Camacho had a lot of nerve taking on a client, knowing that, in so doing, she intentionally invented a conflict. The rulings were well deserved.
These if preexisting matters wind up colliding from time to time, as they are bound to do, the problems can usually be worked out. If they are dead-on conflicts scheduled for the same time in different vicinages, factors like the relative seniority of the judges and the relative ages of the matters typically come into play. Things rarely get that dramatic. In all the many years I've been practicing here, I only had one instance where a judge in one county and another from a different county both insisted that I appear at the same time. I opted to go to the Presiding, tenured judge in the one county, had my offices notify the other and my adversary where I was and that I would be there the moment I could, along with keeping them both posted on my progress. It was pouring rain (natch) and Route 1 was grossly flooded in my path. I got there when I got there. No consequences whatsoever.
On still another occasion, I was bound for an ESP. Route 18 was flooded out and it was a parking lot. My adversary was coming from the opposite direction and had no problems whatsoever. She was promptly notified of my situation, as was the judge, via law clerk. I was on the road for well over two hours and nowhere near being there. I called and asked permission from the judge to turn back and reschedule for another day. I received confirmation that I was released.
Upon finally returning to my office, my Practice Manager told me that our adversary was being a jackass, demanding that I show up, and threating sanctions. As the saying goes, "Go fly a kite."
Well... there was some mix-up. The law clerk received permission from the PJ, but the adversary complained to the judge assigned to the case, who ordered sanctions. The law clerk went to the judge and told him that he cleared me to abandon ship. Made no difference. On principle alone , I took him up on appeal and he was reversed, somewhat embarrassingly. He had sanctioned me $1000, which is the most you can without triggering the right to a jury trial. Missed the tenure boat as well. Sorry, just couldn't resist.
------------------------------
Curtis Romanowski Esq.
Senior Attorney - Proprietor
Metuchen NJ
(732)603-8585
Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2016 16:05
From: Angela Barker
Subject: adjournment: Is there a rule
Colleagues:
I just read a case New Jersey case where a family lawyer had to pay attorneys fees for failure to appear (see below). Since you cannot be in two places at one time I am wondering if New Jersey like New York should not move towards a more formal rules for engagement of counsel. For example I know in New York that if I am on trial and I have a motion returnable the same day I know the trial takes precedence. If I have an order of protection hearing that takes precedence over a status conference. Etc. Etc. It is very formal and gives clear directions. Anyone ever proposed that NJ does the same? See below....
FAMILY LAW | ATTORNEY FEES20-2-9720 Brinkrode v. Brinkrode, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (8 pp.) Defendant Kathryn Brinkrode appealed from the Family Part order requiring her attorneys, Camacho Gardner & Associates L.L.P., to pay the attorney fees incurred by plaintiff Klaus Brinkrode as a result of the failure of Milagros Camacho, Esq. to timely appear for a motion hearing. Defendant also appealed from the order denying her motion for reconsideration and ordering Camacho to pay attorney fees plaintiff incurred for the reconsideration motion. On Sept. 20, 2013. At Camacho's request, plaintiff's attorney consented to scheduling the motion hearing for 1:30 p.m. Two hours before the hearing, Camacho contacted the trial judge, requesting an adjournment because she had to appear in a juvenile matter for which she was retained the prior evening. Plaintiff's attorney did not consent to the adjournment. The judge denied an adjournment. Plaintiff and his attorney appeared at 1:30 p.m., but Camacho did not appear. Instead, she appeared in the juvenile matter. Camacho finally appeared at approximately 3:30 p.m. The judge ordered Camacho to pay $700 for plaintiff's attorney fees, representing two hours of the attorney's time waiting for Camacho to appear. On defendant's behalf, Camacho filed a motion for reconsideration, which the judge denied. The judge affirmed the $700 fee award and ordered Camacho to pay it within seven days or face a sanction of $5 per day. The judge also ordered Camacho to pay an additional $750 for attorney fees plaintiff incurred for the motion for reconsideration, finding the motion was without merit. On appeal, defendant argued the judge should have granted an adjournment; Camacho had "just excuse" for an adjournment and gave reasonable attention to the scheduling conflict; and the judge erred in imposing the additional sanctions. The appellate panel found that the judge was well within her discretion to deny an adjournment and require Camacho to pay plaintiff's attorney fees for failure to timely appear for the motion hearing and for the motion for reconsideration. Camacho's conduct constituted a breach of her duty to the court to obey the judge's order to appear at 1:30 p.m. and not disrupt the court's calendar. Camacho failed to timely appear for the motion hearing without just excuse and failed to give reasonable attention to this matter.
Angela Barker
Law Office of Angela Barker, LLC
Tel: (646) 415-8883
(201) 336-0352
Fax: (646) 395-9562