But that gigantic check is part of the issue. Its a conflict of interest for you to fight to free her on contingency, as much as it is a conflict of interest for her current attorney to not take steps to end the conservatorship. Someone in Spears situation, a lot of money, with - what we assume to be not a lot of knowledge about how the world works - collects far too many people around them who want to make a buck off of them.
Yes indeed. Nevada is notorious for making it easy to steal everything an elderly person owns, including their home. These “guardians” and the corrupt officials who help them (and no doubt get cut in on the profits) deserve a special place in hell.
Can you explain why I, as an attorney, am conflicted in choosing to gamble that 1) I will win back her autonomy for her and then 2) get paid for doing so, (and get paid more than usual, given that I was willing to risk getting nothing if I were to have been unsuccessful)? I’m not seeing the conflict of interests. I believe in Britney, I recognize that she can’t hire her own attorney (which is what I’m seeking to overturn), so am volunteering my services in the hope and expectation that I will be rewarded when her competency, through my agency, is achieved.
Because with a gigantic check on the line, you may be willing to act in ways that aren’t in her best interest. You may guide her to decisions that will further enrich you or your friends. You may take advantage of her naiveté. As I understand it, people around her taking advantage of her was one of the justifications that she wasn’t competent to handle her own affairs to begin with.
And given that you think she is dumber than your cat, your ability to act on her behalf without prejudice or bias is already in question.
Oh, give it up. I’m sure plenty of competent attorneys (which I am not) have absolute contempt for their clients’ mental acuity. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Your offendedness is beginning to bore me.
For the not-boring (but still stubbornly inexplicable) part, how is this different from any other lawyer who takes an impoverished client’s case on contingency? He makes decisions that could potentially benefit himself and harm his client. That’s what taking a case without upfront fees consists of.
Because getting them off a criminal charge is indisputably good for them (same goes with most civil suits, though there might be other exceptions). Getting them out of a conservatorship should be based on it being the right thing for them, not that you’re only being paid of they get out of it.
Same reason for suspecting whether her current lawyer is really representing her interests, since he only gets paid if she’s still a conversatee.
Here’s a pretty thorough new article on Spears’ situation:New Yorker article
How do you take the case on contingency? There is no money to win for you to take a cut of.
She promised you $100k? That contract can be voided by her at any time. 10 minutes before the judge renders a verdict she can tell you to piss off.
Still want the case?
Sure.
Think of it as pro bono. Maybe I just feel compassion for Britney. Maybe I think she’s cute and there might be a chance she’ll be so grateful she’d go out with me dancing afterwards. Maybe I’m making more money than I ever thought possible but the rest of my lucrative practice is very boring. Maybe I’m a publicity hound. Maybe she and I agree that she can pay me whatever she likes when the case is done, and maybe her gratitude will exceed my wildest expectations. On and on and on.
To make sure this doesn’t get lost in the thread, it’s a new piece by Ronan Farrow on the situation.
Here’s a question I haven’t seen anyone address, how common is it for someone of Spears age to be taken in like that? Even example shown in this topic is either an elderly person being fleeced or someone with severe mental problems. Is Spears basically the super odd bug in the system?
Yeah, pretty much. Although I believe Amanda Bynes spent a little time under conservatorship with her parents as well when she hit bottom. But that was apparently short term while she got sober and more stable.
In many states, it is unethical to take a criminal case or a family court case on a contingency basis. The stated rationale is that the temptation is too great for the lawyer to lie, cheat or steal in order to get the desired result and get paid. How this is different from a civil case, I’m not sure.
The NYT article says that:
"While hospitalized, she had contacted a lawyer named Adam Streisand. He represented her in a court hearing on February 4th, attesting that Spears had a “strong desire” that Jamie not be a conservator.
But the judge, based on a report from Ingham and testimony from Spar, ruled that Spears had no capacity to retain an attorney. Spears spoke with another lawyer, Jon Eardley, who attempted to move the case to federal court.
The lawyers for the conservatorship argued that “Britney lacked the capacity to hire Mr. Eardley to file the Notice of Removal on her behalf, and therefore could not have hired him.”
Another lawyer who attempted to represent her was subsequently disbarred for, well, trying to represent her.
There’s also a comment about her going out for a meal with her hair colourist and the bill being more than she had that week. $2000 is enough for an ordinary person to pay for their non-essential costs. Britney Spears doesn’t live in a world where she can choose to eat at restaurants that are even just normal-level expensive.
I’m not taking the article as thoroughly true, however. Even if it were all true, it sounds like, if Britney Spears ever gets out of this, she’ll need a lot of help and it would be really good if people did leave her alone. The thing with the kind of conservatorship she’s been under is that it can actually make you incapable of looking after yourself.
This topic doesn’t count for leaving her alone, partly because the publicity might actually help her for once, and partly because she’s a good test case to try and free other people in abusive conservatorships. That’s one of the main reasons I’m interested in it - nothing personal to me, they’re just horrific.
I was actually wondering how anyone who could put their own shoes on could be dumber than our cat, but he got his name (Simple) for very good reasons.
I have the right to make breeding decisions for our cats. I have no right to make breeding decisions for another person. If I did, my sister would have been fixed after her fourth kid.
Oh, well, if Ted Cruz is on the case…I’m pretty sure Britney’s going to be committed within a week.
There’s a Netflix movie I Care a Lot that takes conservatorship to an extreme, but not unknown end.
I just ran across this article which compares Britney’s sitch to the movie and the reference a notorious Nevada case as well.
The one thing about guardianships/conservatorships that I don’t understand is why some states allow anyone to petition to have someone declared incapacitated. I’m not saying that family members/social service agencies/institutions always have the person’s best interests at heart or always make the right decision regarding seeking guardianship - I’m sure they don’t always. But at least family members/social service agencies/institutions have some knowledge of the person’s capacity - I’ve read articles* where it seems that some guardians just drive around town looking for likely victims and I can’t see a reason why we would want just anyone to be able to petition to put someone under a guardianship.
* although I can’t put my hands on one now.