Lawyers.com

Peer review - Saw an ad for Lawyers.com on the television. In this ad they stated that one can find an attorney and highlighted that they were "Peer reviewed". I thought that is not really a selling point, this is like having one review his buddy, his peer, a mutual admiration society. Would a buddy tell another if they did something that they knew the other would consider inappropriate? Hey buddy, know that case, I threw it for you so that you could get me elected or I believe in the Brotherhood...

Which peer, crony is doing the reviewing?
Would those reviewing their buddy know how many clients had evidence, proof supporting their case and their "peer" did not use it - only two parties know what was available to the case?
I attempted to write negative reviews of our attorneys, notably on Martindale.com the reviews were never posted. How can a client make informed decisions in a biased environment that does not post reviews or just posts positive ones?

Client review - Would identify "professionals" that may have dismissed evidence, did not explain the case, multitasked many cases - volume vs. diligence. It could also identify a client that does have "sour grapes", just wanted to avoid punishment. The market would then provide some regulation, word of mouth may be effective. However by not collecting this information the industry is covering up its failing members, members reviewing may know that the one being "peer" reviewed puts up a good show, has the skill but it does not identify whether they actually represent the client or just process them - "peer review" does not identify diligent, competent performance.

The responses to my posts on Lawyers.com were rather interesting, expected but interesting.

Consider our experience's and inability to get attorneys to address conflict of interest, religion in court, desertion, ignoring evidence such as security video of a police assault and proof of medical incapacity. Our experience's represented a trend of failed service and lack of oversight in the profession. So why do these "professionals" responding to posters attack the poster? Rather than provide a functional legal approach, such as "emotional distress" suit against the Virginia State Bar or the State of Virginia for negligence, confusing Church and State and conspiring to cover up crimes committed by those wearing its uniforms. Where are the "sharks"? Are they supporting more affluent clients whose resources they can consume and then once consumed they fail - or - not?

Are those individuals that responded to my posts on "Lawyers.com" really professionals? Would a client threatened by legal action want an attorney that is not engaged such as those that responded to my posts on this site? Would someone want the members of the Virginia State Bar an Agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia that represented us, to represent them?

Lawyers.com Posts:

Granted that I may not have communicated my issues correctly, I am not a professional. I did expect individuals that would relish a challenge, that would look at our situation as a unique opportunity. We have a collection of failed representation where evidence and material was not used, where there may have been a conflict of church and state and police cover up of a crime. Instead it is implied that I am "stupid" and should see a "mental health professional". Are these professionals that see a challenge or just predators preying on the weak.

2009/08/15 - correspondence to Lawyers.com - just to see if they can respond professionally this time, we will probably listen to crickets again avoidance......

Saw your ad on TV, it reminded me of our dialog a year or so ago documented on my page here.

Granted the failed performance of lawyers that we experienced is rather extensive, from desertion, political conflict of interest, religious persecution and convenience. When presented to your population the responses were not what I would expect from professionals who wanted business. Given that our experiences consisted of a collection I expected that we may have had a case against the oversight institution or state for negligence - instead I was told I was stupid by your population.

I noticed from your ads a claim of "peer review" this is as bad as no review. For example would my girlfriends third attorney have confided in a "peer" that they threw a case for political gain or distraction? Would a CVS police assault attorney tell a "peer" that they ignored the CVS security video to talk a client into a guilty plea out of convenience or identification of corrupt court?

I really do dislike deceptive practices, such a claiming to collect reviews and then not collecting negative ones. Using "Peer Review" as providing a credible identification of competency - like depending on Judge Bybee to interpret a torture issue correctly.

2009/11/26 - No response Lawyers.com - So much for a professional population

Well like all the others that claim to represent authority, no solutions, avoidance of a problem/claim.

This is a profession that expects others to come to them for solutions, we have presented a problem to the population and what solutions are presented from this population ?

Well do you see any ?

Would you hire an advocate that avoids a problem, someone that would duck and let their client take the hit for their professional misconduct. This is sad, if those of this profession that we retained had engaged Jowey Styxx would not be writing on this site.

What this avoidance identifies and refutes is the claim that "word of mouth" provides a regulatory function, given the problems a captive market, integrity, competence and diligence can and have been excluded from this populations ethics.