Evelyn Nissirios — Are Some Attorney Ethics Violations Too Horrific to Handle?

Bandy X. Lee
4 min readFeb 9, 2024

Child Abduction, Child Abuse, and Violations of the United Nations Convention against Torture are Not Issues the Office of Attorney Ethics will Investigate

The Saddle River Board of Education, in refusing to investigate Evelyn Nissirios’ endangerment of children, may falsely conclude that, since no ethics committee report of violations exists, she must be safe. However, there is another explanation: her violations are too horrific for ethics committees to handle.

The New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics web site reads like an idyllic fantasyland where the reasons a case “might not be accepted” only include: “[i]f the facts of the case do not constitute unethical conduct”; consist of “fee disputes”; or are being handled through “civil or criminal litigation.”

It does not reflect the reality of how tens of thousands of children are being sent to their torture, rape, and battery every year in the United States, such that Family Courts are involved in a child murder every six days. And “guardians ad litem” with strong stomachs, such as Evelyn Nissirios, play an indispensable role.

These matters are not possible to litigate in civil or criminal court, since the Family Courts perpetrating these atrocities legally “fix” the cases. Nissirios herself has boasted of her “absolute judicial immunity,” for “conduct which is corrupt, malicious or intended to do injury.” Such unbridled absence of ethics has translated into Family Courts becoming “Children’s Auctionhouses,” selling each child to the highest bidder, to rake in revenues that are conservatively estimated at 50 billion dollars per year.

Abusers are the ones willing to pay the most, since the alternative is felony conviction. As an added benefit, loving parents (usually mothers) would give anything to save their children, and therefore the money flows both ways for issuing wrong rulings. Therefore, those who seem to be simultaneously “mentally ill,” “incompetent”, and “evil” — as Nissirios’ victims have described her — are especially suited to the task of allying and collaborating with perpetrators of child abuse. Indeed, Nissirios has been depicted as deriving excessive pleasure from her torture of children.

These are the cases that the Office of Attorney Ethics simply refuses to investigate, giving spurious reasons that have nothing to do with its stated exclusion criteria. This also parallels how odd judicial proceedings in the U.S. have become: some suits with no discernible legal merit get right up to the Supreme Court, while others with merit are disposed of with a wave of the hand — especially where discovery would be inconvenient.

No doubt, if the Office began to investigate the true extent of the destruction, it would be overwhelmed; the cases connected to Nissirios that are known to me alone already involve dozens of child casualties. And if the Office investigated and then exonerated these cases, what kind of scandal would it be, that such carnage is condoned? Therefore, it simply refuses to look (even if this perpetuates the pillage).

Below is a complaint that has been rejected without an investigation, even though the complainant listed the specific Rules of Professional Conduct Nissirios violated, and had over one thousand pages of medical and other documentary evidence to back up the claim:

[To the Ethics Committee:]

[B]elow are the specific violations I am citing under the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs) for attorneys:

Ms. Nissirios, as guardian ad litem, has engaged in specific instances of professional misconduct. Below are the specific RPCs that I am accusing her of violating, along with brief reasons for each:

1. Violation of RPC 1.1 (Competence): Ms. Nissirios has engaged in mulitple actions that suggest a lack of competence, as required in her guardian ad litem role. For example, she failed to properly assess and consider significant medical and psychiatric reports, which is essential for making informed decisions in the best interest of the children she was appointed to protect. This includes ignoring or downplaying reports of psychopathy diagnoses, evidence of physical abuse, and signs of the children’s deteriorating mental and physical health.

2. Violation of RPC 1.3 (Diligence): Ms. Nissirios has shown a lack of diligence in pursuing the best interests of the children. For example, she ignored evidence of harm and abuse, including medical reports, psychiatric evaluations, and direct pleas from the children. This lack of action and apparent disregard for the children’s welfare are evidence of a failure to perform her duties with the diligence that the role demands.

3. Violation of RPC 1.4 (Communication): Ms. Nissirios failed to communicate effectively and adequately with her clients — the children. She did not represent the children’s interests and voices accurately and has failed to relay critical information to the court, thereby failing in her duty to ensure that the children’s perspectives and needs were appropriately communicated and considered in the legal process.

4. Violation of RPC 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal): Ms. Nissirios has knowingly made numerous false statements to the court. This is a serious violation of her duty of candor toward the tribunal. She has lied about the children’s well-being, the risk posed by their father, and the nature of evidence such as a suicide note.

5. Violation of RPC 8.4 (Misconduct): Ms. Nissirios’ cumulative violations constitute misconduct under RPC 8.4. This rule prohibits actions that are prejudicial to the administration of justice or that involve dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. There has been a pattern of behavior that could be seen as prejudicial to the administration of justice, including the suppression of evidence, misrepresentation of facts to the court, and potential collusion with one of the parties involved in the case.

*This is the seventh of weekly articles devoted to the information I have been asked to provide the Saddle River community about a controversial member on its School Board. I acknowledge that this piece may be difficult to read, but each statement is backed up by evidence. Evelyn Nissirios is also a central figure in the upcoming book, Judicial Violence: Anatomy of a Family Court Case — which includes some of the evidence that she suppressed from court records. Those who have other information to share can reach me here. Thank you!

--

--

Bandy X. Lee

Forensic psychiatrist, violence expert, president of the World Mental Health Coalition (worldmhc.org), and New York Times bestselling author.