Many times, lawyers must take unpopular positions on behalf of their clients. However, lawyers are required to advocate legal positions, not moral positions. Mr. Corletta had to educate opposing counsel in this basic fact of lawyering in T.W. v. W.R. (Family Ct., 2018).

          In a relatively straightforward Support case, where custody of the child changed from Mr. Corletta’s client to opposing counsel's client, there was no dispute Mr. Corletta’s client was required to pay child support. There was no dispute over the amount, which is set by a statutory formula. 

          Rather, the dispute was over an overpayment by the Support Collection Unit to Mr. Corletta’s client after the child changed hands.  Opposing counsel refused to settle the case; emotionally stating Mr. Corletta’s client “stole” the money from her client, and therefore “owed” her client for the overpayment.

          Mr. Corletta pointed out the law prohibited recoupment, and even if his client had received an overpayment, owed the other parent nothing. This is something that routinely occurs in changed custody cases where a Support Collection Unit is making the payments. Nothing can be done about it unless the parties settle it between themselves, which is usually unlikely.

          Mr. Corletta told opposing counsel there was no legal authority for her request. Opposing counsel became belligerent and refused to settle the case. Accordingly, Mr. Corletta conducted the Hearing, and child support was set in accordance with the statutory formula, just as Mr. Corletta stated it would be. However, recoupment of any overpayment of child support was denied, also on the legal basis, Mr. Corletta said it would be.

          Even if Mr. Corletta’s client received money that they were not entitled to, the law is clear that in child support cases, there is no mechanism for the other party to recover it. Mr. Corletta was required to advocate the correct legal position for his client, whether or not he personally agreed with the client's actions.