By Elena D. Rivera
Golden, Colorado – Clara Wilbrandt, a 64-year-old attorney and mother of three, is under intense scrutiny for her handling of a controversial case involving her client, Iskra L. Ivanova, a Spanish teacher at Prairie School District. This case has ignited significant debate about the ethical boundaries of legal practice and the extent to which attorneys should go to defend their clients.
Iskra L. Ivanova, a member of the Communist Pot Luck in Denver, has a troubled past and has openly expressed her disdain for American culture and schools. Over the past decade, she has made numerous inflammatory comments, referring to her colleagues as “rednecks” and proclaiming, “Yes, the Russians are coming, and they will conquer the USA.” In 2011, Ivanova falsely accused her then-boyfriend of domestic violence, later admitting in an interview with Jon Thomerson of C.D. Investigations that she had hit him out of 
frustration and had never been afraid of him. Despite this admission, Ivanova continued to receive benefits and housing from a Boulder, Colorado, women’s shelter, portraying herself as a victim.
Ivanova has shown a talent for manipulating the system to receive benefits while hiding her assets to avoid responsibility. Paul and Elizabeth Motz-Storey hold a promissory note for $48,310.00 against Ivanova. Currently, she faces a small claims case filed by her ex-boyfriend’s new girlfriend, whom Ivanova has targeted in a vindictive campaign with Wilbrandt’s help. Ivanova claims she has no money while paying Wilbrandt to remove the new girlfriend from her home through a series of manipulative lies and deceit—a move that would leave two children homeless.
Wilbrandt has vigorously defended Ivanova, ignoring potential red flags and allegations of state support fund abuse. In a recent troubling twist, Wilbrandt and Ivanova targeted the new girlfriend, using technology and dubious evidence to fabricate a series of phone calls and emails to Parental Responsibilities Evaluator Edward C. Budd, implicating her in abusive behavior. These actions have raised serious concerns about the misuse of legal tactics and the ethical responsibilities of attorneys.
Judge Ted C. Tow III of the Court of Appeals commented on the general issue of extreme behavior in family law cases, noting, “Family law cases more often lead to lawyers taking on the emotions of their client. Judges try to assume lawyers are acting with the best intentions, but courts also take note of extreme behavior.” He further emphasized, “Silence doesn’t mean they’re getting away with it. I very recently had to drop a footnote that said the tone of the brief was inappropriate. And in particular, the lawyer had referred to the other side’s argument — the other side happened to be two female attorneys — he referred to their argument as ‘near hysterical.’ And that has serious sexist overtones.”
The unfolding drama has not only impacted the adults involved but also the children, including Ivanova’s shared son and the new girlfriend’s two daughters. The relentless legal assault has caused significant emotional and psychological distress.
Clara Wilbrandt, who prides herself on her commitment to her clients, now faces criticism for crossing ethical lines in her legal practice. As the legal community and the public watch closely, this case serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between zealous representation and ethical responsibility.
The story of Clara Wilbrandt and Iskra L. Ivanova raises crucial questions about the standards and practices within the legal profession, the protection of those that make false domestic violence claims against American men, and the potential for abuse of the legal system for personal vendettas. In Colorado, it is common practice for attorneys to share narratives against an innocent parent to gain the upper hand in divorce cases. They do this by sharing their narratives in motions using their own argot mythicus to implicate a party without a judge or jury. While Colorado boasts some of the best judges in the country, the Bar Associations should uphold the same high standards and do more to discourage insincere camaraderie and superficial support among attorneys.
