Judge Dale Wells in the latest issue from the Desert bar association wrote a “From the Bench” epistle, where he strongly suggested how attorneys are supposed to conduct themselves at certain proceedings in his court room:
“Resist pandering to your client. He/she is looking for an effective advocate. He/she may be momentarily blinded by emotion and outrage, but that is the very reason the client has hired you to put their case before the court persuasively. If you simply channel their venom, you will likely be no more effective than they would be if they had been self-represented. If you engage in inflammatory posturing and bombastic bluster, you may impress your client for the moment with your aggressiveness. But in the end, you will likely lose your real audience – the judge! Never forget that it is you who is the professional, not your client. You, as the Barrister, are supposed to be the cool voice of reason convincing the judge to reach the right result, not the client’s alter ego. The difference is easy for bench officers to spot.
Clients come and go, but your professional reputation will accompany you to court for years to come. Is it really worth sullying your credibility by approaching every court appearance with a flamethrower? You can do yourself and your clients a great benefit if you remember that in your office you may be a Solicitor, but in court you are a Barrister. You also give honor to the profession.”
This notice serves as a warning to any attorney representing clients in the Coachella Valley that if they effectively attempt to litigate their case on behalf of their clients that they will be judicially retaliated against “as their professional reputation” will be sullied.
As a litigant who has experienced the judicial retaliation and judicial malfeasance of Judge Dale Wells at every hearing and ruling, which does not abide by the law I can only marvel at the hypocrisy displayed in this “speech”.
I have personally witnessed hearings in Judge Dale Wells’ court room where attorneys have made effective representations. They abide by the law, they remind Judge Dale Wells of the law and object, for example that a mediator’s recommendation, cannot be adopted as an order over objection.
Judge Wells, however, has judicially retaliated against attorneys who have effectively managed to present their case and ruled against the law.
The repercussions are enormous. First of all the Best Interest of the Child standard is not adhered to, if an order is adopted against the prevailing statute and law. Secondly, Judge Wells removes evidence and litigates cases on behalf of the father. An appeal will take a year or two, providing of course that litigants can afford to pay their attorneys $ 5000- $ 10,000 for an appeal and in that time, a child has lost their mother and father. Perhaps Judge Dale Wells can quantify the amount of damages that he would allocate for his judicial malfeasance and malevolence and now the warning to attorneys “shut up and don’t anger the judge” or you will not be able to retain clients.
Judge Wells in his sermons at the Church of Christ in Palm Desert preaches about doing the right thing.
Judge Wells in his sermons reminds his congregation that God is with them:
ACTS 18: 9-10 “Do not be afraid …….. for I am with you and no one is going to attack and harm you ……..”
Yet Judge Dale Wells harms parents and their children on a daily basis, used children as punitive sanctions against this mother and has yet to make any rulings where this litigant is involved in that abide by the law.
Perhaps Judge Wells should be reminded, rather than offering meaningless speeches to act as a Judge in the Best Interest of the Child, to ABIDE BY THE LAW and TO DO NO HARM.