The Institution -
We have been through nine members of the Virginia State Bar and have received questionable or no representation from each one. The only avenue available was the alleged "oversight" by the Virginia State Bar. The Virginia State Bar and the members that it represents has serious credibility problems resulting from the failure to address performance complaints against their membership this, reflects on the integrity of the courts.
In one letter from the Virginia State Bar dated November 8, 2005 we received the following response:
The Virginia State Bar will not open disciplinary cases on dissatisfaction with the quality of a lawyer's representation of a client. This applies to civil and criminal cases. The VSB does not investigate or discipline a lawyer solely on the quality of the lawyer's advice or strategy. However, a lawyer may be investigated or disciplined for certain serious situations, such as missing important deadlines, failing to file required documents or abandoning a client's case.
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.
Civil Malpractice action - or - Writ of habeas corpus ? -
The claim is that a damaged client can file a civil malpractice or a writ of habeas corpus against the offending member, to do this requires resources. We could not find an attorney to address attorney malpractice. As it stood we were having problems obtaining counsel to address our damaged cases, a crony brick wall. My girlfriend was bankrupt, unemployed and injured executing damage control had emotionally and financially drained us both.
A lawyer may be investigated or disciplined for certain serious situations, such as missing important deadlines, failing to file required documents or abandoning a client's case. Yes, this can be important, the paper is filed on time.
Demerit system ?
I do not believe that the Bar has implemented a demerit system that would identify to future clients that one of their members has a history of poor strategy. This metric is not kept and based upon our experiences it presents an opportunity for a member to profit at the expense of the service. The Virginia State Bar is in a position to identify valid complaints and apply a demerit against their member. This would provide several avenues to ensure the integrity of the profession.
- First the "demerits" could be posted so that other prospective clients could make an informed decision.
- Second with complaints identified it might provide material for a damaged client to take to another member for a suit.
- Third depending on the type and quantity of demerits disciplinary action could be taken against the member.
Why did they get rid of the Code of Professional Responsibility ? Before 2000 the Bar had Nine Canons,
Canon 6 "A lawyer should represent a client competently" and
Canon 9 "A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety" stand out. Both Canon's could could have applied to strategy or performance failures. Does this represent intentional avoidance of resposibility in order to protect their members and facilitate a racket or scam ?
Mistakes can be made and maybe one or two mistakes that leave a client in a damaged condition is an acceptable failure rate for a diligent "professional". As a result of the Virginia State Bar's "current" implementation the member can provide inadequate performance without consequences. As a result these members can go on to provide the same diligence to other client's and another and another....
In communications with members of this profession one is told that the majority of these individuals are ethical in their representation, where is this metric kept to make such informed statements ? If I was researching potential counsel where would I go to find their "performance" statistics, not the wins or losses but the satisfaction with their representation ?
TQM
"Attorney Road" - We have been down the "attorney road", the latest "solution" was this
"legal service" who has yet to provide my girlfriend with an attorney, even though it is their
service.
Before the "service" we had the dynamic duo of
give up &
guilty who may have been right in convincing us that in Virginia we are
"presumed guilty".
Then there was everyone's hero, my girlfriends attorney who
deserted all his clients - this one the Virginia State Bar did take action on, but their solution did nothing for those that he deserted, specifically my girlfriend.
The attorney prior to the "deserting" attorney was a pretty good mercenary, but then they sent us down the
"abuse of process" path only to desert us on that - it could have been a "strategy" to make my girlfriend part with the reminants of
her settlement for years of abuse. We then had the
"professional courtesy" who would not refute the
opposing counsel's incorrect statments to the courts, even as we had proof in our hand. When we started on "Attorney Road"
we had these
two who passed my girlfriend on.
So when we complain about these "members" and they reply that we have "sour grapes" or that their members are "ethical" or an , I say "we have been down 'Attorney Road'" now give us a real solution. We know what to expect from the
"members" of this institution that we can afford, we also know that there are the zealous crusaders who wish to "punish" the world - but we cannot afford to "buy" a
crusader. There is a concern that
even if we could afford to "buy" more expensive members of this organization we would not have counsel representing our interests. We have identified several items that retained counsel chose to dismiss, which the Virginia State Bar found acceptable - so would these members of the Bar be milking us ?
The concern is that if someone actually notices this site and agrees with it we may then become "their problem" and our experience indicates that it is possible for any and all laws to be
bypassed per convenience, lack of engagement or
"whimsy".
When the Virginia State Bar states that they do not address
strategy complaints they are effectively not overseeing their membership. I make this statement because
performance and strategy is the industry that the Bar and its members are in, to avoid the "strategy" issue when a complaint is filed is to allow an ineffective, disenchanted or a nefarious member to practice without censor.
As the certifying agency responsible for those whose business is
"strategy" not to address
"strategy" complaints is negligence and can facilitate a
fraud to society. I am sure that a "law" has been "spun" to provide shelter for this little "fraud" but that does not deter what it is - complicity with their members to "gain advantage" over a mark with no intent of providing diligent service. One can only wonder at the
damages suffered by other marks when they enlisted the aid of these "professionals".
"Strategy" - The Virginia State Bar claims that they are not responsible for their members "strategy". Is this inclusive of all "strategies" implemented by their members ? What happens when personal "strategies" collide with jurisprudence ? I might be mistaken but
it would seem to me that if a member sacrificed a client for
political reasons, that would represent a conflict. One of their members on a crusade, could be zealous representation of a client or an
"abuse of process" ?
Which member strategy does the Virginia State Bar support ?
Courtroom "strategy" in defense of a client ?
- or -
Business "strategy" executed to separate a mark from their money / alternate goals using the cover of jurisprudence ?
What can be concluded from the Virginia State Bar's dismissal our complaints ? Did they contact the
"abuse of process" attorney ? Did they
contact the
real estate agent ? How about the dismissal of a probono client whose member's strategy included
desertion. After all these
other members the
give up &
guilty members may have just been too wore out
multi-tasking their cases to be competent,
so with a wink and a nod our complaints have been dismissed as a
professional courtesy by this institution.
If our perception is correct then one can only expect to be represented by a member for which there is no accountability except what
the client can
afford. This facilitates the scam because the client is damaged by the failure of performance by the member that they want to censor but cannot afford to - the member goes on to the next victim. The claim is that the client has "sour grapes", when they attempt to
address their issues with another member, the cover up is that these members are diligent, upstanding "officers of the court" and members of the Virginia State Bar.
In the real world, businesses implement Total Quality Management (TQM) to ensure that they are effectively executing their mission. I found
ISO 9000 a family of standards for quality management systems.
I bring this up because it identifies that there are processes available to ensure that performance does not suffer, this requires some institutional diligence and motivation. It is not beneficial to the Bar's members to actually implement an effective quality assurance process. Chaos is profitable, in chaos "mistakes" can be hidden so
of course the Virginia State Bar will not ensure the "quality" of their members or the services that they provide.
Just how diligent was this esteemed institutions review of our complaint's over the years ? If what is indicated here in this site is correct and the Virginia State Bar dismissed our complaints
then what
ethics do Virginia State Bar members adhere to ? Incompetence also raises ethical questions, if malpractice, profiteering, fraud and desertion are acceptable.
I am not addressing the personal conflicts represented by the individual cases because each represents an event that cannot be undone. What I am addressing here is the performance of alleged professionals who are members of
an institution that claims
"Canons" or
"Guidelines" and the diligence that these individuals executed their service. Did these members
represent their client diligently ? Did these members discriminate against their client because of education, intelligence, class, lack of employment, sex or because they did not agree with a lifestyle choice ?
Lets put these attorneys and judges in context of real professionals whose endeavors demand performance with minimal tolerance for error, such as doctors, engineers, plumbers, police and even football players.
It is understood that once an event such as a botched surgery, structural collapse, leaky joint or a fumbled foot ball occurs, the consequences of the failure cannot be undone.
However those implementing the process, playing the game are usually held accountable for the failure - this is allegedly due to "law's".
What happens if those implementing this process are not accountable for their failures ? Where does one go to address such failure ?
What happens to the guy found
guilty because his attorney did not engage, did not execute a strategy based upon material that could be obtained, where does this guy go ?
This guy could go to the Bar, in our case it was the
Virginia State Bar, but from our experiences they would tell him
that they do not address
strategy issues. The institution would state that this guy could hire another one of their members to address the failure of their
first member, ironic in that the individual probably consumed their resources addressing their original problem. Then there is the issue of actually
convincing another member to go after their own, they claim that the client has "sour grapes" and dismisses them - or - argues about the integrity of their bretheren, if one is lucky they can get them to admit that
the majority are ethical but there are some "Shysters" after arguing to this point one realizes that they are risking another
professional courtesy member.
Through this implementation there is no effective
oversight of these "professionals". Imagine a plumber whose strategy was not to "seal the pipes", just put
them together, make it look like the job was done well, collect the money and go. What would happen to that plumber when the water is turned on and the house
flooded ? With a plumber one can point to the job that they were retained to do and then the results. Imagine a foot ball player whose strategy is to create the illusion of performance but then drops the ball repeatedly, imagine if there was no "instant replay", "audience" and the "referee" was looking the other way.
The team might realize this and try to relay that this individual is not performing, but to whom. The team can fire this malevolent player but in the middle of a game or a season ? The player allegedly had
credentials, they were certified by an institution and recommended by their associates, there is a hope that this player might actually perform in the end.
When one goes to the organization that certified these "professionals" they are told that they do not address
"strategy", that they have "sour grapes", that there are
good "players". After eight players retained from the same pool one starts wondering at the quality of the fish in the pond - is the pond
polluted ? Just because they "speak in tongues" it does not mean that
they are actually providing a functional service.
There is a problem of proving that the member of the Bar
knew of the material or that the member of the Bar had an
alternate strategy. In our cases my girlfriend contacted
doctors and therapists that had helped her through
the stresses of a
dysfunctional household and in a later case those responsible for my girlfriend being
charged with
prescription fraud. In both cases no contact was made by counsel representing us, I had even provided an
outline on a CD in the second case. For a professional, contacting these groups would have provided a foundation for an effective defense of their clients
with minimum expenditure of resources. So if these members of the "Bar" did not bother to research their defense in a case such as ours what does that say about their
diligence in formulating a defense for a complicated case ? When I complained to the
Virginia State Bar
they responded that they found no wrong doing and that they do not address strategy issues with their members. So where does a damaged client go ? What if they
are incarcerated ? The only representation that they can obtain are members of the
Virginia State Bar but since
one cannot expect a diligent strategy to be implemented by these members one cannot expect a reasonable outcome from any future action. We have gone through
seven attorneys and apparently cannot obtain representation from this
service, this is a
chronic problem in Virginia.
Complaints to the Virginia State Bar - To provide context to the the "role" of the
Virginia State Bar in the complaints that I made to this institution I identified the following items that I found questionable. I also tried to identify how the results
supported my claims with the details.
- NOT to contact or obtain material relevant to the case.
Here are our attorney's omissions:
- Their members failure to contact doctors and therapists as a competent strategy to address a charge of "prescription fraud" for a client who had spent the night in the Emergency Room as a consequence of a reaction to administered medication (2005).
- Their members failure to contact doctors and therapists as a competent strategy in response to the oppositions access of the clients mental health records, records that would have documented years of abuse and to determine who would be awarded the "divorce" (1989-1995).
- The period exclusion of the records, not the strategy of the crusading member but the failure of a partner in a law firm to contest the exclusion or to access all the material to defend their client.
- The "abuse of process" action proposed by the fourth attorney, seemed to indicate a legal or ethical violation.
-
Then there are some harder to prove actions by their members such as:
- Counsel retained may have been seeking favor for political office from a demographic represented by opposing counsel.
- I was found guilty of assaulting a police officer, witnesses were omitted, video should have been available which would have refuted the police report and supported my allegations. I could not contact my attorney from jail and he did not respond to attempts to communicate afterwards.
The Virginia State Bar responded to the complaints just like the
trustee did, I cannot help but remember the trustee's report, the attorney claims they do not remember and did not have notes so the complaint has no basis. The attorney has
political/religious connections so the member
is a good member and the complaint is dismissed. A
probono client is dismissed with here are your files - there was a reason that the the client was a probono client. Of course their member is not
responsible for a client after they have talked them into jail. I would think that these complaints would have merit on the ethics of this institutions membership, a membership who may
have lost sight of the service that they are supposed to perform.
The dismissal of these type of complaints indicates acceptance by the
Virginia State Bar which means that they are allowing personal business strategies to become entwined with court service strategy.
So when a cop says that one is guilty, they are
guilty. When a Christian crusader tells the court that one is an adulterous, murderer who must be
punished.
There is one paradigm that would be consistent with our experiences,
Presumption of Guilt, of which the Virginia State Bar through its members is facilitating. This means that
the Virginia State Bar and its affiliated members are executing an
authoritarian process.
Based on our experiences I fear for anyone going into the machinery of the Virginia Court System, attorneys so anxious for the buck that they
"harvest" or "prey" upon
weakened clients - this implementation is profitable - this implementation means that whatever law is legislated it is meaningless. The process as it is implemented is
predatory, harvesting victims, the expectation is that one can "sue" the offending "member" - repeated losses through this system made us desperate and lacking resources.
Why the doctors and therapists are relevant ?
When the Virginia State Bar dismisses STRATEGY/TACTICS failure by its members, the institution becomes complicit in the degradation of the legal profession.
With both my girlfriends
divorce and the
prescription fraud my girlfriend was enrolled in the State Social Services program. Around three years prior (1986) to separating my girlfriend had sought counseling as an abused housewife, they documented events, supported her separation action, informed the authorities of her separation
and after her separation attempted to aid in her in escaping from her abuser with the children. In 2004 when
Citibank went after her for "bank fraud" she had her breakdown which resulted in her going to the ER and back into Social Services for mental health counseling. My girlfriends Social Service mental health counselor left at the same time as the doctor provided her with two months of a new medication "Zoloft" and told
her to see him in two months. My girlfriend had a severe reaction to the medication, she was out of it. Social Services told her to go to the ER if there was a problem, ER proscribed medication to aid her, Social Services would not see her till her next appointment, ER gave her only one week of medication. Medication would run out and the reaction would reoccur, back to ER. It was on one of these cycles that
the
2005 police incident happened.
In both these situations my girlfriends sessions with Social Services mental health counselors provided a document trail of events, the mental state of their patient and could identify criminal intent. In the
CVS pharmacy incident Social Services had not monitored a patient who had been given a controlled substance.
The depth of this betrayal by my girlfriends attorneys was highlighted when there was a question about the outstanding
Citibank issue. Again the attorney is lying, stating that he sent a letter which we never received. Apparently all legal documents she takes to her therapists so that she can discuss them and the therapists have copied them for their files - they did not
find any letter in their files either.
I was of the impression that my girlfriend had notified the police of her separation, I had misunderstood. My girlfriend informed me that she had notified Social Services who had then registered the separation with the appropriate authorities.
When these members of the Virginia State Bar did not bother to contact Social Services they crippled their clients case, this is malpractice. When the Virginia State Bar accepts their members "strategy" to omit this material, the institution becomes complicit in malpractice and fails to ensure the integrity of the profession.
We have letters from the Bar where they state that they found no wrong doing in our attorneys representation.
Conspiracy Theory . . . .
In an attempt to be fair I would not want to do what these individuals chose to do. Driven by the
"whimsy" of the courts, judges that choose not to listen to material because they may miss a
golf game, those that are
prejudiced and of course the paper chase of the profession.
Then in order to be competitive, these attorneys attempt to "process" a volume
of clients, often
multi-tasking cases, if one is diligent they are not profitable so the dollar rules and the service suffers. A good business strategy is minimum investment of time with maximum profit.
This industry lacks oversight, all these individuals have to do is create the illusion that they provided the service - the client has no proof and these individuals peers will claim that the
client has "sour grapes". This is endemic to the whole system, it is an implementation failure. These people become masters of illusion and
theater as a result the "law" suffers, the service fails.
The questions that I keep asking about these "members" services, are what "theories" fit the observed results ?
- A great conspiracy ? - I do doubt this, but then this is the information age and what would cause a "professional" to sacrifice a client ? The conspiracy could be unintentional, because one has a record, does not dress well, is of the wrong
race, sex the client is not one of choice. But then I would not have expected the following:
No I would not have expected the above, I would have expected some integrity for those that claim to hold the moral high ground, who "judge" others.
- Incompetence - possibly through overwork might cause a "professional" to drop the "clients" ball and we happened to be their choice client ?
- Regardless of presentation anyone that goes to court is "presumed guilty", evidence is irrelevant, what one of our attorneys indicated.
- This site is incorrect, a fabrication of events and material - everyone else is right and I am wrong. Obviously I doubt this like I doubt the conspiracy theory.
Any of items could explain how these cases turned out and we happened to be on the receiving end. Now we have this
legal service that cannot provide their service, they cannot obtain an
attorney to support my girlfriends issue ? The
"Better Business Bureau" claims that our complaint is outside their purview ?
What explanation fits the observed patterns ?
To conclude it appears that through
their inaction, dismissal of complaints the
Virginia State Bar and its members, are
negligent in
their responsibility to American society disregarding "due process" and therefore conspiring to commit fraud against the community through an
implementation that fails to provide accountability for their members. If their members do not diligently review material pertinent to
their clients case their strategy is negligent. If this strategy is considered acceptable then the laws are irrelevant, no one can obtain
a "fair hearing" under the law because the context of the case is not being presented to the courts. The protection
provided by these institutions effectively
facilitates and reinforces the scam, racket
"strategy" demonstrated by their members in cases such as we experienced.
Deceit is a great "strategy" it overcomes all barriers, it is like playing a chess game, making ones opponent look the other way and
taking the queen. Damn the rules or laws the only thing that matters is the illusion, the theater, why bother with facts like guilt
and innocence, right or wrong, why bother with "morals" - good "strategy".
Just like any "real war" there should be "rules of engagement" that are adhered to.
- It should be understood by the client that because they have counsel it does not mean a "win" for them.
- It should be understood by the retained counsel that it is their responsibility to present and confirm at the minimum the material given to them by their client and then present
it to the courts, the "strategy" would be in the presentation - the material must be presented - or - their alternate plan must succeed. When one hires an attorney for these issues
the expectation is negotiation or war.
If the client is supposed to provide "oversight" of this institutions members through
"suing", why stop with the offending member, the Virginia State Bar sanctioned, certified and sheltered the offending member. The Virginia State Bar
was made aware of the "strategy" of their member when a complaint was made and appears not to be proactive in ensuring that their membership provides adequate service to society, expecting the damaged client to address two problems rather than just the
original problem. Through inaction they allowed their defective member's to continue this strategy with other clients, victims.
Not to represent a client competently constitutes
fraud against the client, the courts and society.
I believe that we have experienced an implementation failure, not a process failure. Here are the
damages caused by the "members" of this institution.