Curtis Lee Witters

My divorce was the first encounter, for me personally, with the legal system. Curtis Witters was a recommendation by a personal friend. He is a gentleman whom which I had a good working relationship with and put my trust in completely through the divorce process. The criticism here come post divorce... as I came to grips with what happened to me in court. I tried to speak with Mr. Witters post divorce about my concerns,which he received as "accusations" against him and his firm. My only "known" recourse after he refused to speak with me was a complaint with the Florida Bar. Had I known or been advised I could sue for malpractice I would have! At the time of the divorce I was about to to turn fifty years old. I was married to a woman JUST over twenty years. She was five years younger than I. A constant theme with Witters was to avoid permanent alimony. Our many conversations and my numerous emails to Mr. Witters emphasized the point. The litigation terminated after a trial where, after a several week deliberation, the judge rendered his decision telephonically as I sat with Mr. Witters in his office. When the judge addressed the issue of alimony he commented that, "I believe I am required to make these findings {regarding alimony and Florida Statue 61.08} even though the parties AGREE that this is a permanent periodic case." The judge awarded permanent alimony. My attorney did not object to the award and after the conclusion of the phone ruling expressed the opinion to the that the ruling was appropriate and that he recommend that I not appeal. I was incredulous at the comment and even asked if he'd feel the same way if the judge had passed the life sentence on to his son. Trial was over, I was out of money and could only reflect on the judge's comment regarding alimony. Weeks later I requested a copy of the court transcript because I believed that Mr. Witters had to have said something to make the judge believe I agreed to the "something" I couldn't be more adamant against. Sure enough in opening statements my attorney made a statement "conceding" that the case before the judge is an alimony case. being in court for the first time; let alone a trial, I was very nervous and missed the significance at what he had said. Having been married for twenty years I knew some sort of alimony was on the table but the ONE thing I wanted my attorney to protect me from was the ONE thing the judge heard to think that I agreed. Mr Witters DID NOT protect me. Did not try to fix the problem and when questioned about it took serious offense. I am 8 years out from my divorce and have been back to court several times costing me thousands off dollars because of Mr. Witters incompetence!!