Mission Statement - the collection of the grievance metric
Based upon our
observations and experiences it is noted that grievances and strategy complaints are not being collected on the individual attorneys. Our communications with the Bar indicate that the issue of attorney failure is being obfuscated and dismissed. This implementation is highlighted by the Virginia State Bar's policy change that occurred
January 1, 2000. This allows the community the Bar represents to be unaccountable for their actions, the policy does a disservice to the individual and to society. In discussions with
members of the community it is noted that there is avoidance of the subject.
- I intend to build a site to collect the "the grievance metric". If an agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia is unwilling to ensure that its members will represent individuals competently, then other means of oversight must be implemented.
- Identification to the civilian population of a policy change intended to reduce the effectiveness of the legal tools one has to address grievances and conflict. Possibly bordering on negligence or malicious intent. (pre 2000 - post 2000).
- Identify whether Virginia's change to policy that disenfranchises significant demographics is a local problem, only relevant to the State or other states have embraced similar policies.
- This initiative can be considered the modern extension to "word of mouth" identification of a good service provider. Providing information as to how well an identified "professional" handled their client. As it stands with the extent of the population physical "word of mouth" is not an effective means of measuring the merit of a professional, especially when the combination of demand and desperation are in play.
- Also identify that this local policy follows the national policies of denial and avoidance.
- This is a preliminary feasibility study at this point in time. - see goals
- This is an attempt to collect donations - without funding this initiative will go no where. - see goals
- In discussions with members of the community I was told that I could not sue the Virginia State Bar for such things as negligence, facilitation of fraud, false advertising, emotional distress and lack of diligence. I cannot expect to retain counsel that would actually represent my interests. I did not believe suing the State or the Bar would be effective because of the crony network, it would not be in its best interests to rule against itself.
Goal's/
Donation's/
Observation's
ex-Client's, victims of a corrupt attorney - You are Not alone !
If you handed your attorney material, informed them of the location or otherwise identified assets that you are not aware of being used. If when you retained one of these professionals to address your situation they told you that "you were stupid". If when you tried to address failed service others of this "professional" population dismissed your issues, claiming strategy - thus refuting the documented claim by the Virginia State Bar that one can retain another member to address the failures of the first. If you have had repeated experiences with these predatory "professionals", lowering your self esteem, instilling doubt.
Give us your grievances. The claim is that word of mouth will regulate this population, one
professional that we retained was highly recommended by this population, before he deserted, stole clients settlements - this did not happen in a vacuum, how many complaints were "dismissed" by this population who self regulate.
Do not send grievances before the case is completed and options followed there is hope that retained counsel actually does have a strategy. Also one can still get lucky, consider this a last resort, a way of identifying that one had problems with the subject professional.
Enter only what can be supported. Given the information that is being collected there may be "repercussions". This site is not responsible for the information posted, the intent is to facilitate a dialog and collect the poor service metric. Posting of invalid information helps neither the poster or the intent of this site. However if invalid information is posted, we will consider the motives and source of the poster, what population would gain the most by negatively affecting the credibility of this site ? What is posted will reflect the condition of the industry.
WE ARE NOT LIABLE FOR INFORMATION ENTERED.
Focus on what these "professionals" missed. If something was discovered later and would have recovered assets beyond what one could afford, the "professional" probably did their job. Here are some examples from our experiences:
- Mental health counselors were never contacted - confirmed because they were being seen years prior, during and after the case. They would have identified spousal abuse in the household.
- Attorney was asked to obtain store video of a police assault - they did not.
- ER doctors, mental health therapists were never contacted to defend their client support mental incapacity defense as a result of a reaction to medication.
- Ignoring documents and material provided or discovered in the process.
- Can't get in touch with your attorney, attorney does not respond to friends attempts at contact, messages or letters. For example after this attorney convinced me to take a deal because Virginia Courts are kangaroo courts, I tried to call him from jail. While in jail I discovered that the only calls I could make were collect calls, I could not call cell phones (even if identified). When I tried my attorneys office the phone was answered by a machine, it does not take collect calls. This was allegedly a criminal attorney in good standing. My friends and girlfriend wanted to find out the visitation process so they called with no response and neither attorney responded to my letters.
- Desertion by an attorney that is referred by their crony's - how the institution handles this event, the diligence of the Bar.
Attorney's - I have been told that what I am proposing here is "
Not Fair". I do not care, desertion, name calling and choosing a strategy that dismisses material without review is "not fair" to someone who may not have chosen to be inserted into this environment. To call people stupid, berate individuals who retain you for a service, because they may not be representative of a demographic that you approve of, is called discrimination and does not justify their being "sacrificed".
I find it unacceptable when an attempt to address malpractice results in the grievance being dismissed, whether this is the Bar or one who claims to be a malpractice attorney. To dismiss strategy failures is dismissing performance and the foundation of the industry.