During the c.a.a's appointment her biases and lies became apparent and I filed a motion to replace her. unfortunately due to the heavy case load the motion was not addressed until the final hearing. However she had access to see the motions that I had filed so she attempted to exclude any traces of her biases in her review. her review was due to be completed by 9/30/19 and she didn't turn it in until 11/13/19 our hearing was set for 11/15/19 not giving either party to prepare exhibits to contradict any of her statements.
during court she made several statements to which I had copies of emails that did not align. I asked her questions in court to which she had no choice but to concede. However due to her position, and my lack of an attorney to advise me on other ways to discredit her, the judge was left with no choice but to make a decision using some of her recommendations.
the respondent, did not complete the PIP required by law and he failed to show in court as well. now I have a final decree in favor of respondent even though the c.a.a. was clearing working in his favor.
The unfortunate reality is that witnesses proffer false or misleading testimony in nearly every case. The only real recourse is effective cross examination and presentation of contrary evidence. If you believe the outcome was unduly influenced by testimony contrary to the evidence, you can review Rules 83, 84, and 85 to determine if your situation warrants a post-judgment motion. These remedies are very time sensitive so you will want to evaluate your options quickly.
You can call or text (480) 550-8697 for a free consultation or visit www.hallunderwood.com for more information. The material on this website has been prepared and published for informational purposes only. There is no effort or intention to solicit new clients or new engagements from existing clients by way of this website; nor should any of the information published on the website be construed as representing any of our lawyers' availability to practice in jurisdictions where they are not authorized to do so. Our attorneys are licensed to practice only in Arizona. None of these materials are offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. Communication of information by or through this website and your receipt or use of such information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship with Hall Underwood or any of the firm's attorneys. The creation of the attorney-client relationship would require direct, personal contact between you and our firm through one or more attorneys and would also require an explicit agreement by the firm that confirms that an attorney-client relationship is established and expresses the terms of that relationship. You should not act or rely upon information contained in these materials without specifically seeking professional legal advice from an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.
Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.What determines Avvo Rating?Experience & background
Years licensed, work experience, educationLegal community recognition
Peer endorsements, associations, awardsLegal thought leadership
Publications, speaking engagementsDiscipline