Assisting Client Get Other Party's Contact Information

[EShear0715]

My question relates to legal practice in the state of: NY

I am currently the "other party" in a divorce case. I have a restraining order against my soon to be ex husband and custody of our children. I currently live out of state and my ex does not have my current address and up until recently my phone number. We use a court monitored messaging interface for communication. A few months ago he was trying to serve me papers and didn't have my current address. His lawyer contacted my attorney here in CA and requested the information which they didn't provide. Last week he called me on a phone number he was not supposed to know. When I called to report it as a possible RO violation he told the deputy he got the number from his lawyer. If this is in fact the truth, is the lawyer allowed to go to lengths for him to help him get alternative contact and whereabouts information for me with a current restraining order?

[PayrolGuy]

Sure he is. And ducking service is a good way to end up with a default judgment against you.

Why did your lawyer simply not tell his lawyer that the papers could be served to your lawyer?

[EShear0715]

Sure he is. And ducking service is a good way to end up with a default judgment against you.

Why did your lawyer simply not tell his lawyer that the papers could be served to your lawyer?

I wasn't ducking service I was unaware that they were trying to serve me. And it was a NY state petition and NY state lawyer contacting my attorney here in CA. The paralegal told me they didn't feel it was there place to provide my information

[PayrolGuy]

I wasn't ducking service I was unaware that they were trying to serve me. And it was a NY state petition and NY state lawyer contacting my attorney here in CA. The paralegal told me they didn't feel it was there place to provide my information

It wasn't their place but they could have accepted service for you.

[pg1067]

I am currently the "other party" in a divorce case.

What does this mean?

Last week he called me on a phone number he was not supposed to know. When I called to report it as a possible RO violation he told the deputy he got the number from his lawyer. If this is in fact the truth, is the lawyer allowed to go to lengths for him to help him get alternative contact and whereabouts information for me with a current restraining order?

Depends on the terms (i.e., the specific language) of the restraining order, which we don't know.

[jk]

Sure he is. And ducking service is a good way to end up with a default judgment against you.

Why did your lawyer simply not tell his lawyer that the papers could be served to your lawyer?

if the lawyer knew the other party has a lawyer, they know all contact is to be through their lawyer. There is no anybody suggesting anything here. No, the lawyer who providdd the phone number is possibly now complicit in the guy violating the RO and should be reported to his states BAR for his actions. He shouldn’t have done what he did and he knows that.

[PayrolGuy]

The OP wrote, "His lawyer contacted my attorney here in CA".


jk wrote, "There is no anybody suggesting anything here."

PayrolHRGuy wrote, "Huh?"

[jk]

The OP wrote, "His lawyer contacted my attorney here in CA".


jk wrote, "There is no anybody suggesting anything here."

PayrolHRGuy wrote, "Huh?"

You said:

[

Why did your lawyer simply tell his lawyer that the papers could be served to your lawyer

when a lawyer knows a party has representation, they are required to not contact the other party without permission from the other party and their attorney. The papers must be served to her lawyer by his lawyer since both are represented. It isn’t optional so her lawyer making a suggestion that they could receive the documents ignoring the fact they actually must be served to the op through her lawyer.


and

it wasn’t their place but they could have accepted service for you

this is wrong. It is the ops lawyers obligation to accept service on her behalf. All communications from the other party or the court must go through her attorney.


These aren't simply courtesy issues. These are rules lawyers are obligated to abide by.

[PayrolGuy]

You are clearly misreading what I wrote.

This was a typo

Why did your lawyer simply tell his lawyer that the papers could be served to your lawyer...

It should have said,

Why didn't your lawyer simply tell his lawyer that the papers could be served to your lawyer

[jk]

You are clearly misreading what I wrote.

This was a typo

Why did your lawyer simply tell his lawyer that the papers could be served to your lawyer...

It should have said,

Why didn't your lawyer simply tell his lawyer that the papers could be served to your lawyer

and that is still incorrect. Her attorney would have told his attorney that all service MUST be sent to him. Could would be incorrect. Must is the correct word.

And the other attorney would also know this so fishing for information is pretty sketchy on the part of his attorney. I would file a complaint with that attorneys state BAR.