In a Decision – Macek v Peisch - (an "Unreported Decision") >>
Defendant-father had filed malpractice actions against the two prior attorneys appointed to represent him in support enforcement hearings, and that he had requested that the third be removed because the attorney, against whom father had threatened to file a grievance, allegedly had not done the things that father thought were reasonable to do.
The Family Division judge found that father was aware, pursuant to Administrative Directive #2-14 (Apr. 14, 2014), that if for "whatever reason [counsel] cannot be appointed, incarceration is not an available remedy." The judge noted that "with every attorney we have appointed for [father, he] . . . either threatened [to sue] them, or . . . filed a notice of claim." Because father knew he had been found indigent and also knew he could not be incarcerated without counsel, father was "using the appointed counsel as a ploy to [either gain] time or delay this proceeding." The court concluded "[i]f I appoint another counsel [you are] just [going to] fire or threaten to fire that counsel, and then this is going to keep going on and on."
the Court Held:
The Appellate Division noted that the Family Part believed that father sought to manipulate the system to avoid incarceration by claiming the need for assigned counsel and then rejecting every attorney assigned to his case by suing or threatening to sue them.
The Appellate Division nevertheless found that the court's determination was not adequately supported on the record, as the court did not have a copy of the malpractice complaints or the affidavits of merit, and did not determine anything about the status of the litigation or explore the nature or validity of the underlying claims when it determined father waived his right to appointed counsel.