous
Positions
Addressing
the disqualification order, appealed in Azar
v. Ludwig, Bedsworth declared:
“Attorney
LeBloch appears not to appreciate the incongruity of his position in each of
the two appeals decided today. If he had prevailed in the conservatorship
appeal, he would be representing the conservatee, Raymond. If he had prevailed
in this appeal, he would be representing Ludwig, who is being sued by, among
others, Raymond’s person and estate. His inability to see the conflict in these
two positions is perhaps the best reason of all for refusing to allow him to
participate in either proceeding.”
Full Article & Source:
Lawyer Taken to Task forSeeking to Represent Both Conservatee and Would-Be Conservator
No comments:
Post a Comment