Lorraine Coyle Koppell...
...is an attorney representing a man who cheated on his wife. Now, there's nothing wrong with that, even cheaters deserve a lawyer in a divorce. But the behavior of this woman is, in my opinion, the reason that 2,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean is nothing more than a good start.
Attorney's are officers of the court and although I'm not sure exactly what that means, I'm pretty sure that officers of the court are supposed to know the law. Even if this woman was absent from law school the day that they gave the lecture about not speaking directly to an adversary who has an attorney, you would think that she would have enough class to simply honor a letter from another attorney requesting that she stop harrassing his client and that she contact the law office directly.
Instead, Mrs. Koppell wrote a letter to the woman threatening her with a restraining order after one of the husband's co-workers ran into the wife on the street. The wife was waiting to meet someone about a rental property when one of her husband's co-workers walked up to her and began a conversation. The co-worker badgered the wife for an answer to the following question:
"Why do you insist that your husband is sleeping with Colleen Lombardi?"
Apparently the husband and his mistress have totally thrown their personal lives into their work environment. When I think of Colleen Lombardi and the women that my husband worked with and screwed, I have to wonder if there's anyone watching to see if these people work at all. I want one of those jobs.
Anyway, the co-worker went back to the mistress to tell her about running into the wife. Then, the mistress told the husband who told his attorney who threatened the wife with a restraining order. That attorney is Lorraine Coyle Koppell. Mrs. Koppell knows that her client had no basis for a restraining order based upon those facts but she sent the wife a letter threatening just that very thing. And...she sent the letter to the wife's home address threatening to have her served at work where "one of your co-worker's might interecept the complaint". Who's harrassing whom here?
You can't get a person in front of a judge without some sort of probable cause. Unfortunately, Mrs. Koppell realizes that there is no such law protecting us from crazed attorneys who like to accuse people of crimes without any reason whatsoever. When the woman's attorney called Mrs. Koppell to complain about her behavior, Mrs. Koppell told the attorney to "take a Valium". She must be one helluva swell dinner date, wouldn't you think?
And then, just to be a bitch (I can't think of any other reason) Mrs. Koppell sent the letter to the wife under her maiden name, even though Mrs. Koppell knows the woman's married/legal name.
Let's see...another attorney asked her not to do that, nothing that she accused the wife of would have a legal basis for any of the threats that the nut made against the wife and she got the wife's name wrong on purpose to be hurtful. How professional is this?
That's not all. This nut lady "was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Boston." But don't read too much into that...according to democratic pundit Andrew Wolf of the New York Sun, "The process that put her in her seat illuminates much that is wrong with the Party."
And, she ran for a seat in the New York State Legislature, prompting the following comment from democratic party member Mike Bendetto, "When I first heard that Lorraine Coyle Koppell was running, I was pretty annoyed about it." Benedetto was so upset by Mrs. Koppell's candidacy that he ran for the seat himself. He charged that Mrs. Koppell may be running as a way of getting "revenge" on Roberto Ramirez for what he claimed was "two earlier failed efforts on her part to obtain a judgeship." He continued on to say that, "I couldn't take the chance that lightning would hit, and Lorraine Coyle Koppell could actually win. That's when I inserted myself into the race."
Luckliy for the state of New York, this woman didn't win that campaign, losing (according to an email from a consituent of Mrs. Koppell) to a felon. But, unfortunately for a New York woman going through a divorce, she is still practicing law. But, she is also still calling that woman at home, bullying her while she has an attorney that she should be speaking to.
Hopefully, with the help of opposing attorneys and a well written letter to the New York State Bar Association, Mrs. Koppell won't be allowed to do these things for much longer.
...is an attorney representing a man who cheated on his wife. Now, there's nothing wrong with that, even cheaters deserve a lawyer in a divorce. But the behavior of this woman is, in my opinion, the reason that 2,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean is nothing more than a good start.
Attorney's are officers of the court and although I'm not sure exactly what that means, I'm pretty sure that officers of the court are supposed to know the law. Even if this woman was absent from law school the day that they gave the lecture about not speaking directly to an adversary who has an attorney, you would think that she would have enough class to simply honor a letter from another attorney requesting that she stop harrassing his client and that she contact the law office directly.
Instead, Mrs. Koppell wrote a letter to the woman threatening her with a restraining order after one of the husband's co-workers ran into the wife on the street. The wife was waiting to meet someone about a rental property when one of her husband's co-workers walked up to her and began a conversation. The co-worker badgered the wife for an answer to the following question:
"Why do you insist that your husband is sleeping with Colleen Lombardi?"
Apparently the husband and his mistress have totally thrown their personal lives into their work environment. When I think of Colleen Lombardi and the women that my husband worked with and screwed, I have to wonder if there's anyone watching to see if these people work at all. I want one of those jobs.
Anyway, the co-worker went back to the mistress to tell her about running into the wife. Then, the mistress told the husband who told his attorney who threatened the wife with a restraining order. That attorney is Lorraine Coyle Koppell. Mrs. Koppell knows that her client had no basis for a restraining order based upon those facts but she sent the wife a letter threatening just that very thing. And...she sent the letter to the wife's home address threatening to have her served at work where "one of your co-worker's might interecept the complaint". Who's harrassing whom here?
You can't get a person in front of a judge without some sort of probable cause. Unfortunately, Mrs. Koppell realizes that there is no such law protecting us from crazed attorneys who like to accuse people of crimes without any reason whatsoever. When the woman's attorney called Mrs. Koppell to complain about her behavior, Mrs. Koppell told the attorney to "take a Valium". She must be one helluva swell dinner date, wouldn't you think?
And then, just to be a bitch (I can't think of any other reason) Mrs. Koppell sent the letter to the wife under her maiden name, even though Mrs. Koppell knows the woman's married/legal name.
Let's see...another attorney asked her not to do that, nothing that she accused the wife of would have a legal basis for any of the threats that the nut made against the wife and she got the wife's name wrong on purpose to be hurtful. How professional is this?
That's not all. This nut lady "was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Boston." But don't read too much into that...according to democratic pundit Andrew Wolf of the New York Sun, "The process that put her in her seat illuminates much that is wrong with the Party."
And, she ran for a seat in the New York State Legislature, prompting the following comment from democratic party member Mike Bendetto, "When I first heard that Lorraine Coyle Koppell was running, I was pretty annoyed about it." Benedetto was so upset by Mrs. Koppell's candidacy that he ran for the seat himself. He charged that Mrs. Koppell may be running as a way of getting "revenge" on Roberto Ramirez for what he claimed was "two earlier failed efforts on her part to obtain a judgeship." He continued on to say that, "I couldn't take the chance that lightning would hit, and Lorraine Coyle Koppell could actually win. That's when I inserted myself into the race."
Luckliy for the state of New York, this woman didn't win that campaign, losing (according to an email from a consituent of Mrs. Koppell) to a felon. But, unfortunately for a New York woman going through a divorce, she is still practicing law. But, she is also still calling that woman at home, bullying her while she has an attorney that she should be speaking to.
Hopefully, with the help of opposing attorneys and a well written letter to the New York State Bar Association, Mrs. Koppell won't be allowed to do these things for much longer.
posted by Meg Kelso | 1:28 AM
14 Comments:
Meg,
Two things:
1. I agree with Shakespeare, who said, "First, kill all the lawyers".
2. The NY lady who is being harassed by this lawyer (and yes, I know who she is) has an attorney who is remiss in her (his?) duties as well if charges of harassment are not being filed against her.
Anne
I love your writing!
Meg,
Continue the course, you are doing the right thing!
As one who went to Law School (although I am no longer a practicing Atttorney) I can tell you that it is an ethical violation for an attorney to contact an advesary who is known to be represented b counsel. Although the niceties of this rule do vary by state, that is the general rule; thus the lawyer may not be directly in violation. You could, however, contact your state bar's ethical board to know exacty what the rule is. However, the lawyer should know this, and even the lawyer who is representing the party that was contacted would know what the letter of the rule is. Hope this helps.
Solaris,
You're so sweet, I'm not going anywhere until God asks me to.
Radio dial man,
(Or is it really Raido dial man?)
You're right, I don't know what the rule is in New York, but I'm sure that once the attorney asks the opposing counsel to leave the client alone, it has to be done. This woman (the wife) didn't realize how unethical this [ractice was and now she WILL be telling her lawyer about all of the harrassment, she was just ignoring it before, not realizing how wrong Mrs. Koppell's behavior was.
Thanks for re-enforcing what I told her!
Meg
Read this conversation between Vincent and Guy - even they said she's a bitch:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0422,robbins,53973,5.html
SOP – Standard Operating Procedure, lawyers playing by the rules, only if you are lucky. It’s all a game, who’s going to back down first, who can toe the line, can you intimidate, can you imply something, all to play the game. It’s why lawyers are universally despised.
And if it was only opposing counsel that’d be bad enough, but it’s the whole system that plays – with you - the client, and your money, and your sanity.
I’ve been in litigation for over 18 months, and the stuff I’ve seen is enough to make a person vomit. And if you can get in chambers Pro Se (no court reporter so it’s all off the record) then the game gets absolutely crazy.
I’ve only started my Blog Domestic Relations Disaster recently, but I intend to document the dirty tricks I’ve learned. And since my wife hired one of the worst pit bull’s in the state, I have quite a few stories to tell.
We can all hope that someday there will be reform and these Neanderthal’s will be chased out of the system. Even the person who hires one of these pit bull game players is ill served. These people only serve themselves and their game, they could care less for their client.
My father is an attorney as well. He retired early rather than participate in the system that you speak of. It must blow to be an ethical attorney in today's world.
Thanks for your comment and the link...I bet you've got some GREAT stories to tell!
Meg
This post is a good one for men (or women) who are being kept from their kids:
http://diaryofmydivorce.blogspot.com/2005/12/kim-basinger-seems-to-love-backing.html
Meg
Opps, present company excluded, no offense to your Dad. Obviously there are exceptions to any broad statement, I’m hoping that my present (3rd) lawyer is slightly above the rest. I’ve had terrible experiences with lawyers at a terrible time in my life, so naturally I make some pretty harsh statements.
Some areas of practice maybe fine, but domestic relations has got to be the worst. Of all areas that could benefit from adversarial law, domestic relations is positively at the bottom of the list. It needs healing, understanding, mediation, focus on what’s truly important. It certainly does not need harassment, agitation, bullying or game playing.
This is so important when children are involved. I’m certainly not adverse to an all out fight, BUT when children are involved I have to draw the line. To do battle, and watch it’s impact on a child, just rips me apart. When I see my son begging his mother to stay a little longer, insisting to his guardian that his first wish is to see Daddy more, I wonder what evil a spouse can harbor to punish their own flesh and blood. And then when the system takes 2/3 of the child support funds for legal fees off the top, you can’t help but make the broad statement:
The whole damn system is f—ked up. There is absolutely no excuse for it, it is unacceptable.
Since March 2005, my son has had one overnight visit, has never spent an entire day with me, including both summer vacations – all because his mother has a bug up her ass and a pit bull lawyer whose played games with my son’s life for well over 18 months.
At one point, I even contemplated whether my son would be better off if I was out of his life (as my wife surely wants), whether the unrelenting aggravation we both suffered for sub-standard visitation was worth it. I reasoned that over time he’d stop missing me and he could move on. This was surely my lowest point. I sought advice from people who’d been through this toughest of situations. It was unanimous, I must standup to the challenge, it was an unbendable principle. In the end, my son’s resolve not to give up on me, despite the aggravation, the limited contact, for all this time, serves as the ultimate inspiration. But all of this is taking a toll on both of us.
PS: Meg, Thanks for the encouragement in your comment on my Blog, every little bit truly helps… Given your profile, you might like this post: Song: Single Status.
I did like that song. So, I went to your blog and wrote a big, long fricking comment about my tastes in music and other stuff. Then, I had to do one of those secret code type things and I lost the entire comment. That was annoying.
Now, I think I'll jsu speak back to you in a post.
Damn, that's annoying.
My dad did real estate and taxes. He did do occasional divorces but worked in a county (DuPage) which is in the suburban area of Chicago and there were a group of attorneys that prosecuted the wrong man, knowingly, and got him sentenced to death row. That was the case that got the death penalty halted in Illinois. Anyway, when all of those prosecutors ended up becoming judges, my father retired early. He gets so angry when the attorneys advertise on TV...you ought to see him.
Have a good one!
Meg
LOL, can you believe that I have to deal with this nutcase again? The empire strikes back, girlfriend!! Only this time I'm having loads of fun. You should see the correspondence the nut is sending the judge and cc'ing me on. At this point, she's making me feel high-profile! (If you are interested, go to Write Stuff to read it)
Hope you are feeling better.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I wish more people would come out to speak out against the vile machinations of Lorraine Coyle. She sniffs around for any available money and then does whatever it takes to grab hold of it. When I hear the name, Coyle, I think of her as a snake coiled around a wad of money. What a cold heartless bitch!
Well, it's 2013 and Coyle's MO hasn't improved. My encounter with her leaves me with the impression she is doing her best to maintain the disgusting reputation of all lawyers. She is a slime that has no consideration for anyone but herself and if you think you can fight it she will tell you right up front that it will be VERY expensive. Cold heartless bitch is being kind.
Post a Comment
<< Home