The Corrupt Attorney - Observations

Our observations are based upon seventeen years of experience
In the last seventeen years we have noticed that there is no effective incentive for attorneys to provide a diligent service to their clients. It was also observed that when the subject was presented in a variety of public forums and in an attempt to address the failed service per the directions of the Virginia State Bar the issues were dismissed, the excuse being for the failure was that it was counsels strategy and a loss occurred. Such things happen, however since a grievance metric is not maintained there is no metric that could be used to identify a trend of failures, of discrimination, personal agenda's or incompetence.

In 1999 The Virginia State Bar replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Nine Canon's, with Professional Guidelines and Rules of Professional Conduct. With our experiences DR 7-101. Representing a Client Zealously. and DR 6-101. Competence and Promptness. would have been actionable by the Virginia State Bar. Post 2000 such failures are considered "strategy" and are dismissed. When "strategy" issues are presented to the Virginia State Bar it responds with the following:
If you believe that your lawyer represented you poorly, your remedy may be to file a civil malpractice action, or, in a criminal case, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which addresses claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. These cases must be filed in a court of law, not with the VSB. The VSB cannot advise you on the chance of success of any such cases.
When one has limited income and approaches a member to address "strategy" failures, they are advised against taking such action, that it was their crony's "strategy" and they failed, the client is told to get over it and there are some shysters, bad attorneys out there. The client is told that they have "sour grapes" as they sit in jail or suffer financial hardship as a result of a "bad attorney". The "strategy" failure metric is not maintained, the offending professional can go on and process many clients without consequence. Without the metric claims such as ours cannot be refuted, neither would a questionable professional be identified. I can support the position of questionable representation, the institution cannot refute my claims that such failures as we have experienced are endemic to the attorney population. The only ones that know whether they were represented competently is the client and the attorney, no one else knows what was "not" used and there is no incentive for the attorney to identify their mistakes. This indicates that competent representation is a roll of the dice.

The policy change represented by the replacement of the 'Code of Professional Responsibility' by 'Rules of Professional Conduct' can be construed as economic discrimination against the lower and middle classes because those are the ones that are in need of competent counsel, they usually have one shot and lack the resources to fight the "corrupt attorney" and address the issue that the attorney was supposed to address. The individuals with resources can of course follow through with malpractice and writs to address "strategy" failures. With this policy there is no incentive for an attorney to represent their client in a zealous manner. An attorney has access to their clients assets, makes a risk assessment and based on their conclusions will diligently represent or harvest the client - zealous representation is no longer in the Virginia State Bar's vocabulary.
Emotional trauma resulting from a practicing corrupt attorney
I use my girlfriends situation because it identifies an individual that tried to use the process to escape from abuse and to improve their lives. My girlfriend knew that a divorce would be contested, from the abuse, the husbands friends to whom the husband had given her, threats to kill her and the children. My girlfriend sought marriage counseling years prior to her separation, this turned into mental health counseling when the husband threatened them and would not go. So my girlfriend escapes, the house has equity so if the retained "professional's" [1,2,3,4] did their job with the assets available the courts should have looked favorably upon her.

Not only was my girlfriend burdened with the trauma of assaults, stalking and abuse, she was also persecuted by the courts who saw her as a "sinner" and "adulterer". The husbands attorney was excellent, he had all the attorneys my girlfriend retained in the corner, I listened to this attorney threaten to destroy her.

Now here is a woman whose mother had tried to kill her as a child, foster families, rapes, high school drop out, pregnant, abusive marriage and they take a stand. When they take a stand, retains counsel to represent them and this counsel does not use what is provided, allowing opposing counsel to represent their client unchallenged. According to the Virginia State Bar this attorney filed the papers, showed up and was diligent. This heinous professional failure cannot be proven unless one takes in the observed results of the case. The divorce was awarded to the husband, he got the child and the judge told my girlfriend that she was a bad mother.

If the social services counselors, who were waiting to be called, had been put on the stand and relayed the events of the past five years, would the judge have still ruled against my girlfriend ? If the judge did rule against my girlfriend they would be condoning rape, assaults, child abuse, death threats, substance abuse and the individual that committed these acts, these were the subjects that my girlfriend discussed with the counselors that were dismissed by her attorney's. These were the issues that the bankruptcy trustee dismissed when they stated in their report addressing non payment because of malpractice that the attorney was diligent in their representation.

Consider the psychological impact of such stresses on an individual. All good "strategy", right.
Isolation  I can understand the desperate people who find themselves unable to obtain adequate representation because they are not "clients of choice". They focus on their immediate problems and either succeed or try to get past it, either way the experience becomes a bad memory. There are some who did fight through a circumstance and they say "we did it, so can you", to those I say that they were lucky, maybe smarter and saw a way through. Was what they did to succeed right in the context of this system and what it is supposed to represent ? A system where professionals on both sides are supposed to represent their clients zealously.

What is intriguing is the name calling, "client was stupid", "client made the mistakes", "client should see a mental health professional", just what are these individuals trying to accomplish with this ? If the client is wrong and made the mistakes review the case and prove that they are wrong, support the client it may be a misunderstanding or there could be a predatory professional out there profiteering at the expense of others misfortune. Such predatory practices reinforces the "bad apple", "shyster" and corrupt attorney image the industry suffers from. To expect a damaged client to fight such corruption adds another emotional and financial burden on a damaged client and does nothing to ensure the integrity and competence of the legal profession. This appears to be avoidance of responsibility on the part of the institution, rather than promoting competence in the profession it avoids the issue. They say sorry our profession consists of "strategy" and knowing the law but we will ignore failed "strategy". You the client is not worthy of competent counsel - this is isolation and marginalization of an individual or demographic.

I find it fascinating the anger and dismissal that my bringing this subject up causes. Before 2000 I believed that America was enlightened, had grown up, pro-active in addressing issues and problems, I believed the party line. This country was not evolving past its persecutions. When my girlfriends attorney deserted I told her that this time she would get some support, that the Virginia State Bar would be on her side, then I noticed the change, I then told her that this was desertion, be glad that we had gone beyond her past attorneys because they no longer had their "Canon's". My girlfriend had the last laugh, cry, breakdown and I learned that on one of those dark nights that we were being stalked a base ball bat would have stopped years of aggravation.
Goal's/Donation's/Mission