- 13 -
Unreasonable Protraction of Proceedings
When this consolidated case was called from the calendar for
trial on June 6, 1994, that was the fourth time the case had been
noticed for trial. Attorney Riley's failure to comply with this
Court's Standing Pre-Trial Order and to prepare these cases for
trial for that June 6, 1994 trial session is detailed above.
Respondent's motion to dismiss all issues as to which petitioners
had the burden of proof for failure properly to prosecute was
granted because of such failure. The Court set the case for
trial on June 13, 1994, on the fraud issues as to which
respondent had the burden of proof. Attorney Riley then filed a
motion to set aside the default which was heard on June 10, 1994.
In the course of oral argument on that motion, the parties met
during a recess and settled the deficiency and fraud issues
involving petitioner husbands, leaving only the innocent spouse
issues remaining. The Court accepted the parties' settlement,
vacated the prior dismissal, and set a schedule looking to the
trial of the innocent spouse issues.
That did not, however, end the delays. Attorney Riley's
delays in furnishing documents continued right up to and even
during the trial itself. On or about June 24, 1994, Attorney
Riley began to provide the relevant documents, and his production
of documents continued intermittently up to and even during trial
itself. The Court's intervention was required to effectuate this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011