The problem with proper legal representation is that it may not have their clients best interests in mind.
Looking for a buck like everyone, an attorney can accumulate more by sacrificing a little investment of time in their cases so that they can handle many - so what if a little evidence is overlooked, it is their strategy, only the client sees the cliff they are being driven towards, the question becomes how much is a little evidence overlooked ?
This is a situation where only two parties know the facts of a "case" and one party, the client's voice is silenced and their grievances dismissed. As as the victim screams out their innocence they are told "everyone says that they are innocent" and the gears of the American Judicial System spin up. The clients screams that evidence was not used and the court never heard it, is silenced with claims of "sour grapes", "shut up", "get over it".
The populations and alleged institutions that claim to uphold "rule of law", "due process" and "presumption of innocence" then turn their back on this screaming client, the client becomes a pariah.
The
Virginia State Bar overlooks strategy failures, claiming the client can ensure the diligence of its members through a writ or civil action. Being damaged clients, my girlfriend bankrupt and myself trying to survive the losses we found that a damaged client cannot afford to fight the good fight and buy more attorneys to then fight the malpractice and also address the original problem that required counsel in the first place. This the "attorney" knows, they need to know the finances, the risk their "mark" represents, at the minimum they may sacrifice a little diligence so that they can process more cases, they may also use this as an opportunity to enact a religious or financial agenda.
This is a "profession" under stress so by its nature strategies are used to increase profits, volume or substance, many poor clients or a few rich clients - both demographics are "technically" represented. When an attorney chooses a strategy that does not bother with the substance of the case an ignored hole in the legal process is exposed, the written law does not matter if material supporting the client is dismissed under the cover of "strategy". For example one can argue that one is guilty of a crime, but when the counsel dismisses evidence, a "fair" judgment could not be made, in some of our cases, doctors could have proved medical diminished capacity. We even had a situation where a client's attorney deserted and absconded with their clients funds, this was dismissed by the institution. So what institution is responsible for this professional population ? How is not addressing, identifying merit, failing to document grievances about the service rendered by its population, ensuring the integrity of "rule of law" ? Failing to execute "due diligence" the institution cannot make the claim of integrity or diligence, it cannot support any claims of a "moral high ground".
As a result of the environment created by this Agency of the Virginia Supreme Court their is no oversight of this population. The institution conspires to obfuscate "bad practice" by dismissing the clients grievance.
Imagine a client researching an attorney, they go to the oversight agencies site and read the comments of this prospective employee's past clients. Then they read what the Bar, says about the merit of the comments. A client would want to know whether the attorney they are considering employing demonstrates a bias for or against the issues their case may represent. Word of mouth would then be a functional regulation, diligence should increase, clients concerns would be represented.
Effective January 1, 2000, the Code of Professional Responsibility was replaced by the Rules of Professional Conduct from addressing "strategy" with
Code of Professional Responsibility to avoiding "strategy" with
Professional Guidelines and Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Experience Short List of Attorney and Virginia State Bar indescretions - experiences that provide the foundation to our claims.
