Had a trial recently, and the outcome is still pending.
The overview: Defendant Douche-Bag (DDB from here on in) is a handyman that not only conned a 90-year-old with dementia into doing $100k+ in "renovation" work on her condo, for which Adult Protective Services investigates and substantiates a finding of financial abuse - but nothing is done, He also secretly obtains the deed top her condo under interesting circumstances.
But wait, it gets better.
DDB also becomes her guardian - at the nomination of Adult Protective Services!, cuts off family and friends from seeing her, and then bilks the guardianship funds as well, including taking over $3,500 outof the account to clean it out after her death. Oh, and he does not tell anyone that she has died for 12 days, until the day before the hearing to remove him as guardian. But he does record the deed he got to the condo the very day she dies.
The deceased's remote family, who are out of state, then sues him for the money and condo that have been stolen when they find out the extent of what has happend.
The renovation work is, shall we say, sub par.
For example the new dining room floor, which we inspect at the condo during discovery:
Yep, it is that bad, it is also wavy and not level. Click 'em to embiggen and see the suck-age in all its glory.
Looks like scrap wood from multiple flooring kits with edges that don't even line up. No pattern at all. Other renovations DDB has done look about as bad - like repainting the bathroom wall and not moving the toilet tank while painting it, so there's a toilet-tank outline behind it in the original paint color that is really visible.
Many other renovations DDB charged for aren't even done at all, and it looks like he was making up the proposal quotes after the fact to cover himself after all the checks were written to him - checks he wrote out and either had her sign or forged her signature.
DDB is also representing himself which causes issues - he fails to comply with discovery leading the judge to sanction him, but the judge also gives him a lot of leeway as is often the case.
So we get to trial.
I had a nice opening argument prepared and the judge states no opening arguments, and to call my first witness.
Ah, well.
So, I begin with the accountant expert I have and we start going over the accounts.
Lots of interesting things in those accounts as we trace funds he's taken and misappropriated for himself including lots of cash withdrawals, uisng her credit card to pay for his insurance and dog vet bills and more.
About 30 minutes in DDB stands up and asks the judge if we can stop so he can get an attorney as it is "more complicated than he thought".
The judge says no as we're in the middle of a trial, but if he can find an attorney to represent him before we re-start at lunch then that's fine.
DDB's mom, who is in the courtroom rushes out at that and I continue with my questioning.
Soon a fellow walks in up to the Defendant's podium and puts his name as Attorney Quickhire (never seen this guy before at court ever) on the record and states he'll be representing the Defendant.
Welcome to the party, pal.
I happily continue my questions, Attorney Quickhire never says a word, and I get more and more damning info out about the issues with the accounts and money being spent and the Judge asks me to pause.
The judge then states Attorney Quickhire has just left the courtroom.
Yep, he stood there for a bit then walked back to the mom, said something and left the courtroom.
Ooops.
Some of my witnesses overheard him say to the mom that he can't represent him and that wasn't what they had told Attorney Quickhire this matter was about.
Who knew that DDB's mom would lie too? Shocker.
Unfortunately, Attorney Quickhire just committed malpractice and is on record representing DDB. Not good for him at all.
We continue without him, and after luch the judge again notes Attorney Quickhire is not there. We get through most of my witnesses on the first day.
Start of the second day, no Attorney Quickhire and Judge has DDB confirm Attorney Quickhire is not representing him.
I get through my witnesses.
DDB then represents himself as his only witness and I cross-examine the heck outta him. I'll say this DDB is a very smooth liar and given the other person present for much of what went on is dead, the lies are a problem even when at times they defy belief.
I do get him to admit he is not licensed and never puled a single permit for all the work he did - including removing a wall that seems to have been load-bearing. Oopsies.
So, I have a damn nice closing prepared and ready to let it rip.
Of course the judge then says he doesn't want closing arguments.
Dammit, it was really good and I was ready to go. Ah, well.
Instead, the judge wants very detailed briefs going into various aspects of the case as closing arguments, and he wants the financials presented differently in the closing brief to answer some specifics he wants answered.
Overall, feeling pretty good about where it is going, but one can never tell how a judge will rule but he was not impressed with the "work" DDB did at the condo and I had a lot of good evidence showing the deceased had severe enough dementia at the time, but we will see what happens.
So I get to do that now. That will be due late January, and the decision should be released in mid-February.
In short some helpful general advice:
1. Don't rip off old ladies, you will get caught (now, if you do this in Oakland County you likely won't be criminally prosecuted as our Democrat progressive prosecuting attorney doesn't like going after such financial crimes - apparently they are too complicated and not headline-generating enough to get her interest);
2. Don't try to represent yourself at trial when you do get caught, for you are fun to play with, and will mess up, a lot;
3. Don't wait to the date of trial to try and find an attorney; and most importantly:
4. If you're an attorney, Don't, for the love of professional responsibility, jump into a case at trial on the day of trial with no clue as to what is going on. Nothing good will happen.
Attorney Quickhire didn't do himself any favors and may need to let his malpractice insurance carrier know about the mess he just got himself into. If DDB is bright enough to claim he committed malpractice by representing him and then disappearing without even being released by the court from representing DDB. Really not good.
This was rather an unusual trial in many ways, and the decision isn't in yet.