The motion was one of the five motions I made, to vacate sanctions imposed by Judge Becker upon me and my husband after we sued the judge. Elementary due process of law allows people to challenge decisions made by judges who are engaged in a pattern of misconduct before and after sanctions were imposed, misconduct that shows egregious bias of the judge against an attorney and a party - which Judge Becker cogently demonstrated. Apparently, due process of law is not applicable in Judge Dowd's court.
Judge Dowd decided to punish my client and husband for making the motion.
I recently received the transcript of the hearing and will start publishing it, portion by portion, with comments.
It appears that I will need to publish portions of the transcript issue by issue, as there are so many and all of them deserve be presented to the public separately.
I view this post as my service to the public - because many times, litigants appearing in front of Judge Dowd are either represented by timid attorneys who do not want to take the judge on for fear of being "blackballed", or not represented at all, lack funds to obtain transcripts, lack funds to hire an attorney to analyze the judge's mistakes.
The public needs to know about possible incompetence of a public servant, especially with the tremendous power that a Supreme Court justice has in New York.
So - the first cluster of issues that I will analyze in the series of posts about Judge Dowd's evidentiary rulings is whether an attorney can bill a client for legal services of a non-attorney, and do it without the client's knowledge or consent.
In the evidentiary hearing on counsel fees, attorney Richard Harlem presented to the court an exhibit showing that he charged his 6 clients, at $100.00, for legal research and for drafting of legal documents, done by a Patrick Orr, who was at that time not admitted to New York State bar.
I contested legality of such billing.
Mr. Harlem claimed that Patrick Orr's work in doing legal research and drafting legal documents was "beneficial" to Mr. Harlem's clients - and apparently, to Mr. Harlem everything else is irrelevant.
Moreover, attorney Harlem further claimed that in an application for attorney fees the only issue that a court must consider is whether the fees are "fair and reasonable",
and that was in rebuttal to my argument that to be fair an reasonable, the fees claimed must also be legal and in compliance with applicable law and rules: