Stephanie Ellen Powell

Stephanie Powell

I always give clients a choice to object to a requested continuance, even if I ultimately feel the case is not ready for trial. I have, on many occasions, objected to requests for continuances that a client did not want. Sometimes I'm successful; sometimes a court feels the continuance is necessary. There are often many moving parts in family law litigation -- two attorneys with busy schedules, perhaps testifying experts whose schedules may impact when a trial is feasible, or a Guardian Ad Litem or parenting evaluator who must complete exhaustive investigations prior to writing and filing a lengthy report -- and then must be available to testify. Continuances are rarely sought for any reason other than unavailability of one or more crucial participants. Courts are also mindful of the need for closure and don't frequently grant continuances without justification. This review is anonymous and I can't think of a case of mine that has been subject to multiple continuances, unless for the above-stated reasons. I am mindful of the need bring a case to a close. My duty to my client, as I see it, is to provide an honest assessment of the readiness of the case for trial and the impact of the unavailability of one or more crucial players. Once I've given my client the tools to make an informed decision about the necessity of a continuance, I will always follow their instructions and object to a continuance. Whether it is ultimately granted is, of course, up to a judge.