This list is compiled based on a recent discussion of our experiences and my claim that the Virginia State Bar is negligent in its duties to society as an oversight intitution. The foundation of the claim is that we have made numerous
grievances on attorneys since
2000 and the Bar chooses to dismiss them with by stating that they do not address "strategy" however one
can take the issue to the courts. According to the discussion
here taking it through courts may
result in the
Code of Professional Responsibility applying.
This caused me to reevaluate our position, maybe because I am stupid I made a mistake or missed something, I do not think so.
The Predatory Cycle
- Self representation in court - I cannot expect to be able to present my case in court without representation, based upon an experience in 1990 and another in 2005.
- Old phrase, "One who represents themselves in court has a fool for a client".
Personal competence, obvious misunderstanding of the the theater, lesson learned in (1990).
- Bias in favor of the attorneys, demonstrated by this bankruptcy trustee's report.
- Bias based upon our records reinforced by repeated attorney failure, possibly reflected by this judges bias in 2005.
- Inability to obtain material that could be used to solicit counsel or take to court. For example I could not obtain the CVS video.
- Retaining counsel - to address the original problem and to address the malpractice of prior counsel - the ability to obtain counsel in order to take another attorney to court as brought up in the discussion.
- Money, the ability to buy justice evades us. After five attorneys my girlfriend was bankrupt and injured when the fifth attorney deserted she was a probono client then.
- Even a paycheck provides questionable motivation based upon our experiences with the Third Attorney who was a partner in a law firm with alleged skill, an alternate agenda ?
This attorney had an agreement where their paycheck would come out of the settlement, the expectation being that they would fight for the paycheck. Instead, there were two years of delays, dismissal of material in hand and overlooking of dates - not the activities of one interested in a paycheck.
- In Virginia if a case gets complicated the counsel "begs" out, avoids or minimally presents the case, this was represented by the following
[1,2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9].
NOTE: It is understood that when one retains a professional for a job there are financial constraints limiting the ability to build a case. With at least four attorneys retained an outline was presented that highlighted assets that could be used, evidence and availability of documents - this material was never used or people identified, contacted. Therefore their value to the case was never ascertained and value identified.
- Excuses are made as to why a case would not be viable. For example not using doctors is excused as "strategy", the doctors and therapists that were dismissed represented a running log of "spousal abuse" events spanning years, identification of a medical problem that could have precipitated an event. After going through our litany of material we were asked if that was all, presumably the material was not enough.
- The Virginia State Bar - The alleged oversight organization that changed its policies in 2000. The response to our complaints after 2000 was that the institution does not address their members "strategy" but one can take their issues into the courtroom theater.
- Without identifying "grievances" by other clients an individual looking for counsel has no idea as to the real record of a prospective member. Will they fight for the client or process them overlooking material ? Technically they did their job or they may take the hard cases resulting in the appearance of greater losses.
- Without "diligently" reviewing a "grievance" and providing a report that one can take to another member for action, the client becomes a beggar, with the appearance of one with "sour grapes".
- Without maintaining "grievance" records the Virginia State Bar has no knowledge of which of its members are diligent or not, "bad apples", and therefore its claim of "diligent" members has no foundation.
- The "bad apples" remain in population possibly until events identified by such articles as A lawyer's misdeeds spur state bar to revisit proposal or ours Big-Spending Lawyer Leaves Clients in Limbo.
- The times that I did get the Bar to review a complaint inevitably the response was because the attorney did not make note of an item there was no wrong doing - even though there was more material that could have further refuted the claim denial. Or the results would be explained by a failure to represent including nearly a year of communications in an attempt to get the attorney to engage.
The client has no leverage over the members they retain.....
A client cannot expect to be able to retain a professional that they can trust to be competent, they have no leverage over this industry.
Without leverage there no control as to whether one will be competently represented, regardless of the amount of money thrown at the professional.
The industry is unregulated, predatory and self protecting, the response to professional impropriety is a statement to take it to court, which means that one has to hire another. In addition an individual with a grievance attempting to address will be told that it would cost more than it is worth to address. For one that was bankrupt because of attorney impropriety a solution is removed, they are presumed guilty and the attorney can continue with their predatory practices uncensored.
The Better Business Bureau or similar institution is not effective in addressing "strategy", "tactical" failures. To make such an identification requires an institution whose description matches that of the Bar, which I have identified as avoiding such determinations.
The client is caught in a vicious circle that consumes their assets, driven by their demand for a resolution and then they are discarded. If the client has assets and can afford to throw money into the coffers of another counsel, the counsel will probably provide satisfactory representation, otherwise the client in need is consumed in a predatory cycle.
The main point is that a client does not have any leverage to assure that the retained attorney does the job competently.
- Without an authority stating that a client grievance has weight, the client can be dismissed by the population.
- Industry reticence to address legal malpractice.
- A damaged client may not have the assets to pay to regulate this profession by taking malpractice to court.
