As a result of the Virginia State Bar's policy of avoidance, failing to address strategy grievances we have a collection of attorneys. From being the focus of
Mr. J. Michael Sharman's crusade,
Mr. A. Strode Brent's conflicted strategy,
Mr. Thomas E. Burks desertion and then just being processed by the duo of
Mr. Raymond D. Kline and
Mr. Donald R. Daugherty. I shall include
Pre-paid Legal and Framme Law Firm as they represent an attempt to resolve outstanding issues, an avoidance supported by the Virginia State Bar.
We have a collection of at least ten members of the Virginia State Bar, one quit in an acceptable manner by providing a referral. The remaining nine could be considered "bad apples" in various phases of rot. It never ceases to amuse me that the Virginia State Bar is an institution that claims a diligent membership but when confronted they cannot "prove" what percentage of their membership are "good apples". I however have ten who I consider "bad apples", given that the Bar fails to address strategy they cannot refute my claim of poor strategy. If the ratio that we have experienced is representative of the Bar's population then it is 90% "bad apples", defended by the 10% allegedly "good apples" who do not know whether they are being deceived or not.
I found
Martindale-Hubbell after re-reading
A lawyer's misdeeds spur state bar to revisit proposal and looking up Christopher J. Habenicht, a suburban Richmond lawyer who chairs the bar's
"Public Protection Task Force". I suspect that this
"task force" is a placebo that the Virginia State Bar brings out whenever one of their "good apples" go rogue, till the public forgets about it.
Martindale-Hubbell has a section called "Complete a Client Review". I then proceeded to "review" two of the attorneys that I found on this site (January 12, 2009).
Mr. Donald R. Daugherty and
Mr. A. Strode Brent, needless to say that as of January 21, 2009 the reviews were not posted and I was not contacted.
Actually thought that maybe someone had implemented an authoritative resource where potential clients could research attorneys and expect a non-biased review of them. It is appears that the site
Martindale-Hubbell represents an advertising gimmick for attorneys.
Which brings me back to the Virginia State Bar, an institution that claims diligence but makes no attempt to ascertain who is a "good" or "bad" apple. The Virginia State Bar cannot state that its population consists of 10% or 90% "bad apples". It all goes back to
2000 the year that our attorney
deserted. From addressing "strategy" with
Code of Professional Responsibility to avoiding "strategy" with
Professional Guidelines and Rules of Professional Conduct. Since 2000, the Virginia State Bar responds with letters containing the following quote:
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.
A damaged client cannot afford to "discipline" an attorney in an environment that protects its population. This performance industry provides a perfect niche for a scam that protects the scammer. The client is expected to prove that the attorney executed a failed strategy, there is a reluctance for other attorneys to address "attorney malpractice". They fall back on being human, that they may have made a mistake, what is interesting is that it should not matter whether the attorney made a mistake, overlooked something or did it with intent. Consequences should ensure diligence. Does a "mistake" require disciplinary action as the Virginia State Bar brings up, it may not. For example when
Ms. Judy A. Dugger dropped the "abuse of process", it did not warrant a "disciplinary" action. But if our grievance on this strategy were documented and this attorney left other clients hanging it might represent a pattern of deceit.
