That’s the thing about this case: Just when I think Bob Malm and Jeff Chiow have truly outdone themselves in their efforts to hit a new low when it comes to lack of professionalism and ethics, they come along and do something that surpasses their previous efforts.
For example, in his Motion for Reconsideration, Jeff Chiow refers to my mom’s blog as a case of “domestic terrorism.” No matter how you parse it, that sort of rhetoric is inflammatory and unprofessional and unsuited to an officer of the court, which is what Jeff Chiow legally is as an attorney.
Not to be outdone, however, Jeff then attempts to mislead the court by taking a quote from mom’s blog that uses the word “terrorism” out of context. By omitting the language before and after, Jeff fails in his duty of candor to the tribunal. Not good.
Of course, the whole situation with Jeff representing
St. Dysfunction Grace Episcopal Church and Dysfunctional Bob is a variation on the old adage about the attorney who represents herself has a fool for a client and an incompetent for an attorney. By being too close to the issues, Jeff Chiow has lost sight of his larger obligations, and I believe lacks the objective perspective needed to be an effective attorney.