Finally

 

…

These were the final paragraphs of the last filing in my appeal on 20 March 2017, my Petition for Rehearing:

…

VII: THE SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF LAWYERS

… [10] The legal profession is largely self-governing. Although other professions also have been granted powers of self-government, the legal profession is unique [ because ] ultimate authority over the legal profession in vested largely in the courts. … [12] The legal profession’s relative autonomy carries with it special responsibilities of self-government. The profession has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar. [ ‘Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Preamble and Scope’, The American Bar Association.]

The opinion of this Court of Appeal acknowledges that I got to know Mr Meredith when I retained him to negotiate a settlement agreement for me. The acute imbalance of power in our attorney-client relationship is obvious. The fiduciary role in which he entered my life created a degree of trust that left me vulnerable to the possibility of his using his professional expertise and network to do me undeserved harm. This Court’s affirmation of a judgment shaped by the unconventional proceedings below, skewed to the benefit of the respondent, has put me in a Kafkaesque predicament. A decision resting solely on the words of an officer of the trial court — against the clear weight of evidence — has not, so far, received objective, non-deferential scrutiny by the reviewing court.

Mr Meredith has all the advantages of an insider, in every sense. He is an American with nearly four decades of experience as a family law practitioner. I am, in every degree, an outsider — an E.U. or British citizen without legal training, assistance, or power in the legal community, seeking help from a rural base that is a seven-hour journey from San Francisco and the trial and appellate courts on McAllister Street. It is not surprising that Mr Meredith has persistently rebuffed my proposals that we discuss a reasonable settlement of this case.

I am asking that the unique difficulties of my position also be taken account in considering this petition.

…

The answer from the appellate justices? After my Petition for Rehearing received only silence for a reply, they awarded my former partner costs against me — something even the trial court had not done.

I hope that readers starting on this page of COTIN will read the articles on the rest of the site and ask themselves: could I have met the same fate if court proceedings were conducted with an intelligent online audience?