Parties have the right to an attorney for a family court proceeding. If you can’t afford an attorney, you may have one appointed to you. Because I could not afford an attorney at the time, I was appointed Mr. Nazarian, an attorney from the area.
Throughout my meetings and discussion with Mr. Nazarian, it seemed to me that his primary interest was simply getting me to “knock off”, my desire to have the sentiments which I was representing to him, represented in my proceedings.
Here is the correspondence between him and myself where our relationship broke down. Also included are the emails that immediately followed.
In Mr. Nazarian’s email, he threatens me with with wholly leaving me on my own with my fight for my family matters; while also doing his best to characterize this same fight as insurmountable without him. This is beyond ridiculous. If I won’t sway from my representations, than what he is ‘ethically’ obligated to do, is to represent them…
Here is what Mr. Nazarian drafts for the court to use to remove himself from my case. Look specifically at Paragraph 6 page 5. This copy of this motion and proposed order, was the copy that I had brought with me on the date it was heard:
So it can be seen, that because Mr. Nazarian is advising me to seek alternative representation, while also trying to get me to forgo my right to an attorney if I choose to represent myself; That I am being pressured to forgo my considerations for my matters, in such a way that is outside of due process of law.
If I think or feel a certain way about something that is being handled by a court, I have the right to bring those sentiments to the court or otherwise “represent” them. If what is being brought to the court are not my sentiments, then how can it be considered that the proceeding is in any way related to me? Is it because the results may effect me? How can it be considered that representations which are not representative of a party, have anything to do with a case or any legal proceeding whatsoever?
After reviewing the documents that my then attorney had sent me, I went to the proceeding; and the judge asked me if I agreed to the proposed order written by my then attorney, in all aspects. My response, after I mustered the courage to go against the wishes of the court and the established motion of the proceeding (which was difficult for me to do at the time), was that I wanted to represent myself, while also retaining my right to an attorney as well.
After the judge looked at Mr. Nazarian with the look of, “this undesirable circumstance, now established, is the result of your actions” (or otherwise, look what you did). My counsel was subsequently relieved, and I then made the case which I had planned to that day.