It's also important to remember that "opposing" attorneys also talk to each other in confidence, and the clients are not entitled to those exchanges. For the most part these people are professionals who will be working with each other long after you and your money are gone. Unless they hate each other, they will most likely discuss the strong parts for each side and broker a deal between themselves which they try to sell to their clients. You may think your lawyer is fighting to get you custody for example, but he probably already has caved, and already has his script in a play - a tragedy - where you will be destroyed. The moral, I guess, is to go pro se, where you can fight like a man for yourself and your children.

 

WHAT REALLY BURNS MY ASS IS THAT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IS OFTEN VIOLATED BY THE ATTORNEY YOU HIRE. IT HAPPENED TO ME IN ROCHESTER, N.Y.. I'VE COME TO UNDERSTAND NOW THAT ATTORNEYS, ALTHOUGH YOU HIRE THEM, ARE STILL "OFFICERS OF THE COURT" - IF THAT'S THE PROPER EXPRESSION TO USE. THAT IS, THEY WILL TELL THE JUDGE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE TOLD THEM IN CONFIDENCE - EVEN IF IT IS NOT TRUE. FOR EXAMPLE, I CASUALLY ASKED THE ATTORNEY I HAD HIRED, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF I HAD DEFAULTED ON THE MORTGAGE PAYMENTS ON THE HOME THAT I WAS REMOVED FROM THAT THE JUDGE ORDERED ME TO CONTINUE PAYING ON?  MIND YOU, I HAD NOT CONSIDERED DEFAULTING AT ALL AS I BELIEVED I WOULD GET THE MONEY BACK THAT I HAD PAID. IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE ATTORNEY INFORMED THE JUDGE THAT I WAS GOING TO DEFAULT THAT THE JUDGE STARTED PLAYING GAMES, SUCH AS NOT ALLOWING ME TO SEE THE CHILD, NOT ALLOWING ME TO OBTAIN MY PERSONAL PROPERTY FROM THE HOME UNMOLESTED THAT I THEN DECIDED TO DEFAULT. SO TO ME, THIS SCENARIO AMOUNTS TO ATTORNEYS LYING TO THEIR OWN CLIENTS.