All Staff Attorneys At One Of Hawaii’s Largest Domestic Violence Organizations Have Quit

Attorneys Quit Domestic Violence Action Center Amidst Ethical Concerns

The entire team of attorneys at the Domestic Violence Action Center has quit after they say non-attorney staff members, including CEO Monique Ibarra, interfered in their cases, gave clients legal advice and divulged private information about survivors to others in the agency.

Mike Lee, formerly a senior lead litigation attorney at the nonprofit, said all seven of its attorneys left between October and February.

“There are no attorneys left, zero,” Lee said Tuesday. Lee, who had been with the organization since August 2021, left on Feb. 15.

The Role of Attorneys at DVAC

Attorneys at DVAC are responsible for representing victims of domestic violence in legal matters, such as divorce proceedings, child support cases and filing for temporary restraining orders and orders of protection, Lee said.

But frustrations among the staff had been growing since Monique Ibarra came on as CEO in September, replacing Nanci Kreidman, who co-founded the center in 1990.

“There are a variety of reasons, but the primary one, I believe, is the interference in the attorneys’ decision-making by non-lawyer staff and employees,” Lee said.

Ibarra said in a statement that employees at DVAC never engage in unauthorized practice of law.

Ethical Breach and Interference

Attorneys also felt their expertise was being undermined by constant questioning from advocates on staff. Some would ask attorneys to give legal advice about people they were not representing, said Tony Donnes, a former staff attorney who was one of the first to quit.

“That friction, the constant questions regarding people we know nothing about coupled with constant pushback on our cases … it became a form of micromanagement,” said Donnes, who returned to working in civil litigation after leaving DVAC on Oct. 27.

Another former staff attorney, Emily Dresslar, said frustrations began to intensify over a divorce case she was handling.

Dresslar said advocates and Ibarra communicated with the client without the legal team present after the matter had been settled. They gave the client legal advice, including discussing strategies for an appeal. Only lawyers are authorized to give clients legal advice, she said.

“This is a serious ethical breach, especially for a non-legal executive like Monique Ibarra and the advocates present,” Dresslar wrote in a formal complaint to DVAC’s human resources department on Jan. 11 in which she requested an investigation of the staff’s behavior. “The involvement of non-legal staff in advising a client on legal matters not only undermines the ethical standards of legal practice but also risks misinforming the client and compromising the integrity of the legal process.”

Dresslar said she eventually had to withdraw as counsel from the case because of the ongoing interference by staff members.

Lee said after that, the treatment of the attorneys “deteriorated,” and more began to resign.

Some sought guidance from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, formed by the Hawaii Supreme Court to investigate complaints against lawyers. They were concerned about Ibarra’s continued attempts to interfere in their cases and direct their actions.

In one written opinion shared with Civil Beat, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel wrote that although it was unclear Ibarra was specifically trying to practice law as a non-lawyer, her actions “could come dangerously close and not encompass the day-to-day business of the organization.”

“Attorneys, of course, cannot assist the unauthorized practice of law,” the opinion says. “Attorneys must use their independent professional judgment and comply with all professional obligations, and not allow interference with the attorney-client relationship.”

Dresslar said Ibarra was not responsive to attorneys’ concerns. She left the organization on Feb. 29 because she feared that continuing to practice in such an environment could put her law license in jeopardy.

Taiana Hale, a former executive assistant with DVAC, said it wasn’t only the attorneys who struggled with the working conditions. Hale, who worked with the organization from June until September, described the environment as “toxic” and “controlling.”

Ibarra said in a statement that the organization does not comment on specific human resources matters.

Funding At Risk

Former employees said the organization’s funding is now at risk because many government grants, which account for the vast majority of DVAC’s revenue, stipulate that the organization provide legal services.

Ibarra said in a statement that none of DVAC’s grants are in jeopardy.

One $2.7 million contract with the Hawaii State Judiciary says the organization must provide a number of services in order to receive the money, including giving legal representation to at least 140 survivors annually in divorce, custody, post-decree or restraining order cases. DVAC must submit invoices once a month to show that services have been performed in order to receive monthly payments of $114,075, the contract says. The contract is set to expire on June 30, 2025.

Government grants made up 76.3% of the organization’s revenue in 2022, according to an IRS form 990, and much of that funding is tied to the work done by staff attorneys.

DVAC is also one of the few organizations in the state that provides legal assistance to survivors and charges sliding scale fees based on their income, Donnes said.

“For victims of domestic violence who currently do not have representation and are seeking representation, there are seven fewer attorneys out there in the world that could help them,” he said. “And the marketplace, private attorneys are out there, but they’re charging $300 an hour.”

In its latest annual report, DVAC describes itself as “the only agency in the State that accepts large numbers of high-risk divorce, temporary restraining order, post-decree, and paternity cases.”

In fiscal year 2023, the legal team received 217 requests for representation and opened 180 cases, the report says.

Ibarra’s statement says that the organization is contracting with private practice attorneys to cover client case needs until staff attorneys can be hired.

Because of the nature of domestic violence cases, clients’ lives could be in danger if their proceedings are interrupted, Dresslar said.

“These are essential services for their safety,” she said. “It puts their safety at risk to have this kind of disruption.”

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

SDGs Addressed or Connected to the Issues Highlighted in the Article:

1. SDG 5: Gender Equality
2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

Specific Targets Under the SDGs Based on the Article’s Content:

• Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation.
• Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article:

• Indicator 5.2.1: Proportion of ever-partnered women and girls subjected to physical, sexual, or psychological violence by a current or former intimate partner in the previous 12 months.
• Indicator 16.3.1: Proportion of victims of violence in the previous 12 months who reported their victimization to competent authorities or other officially recognized mechanisms.

The issues highlighted in the article are connected to SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). The article discusses how the interference of non-attorney staff members in the Domestic Violence Action Center (DVAC) has led to a serious ethical breach and undermined the legal representation of domestic violence survivors. This relates to SDG 5, which aims to eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls. Additionally, the article highlights the need for equal access to justice for all, which aligns with SDG 16.

Based on the article’s content, the specific targets under these SDGs that can be identified are Target 5.2 (eliminating all forms of violence against women and girls) and Target 16.3 (promoting the rule of law and ensuring equal access to justice). The article describes how the interference by non-attorney staff members in legal cases and the provision of unauthorized legal advice to clients have violated ethical standards and compromised the integrity of the legal process.

The article mentions or implies two indicators that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets. Indicator 5.2.1 measures the proportion of ever-partnered women and girls subjected to violence by a current or former intimate partner, while Indicator 16.3.1 measures the proportion of victims of violence who reported their victimization to competent authorities or recognized mechanisms. These indicators reflect the importance of addressing violence against women and ensuring that victims have access to justice and support.

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: civilbeat.org

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.