THE RULE IN WEHRINGER'S CASE

Astonishingly, there really do appear to be some practitioners around the state who don't know that it is unethical to insist on continuing to keep the location of parentally abducted children a secret until the other side has entered into a satisfactory settlement. You have to ask yourself "Where do the law schools get these people?" (And if they must keep them, why don't they teach them legal ethics?) Have they never heard of Wehringer's case, or do they just not care?

Mr. Wehringer has the dubious distinction of being one of those very few lawyers to be disbarred by two different states, and not for the same unethical act. (He did this once in each state. See Wehringer's Case, 547 A.2d 252 (N.H. 1988), and In re Wehringer, 525 NYS 2d 605 (App. Div. 1988).) It would hardly seem to make a difference whether the extortionist offers to reveal the sequestered children's location conditioned on a settlement of property, support, and custody/visitation issues, or only the last two of these or only the last one, but in any event Mr. Wehringer demanded a settlement on all three. Negotiating such an agreement on behalf of the child-snatcher can subject you to some major heat. Unlikely as it would seem that there are such lawyers out there, especially in our fair State, should you run up against such unfair tactics there is at least one device that sometimes works. That is to get off immediately a letter that says the following:

"Madam:

I have considered your statement in our phone conversation
of January 26 that you will not divulge the location of my client's
minor children until we have worked out a full settlement of the
custody, support and property issues now pending, and I find it so
unusual that I would like to know if I have somehow misunderstood you.
If I have misunderstood you, and that is not your position, then you
will FAX me your client's home address and phone number
by the close of business today, 5:00 PM."

User-tested, this has on occasion produced results. Of course if this opposing counsel is truly self-destructive, he or she will come back with something cute like:

"How dare you insinuate that I demanded a full settlement of all pending matters in exchange for location information on the children? I was only talking about a settlement of the pendente lite issues of custody, visitation and support that are set for hearing on Friday."

Whatever happens, for goodness sake don't acquiesce in such an obscene tradeoff: you might find yourself accused of taking part in and facilitating a transaction that is at least unethical, and subject to tort liability, if not unlawful.