My abusive ex husband had his parental rights taken away and he appealed. My jack-*** lawyer told me for months that he didn't NEED to file a brief in the appeal, because it was a shoe-in. A week before all briefs were required to be submitted, my lawyer called and said, "You need to pay me the money you owe me if you want me to file a brief, because it is due in a week, and it will take me exactly a week to make one." Needlesss to say, I was very angry and upset because I couldn't come up with $1400 instantly, and I felt as though he betrayed me. I couldn't get another lawyer in time, so the appeal proceeded anyhow. Three days ago I got a letter in the mail from the supreme court, and under the heading "per curiam" it explains how the case went in district court, that the district court had terminated parental rights, then that last sentence above. Does this mean I am finally free to feel a little relief?
2007-01-22 02:36:15 · 5 answers · asked by looking_for_all_the_answers 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
"Per Curiam" isn't important to your case. It just means no single judge decided it. It was decided unanimously by the whole Court and they felt it unnecessary to write an opinion. You won! Your lawyer did not need to write a brief and I'm glad you didn't pay him to do so. It was negligent on his part not to have explained this to you and you could report him to the Disciplinary Board of your state bar. You cannot sue the lawyer for malpractice because his actions did not have a negative effect on you. I often recommend reporting attorneys, but I'm inclined to tell you not to do so in this instance. He should have really explained this to you much better and told you, in detail, why a brief was unnecessary. It turns out he was right, so I'd let it go. (Don't recommend him to any friends. He's obviously bad at correct communication with his clients.) BTW-this is the first time I've ever answered this type of question and not recommended a disciplinary complaint, so I don't protect lawyers just because I am one.
2007-01-22 02:53:52 · answer #1 · answered by David M 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
de novo means that they reviewed the whole case from the beginning. usually an appeals court will only look at one little issue and decide if the trial court was right or wrong on that issue only, and then send it back to trial court to redo it the right way.
in some limited cases, like yours, they look at everything. that's all de novo means.
affirm means that they agree with the ruling the trial court made
without opinion, simply means they don't feel they need to explain themselves; they have no difference of opinion with the trial court that is important enough to talk about.
as far as your attorney and money and filing a brief....it sounds like there's more to that story, and without knowing all of it, i couldn't hope to guide you there.
but you won. the appeal was lost and that should be the end of it.
ps you couldn't have been in district court...that's federal...you were in whatever your state's appeals court would be....in PA its the superior court. since your letter came from the SUPREME court, that's the court you were in. if that's the highest court in your state, then there is nothing left for the loser to do. the case is over. if there is a higher court in your state, then he can try to appeal to that one, but i wouldn't worry about it. this is why. the first level of appeals is usually compulsory, aka that court HAS to take the case. but the second level of appeal is usually discretionary, meaning the court doesn't have to even hear the appeal if they don't think it looks good. since your letter came back with a simple affirm and no opinion, then its highly likely that a higher court would not take another appeal.
in short, you can relax. its over.
2007-01-22 15:43:43 · answer #2 · answered by ladylawyer26 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court--that means you won. And you saved $1400, but you still should report your attorney to whatever committee on professional conduct your state has. He should have quoted you a price at the onset of the appeal--not a week before it was due, then you could have made an informed decision about how to proceed. Here, you didn't have that choice, but luckily enough, you won anyway.
A per curium opinion is one that is ghost written, instead of one written by Justice so and so.....they do those alot in no merit cases b/c it's faster to get the process done. It's very complicated to explain, but it's a very valid decision and that's all that matters at this point.
Congratulations!
2007-01-22 11:16:56 · answer #3 · answered by kathylouisehall 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. "Per curium" means it is an opinion of the court as a whole and not a particular judge or judges. "De novo review" means that the court reviewed the record with no deference to the lower court's decision. "Affirm without opinion" means that the lower court's decision stands exactly as it was without a written opinion. Therefore, if you are happy with the trial court's decision, it is time to breath a sigh of relief.
2007-01-22 11:12:29 · answer #4 · answered by Tara P 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
call the clerk of the court she / he will be able to explain in full what that statement means...........
and for your sake I hope ts what you wanted, your lawyer sounds a bit of an idiot.
2007-01-22 10:54:32 · answer #5 · answered by candy g 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋