Fun with a Legal Newsgroup |
Reality of the issue Majority of the Attorneys are competent ! Money No viable method to address attorney incompetence |
Here we decided to see what the resposes to our positions would be in cyber-space. This page contains dialog from a post on "alt.lawyers.sue.sue.sue", the subject was "I Submit". |
|
From: scotter8@my-deja.com Subject: I Submit.... Date: 30 Aug 2000 00:00:00 GMT Newsgroups: alt.lawyers.sue.sue.sue I submit that unlike other professions where there may be a 90% competency and a 10% incompetency, attorneys & the courts represent the inverse. In other words 10% of attorneys are competent, the rest are hiding behind the constructed complexity of their profession. The alternative explanation is that the complexity is such that no one understands it, making the implementation dysfunctional. "Issues 2000" P.S. - This forum entertains me, first I am flamed for "ranting" then when I detail our experiences there is silence - which I take to mean avoidance, something a child would do to avoid a repremand. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. |
Joshua's response below seems a little circular to me. The implementation is functional to whose benifit the predator or the prey ? |
|
From: "Joshua T. Heard" Subject: Re: I Submit.... Date: 30 Aug 2000 00:00:00 GMT Newsgroups: alt.lawyers.sue.sue.sue The implementation is funtional because it is understood by those learned in its procedures. Therefore, the vast majority of attorneys are competent. |
|
From: scotter8@my-deja.com Subject: Re: I Submit.... Date: 31 Aug 2000 00:00:00 GMT X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Aug 31 09:37:02 2000 GMT Newsgroups: alt.lawyers.sue.sue.sue The vast majority of attorneys have just passed the Bar, a test, it does not mean that they will continue to be either competent or ethical. I do not believe this explains desertions, mis-filings, oversights, lieing to clients about future efforts, avoidence of issues, when confronted with their mistakes we hear the claim of "you can get another attorney", leaving a client in jail without either visiting or attempting to address the issue - this required retention of another attorney who repeatedly claimed the prior attorney messed up. Not to mention Judges that only hear one side without allowing presentation of the other - regardless of whether they are represented or not (result of attorney desertion - too heavy a caseload). I have seen individuals involved in illicit substances "buy" their way out of an incident - by paying for an attorney that I could never afford, which they afforded by selling a little more product - the Judicial System profits from a contrived situation. By definition a thief is a professional. Hell even Microsoft has a customer relations department and attempts to "fix" problems within the system - unlike the Judicial System. I will concede that in order to become an attorney it does require a grueling amount of memorization, programming and a certain illogic following in the lines of a "Brave New World". The one thing to remember is that being an attorney was the individuals choice, technically the profession is supposed to provide a service, not a mechanism for the individual to profit at others expense - I think the industry has lost sight of this. |
|
Well so far they are not flaming me because of my stupidity or ignorance. |
|
From: "Bitz & Clinton, P.S." Subject: Re: I Submit.... Date: 31 Aug 2000 00:00:00 GMT NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 07:59:31 PDT Newsgroups: alt.lawyers.sue.sue.sue I have been unable to conduct the range of sampling that you have to reach your conclusion. With one notable exception, I seem to always draw opposing counsel from that 10% of competent attorneys. 100% of the judges I have been before would appear to be drawn from the 10% pool of competent judges. Guess I've just been lucky, or unlucky depending on how you look at things. The aforegoing is my opinion based on the facts presented. It is not intended to be legal advice, nor should it be construed as inviting an attorney-client relationship. mjc |
|
Liked his response, wonder what State he is in, maybe they have higher, more realistic standards for their Judicial System. |
|
From: scotter8@my-deja.com Subject: Re: I Submit.... Date: 31 Aug 2000 00:00:00 GMT Newsgroups: alt.lawyers.sue.sue.sue I will concede that maybe our negative experiences have been the result of being unable to afford competent counsel - we got what we paid for. The problem arises in addressing such issues as we have experienced, especially after being financially destroyed by these peoples strategy. There is a reluctance of Attorneys to even consider such issues without a minimum of $10,000 on the table (yes - complexity is understood but ethical status of the institution is at risk in not having a functional medium to address questionable practices of its membership). Another problem arises from the market, I will not be able to afford the representation of an acquaintence who was involved with distribution of substances - I am not competitive. One consolation was that the individual hung themselves - maybe because the attorney got them off rather than forcing them to be accountable for their problems. |
|
From: "George, Martin, or Konnie" Subject: Re: I Submit.... Date: 13 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 23:59:36 CDT Newsgroups: alt.lawyers.sue.sue.sue Well, hell. I thought I was the only consistently lucky enough to draw generally competent counsel as opponents combined with [criminal & family] clients who are, shall we say, ... questionable. "Bitz & Clinton, P.S." wrote: |
|
From: scotter8@my-deja.com Subject: Re: I Submit.... Date: 13 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Sep 13 10:03:00 2000 GMT Newsgroups: alt.lawyers.sue.sue.sue Were the counsel competent or imaginative ? When we lost in court the opposition counsel made up events, slandered us (Judge even commented on it but the courts had short term memory) and our counsel cited professional curtesy as an excuse for non-action. The four attorneys retained forced my girlfriend into bankruptcy, omitted supporting evidence, accepted access of confidential records without significant response (all the records would have put context on the case). Then because of the losses by competent (choke) attorneys, my girlfriend walking vs. driving (no car) gets bitten by a neighbors dog, neighbor disappears, after four years the insurance company ducks (oops we lost our client) and after five years attorney ducks. One decade. Of course you may not be in such a backward state as Virginia. |
|
JT below hits the nail on the head. These Attorney's profited from my misfortune, Hell after deserting me in jail one of my attorneys turned into a creditor taking the remainder of my meager settlement - think it financed his political initiative. "Attorney's have to eat too", I like that comment comming from them, especially when it came from my attorney - we were barely holding on, I went bankrupt and my boyfriend was one step in front of the creditors. That attorney took all my settlement, it was justified, however what upset me with them was that they left us with an belief that they would redress our issues and file an "Abuse of Process" charge against the other attorney, we discovered that was a lie - oops too bad broke and lied to..... We have seen Judges that on whim discard evidence, chose not to hear the evidence, exclude evidence, include irrelevant evidence. Examples of my experiences:
Given my experiences and the whimsical nature of the Judicial System - invoking precidence when it suits the courts, ignoring it when it does not. I can get an attorney to destroy some other business but they will not go against their own and there is no mechanism to ensure that an ethical standard is adheared to. The bottom line is that:
|
|
From: "jt" Subject: Re: I Submit.... Date: 31 Aug 2000 00:00:00 GMT NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Aug 2000 20:42:24 GMT Newsgroups: alt.lawyers.sue.sue.sue The fact that most lawsuits are expensive is undeniable. No one, trial lawyers included, is happy about it. Even for those who hire their attorney on a contingency basis, the costs of preparing a case *for* trial (not to mention taking it *to* trial), especially in matters which require either extensive document review or expert analysis from third parties, or both, is often in the tens of thousands of dollars range, something that not many people can afford. For those lawyers who are typically hired on a contingency basis, losing a case not only means that his/her time invested into the case is lost (because there is no hourly rate paid), but it also means that they will be responsible for the costs they have fronted, which is even worse if the client can't afford to pay them. Consequently, many attorneys only accept those cases which have a predicted settlement/mediation/arbitration value (and different attorneys have different evaluation methods) of very high amounts, often around $50,000 (and that number will vary greatly with the attorney). My point is that lawsuits are an investment, from a business perspective, from a lawyers' perspective. After all, lawyers need to eat, too. And a huge percent of those investments are more volatile than any stock market, as the facts and the law develop throughout the life of the case. After all, one ruling by a judge can exclude a key piece of evidence that you had been counting on and all of a sudden your case is shot. But you shouldn't let yourself think that "good" attorneys will all shy away from pursuing a case that isn't expected to make a million dollars. Often times the cases with the lower value will take considerably less time to litigate from intake to resolution, and may settle quickly, albeit with not as high a money award. It's also faulty logic to assume that "you get what you pay for" it terms of quality of representation. Hiring attorney takes research and work on your part. For most things your general practice physician can help you out, but you probably don't want him/her performing brain surgery on you. Similarly, there are attorneys who have a particular expertise in certain fields of the law, while others choose to offer a wider range of services to their clients, but it's your responsibility to ask the questions and to do the leg work in finding the appropriate lawyer. It's unfortunate that you have the attitude you do towards the legal system, and I'm not saying that it's not at least in part justified, but I don't know of any way to convince you that the vast majority of lawyers are quality, competent, and ethical people who are their to help their clients. There are bad apples out there, to be sure, but to make generalizations about the whole after looking at a tiny part of it, is not justified, I think. (I apologize for the long post!) Cheers, JT jturckiv@students.wisc.NOSPAM.edu |
|
From: scotter8@my-deja.com Subject: Re: I Submit.... Date: 01 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Sep 01 10:22:30 2000 GMT Newsgroups: alt.lawyers.sue.sue.sue I hear what you are saying, the latest attorney we retained disappeared documented by Washington Post Article 2000 Jun 01, he was highly regarded in our area, we were referred to him by several attorneys. In fact they also recommended that he be able to address our "Abuse of Process" issue that was outstanding - he was technically a "brain surgeon" in the field. His recommendation on the "Abuse of Process" was to wait till after the injury was addressed - as I said he deserted after five years. The "Abuse of Process" was initiated by a previous attorney, who claimed the opposeing attorney, was "Abusing Process", this attorney claimed also that counsel before them had made a lot of "mistakes". This attorney execution was satisfactory, with their adamatly claiming a follow up with the "Abuse of Process" - where it may be possible to reclaim losses and the attorney was un-handicapped, we waited, followed their instructions - hired a Psychiatrist recommended by them - and were forgotten about, oops what about our billing statements, that was okay because they took all the assets from the settlement - we were broke. The prior attorney that had made all the "mistakes", we discovered the mistakes when we went to the archives, private records were accessed out of context, defensive witnesses / records were never used. We heard that this attorney was running for political office during the case - one of our witnesses discovered this because he was really upset because he issue had not beed addressed in court - opposition counsel lied to the court. These three attorneys or their firms were all highly recommended. Two other attorneys prior to the last three took the case and then quit - caseload. We accepted the caseload excuse, the strategy excuse, the being late for court, allowing us to be slandered in court (Judge even commented on it on a couple of occasions). There appears to be no point in beating a dead horse, except to periodically post for public consumption our experiences "Issues 2000". Also to point out that there is no functional mechanism to address issues, "process" errors such as ours in this medium. Ours are not the only situations, even within our limited circle we have observed in attorneys hired by aquaintences: miss filing, late filing, not filing (couple discovered they were not divorced), when contested for a refund the attorneys would "skim" the retainer. This along with observations of individuals on the other side of the fence, who because of their "product" considered legal representation a necessary evil and could easily retain legal representation. Sorry again for the long post, but our experiences are not ones with a single attorney, but a collection, which seems to be consistent with the industry and also seems to be uncontrolled. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. |
|
From: "George, Martin, or Konnie" Subject: Re: I Submit.... Date: 13 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:08:04 CDT Newsgroups: alt.lawyers.sue.sue.sue When I was in law school (mid-70's) one of the few (two, to be exact) instructors who actually had the temerity to speak of $$ told the class that no personal injury suit was worth "taking" on a contingency basis if it was not worth at least $20,000 in damages. And that was a long time ago. No lawyer can long support himself and stay in business (paying overhead, etc.) taking cases just for the hell of it. The occasional pro bono work is a good idea, but experience has shown: 2. gratitude usually lasts just about to the courthouse door. and folks say we're cynical. |
|
The system as it is implemented is no longer economically viable as a solution for low - middle class problems. As stated it is more profitable to provide minimal service for maximum payment - An example would be our third attorney who after his desertion filed as a creditor in the Bankruptcy hearing. Alternative solutions are more viable - 2x4 & nails ($4), paying someone $1000 go rough someone else up vs. the $28,000 that was lost to attorneys and their mechanizations. The only reason that one of these solutions was not implemented was when we followed the money, who really profits from such incidents - Law Enforcement, "if" caught then attorneys and the courts profit. An environment has been created to profit a select group of people. I hate presenting aggressive acts as solutions to situations, but there seems to be no other way to get the point across that the industry does not successfully arbritrate disputes. The only control provided by this system is that no one wants to become embroiled in any long drawn out process and exposure to other agents/factors (attorneys/courts) for a solution. Because of the Profit motive the solution provided by the industry has become another problem to be dealt with. There is definatly no confidence in the profession that claims to represent their clients or the courts that claim to provide a fair and impartial resolution. Alternative solutions were conceived as we were walking this "forced march", for example when my girlfriends Ex was stalking her, it would have been so easy to apply 2x4 to the head, when he was in my back yard around midnight - five years of "Hell" would not have occurred. If we had shot the dog who was continually loose, my girlfriend would not have been bitten by it - five more years of "Hell" would have been avoided. If when one of my neighbors attacked me I had just snapped his neck, several years of vandalism and harrassment would have been avoided - so much for just restraining an aggressor. As for "Clients" attitudes we - the clients do not represent the profession, we do not claim to be professional Attorney's, we did not choose the profession (who in their right mind would want to become a professional leech). When we observe mistakes made by employed counsel and discover that we cannot address these mistakes - we will be miffed. The institution that claims responsibility for the industries integrity, dismisses the mistake as strategy. Real professions used to attempt to reconcile an issue, lest they be attacked by a leech called Attorney, seeking profit - one benifit from this implementation, however it lacks teeth. A symptom of this implementation lacking teeth is the indifferent attitude in addressing service / product issues by various businesses. Businesses that "compute" potential losses resulting from court issues and then if the losses are acceptable they ignore the issue. I wonder if Firestone / Ford thought that the losses would be acceptable ? The expectations of the industry was such that it would attempt to avoid, address, pro-active damage control to prevent someone like me pointing to documented, witnessed facts and claiming a no-confidence position. In other words because of the institutions (five representatives +) we no longer believe that this is a fair, impartial system as described as a goal in this countries documents. That the institution is being implemented in an incorrect manner, an implementation whose only goal is to generate clients, separating them from their money - a form of profiteering. The industry has become part of the problem rather than a solution. |
|
From: scotter8@my-deja.com Subject: Re: I Submit.... Date: 13 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Sep 13 10:30:34 2000 GMT Newsgroups: alt.lawyers.sue.sue.sue Quite a predicament we have here, if I read this correctly because I have a low legal income I am not profitable and should not be represented - bad for business. Because of my low income being entered into the equation a personal injury to myself is not profitable, unrepresented this would cause me to have a lower income - or - go on Welfare. But if I were to "deal product" I would be able to afford representation and be profitable for myself and your industry - the ideal customer - damn why didnt I take those people up on becoming a silent partner. This Arena does not provide any solutions, it is just a trap to be avoided. Crime does pay, it provides repetative business for the industry and if the criminal can get away with it (just dont get caught), they profit. Oh yeah, as a criminal I would be able to get an attorney appointed to represent me. Quite a scam you all have here. |
|
George - below did communicate effectively, although our injury case is damaged by our attorney's desertion. Now if my girlfriend were rich and could have paid for the Private Investigators and other expenses her case may have been resolved. Of course if my girlfriend had had resources such as Health Care it would have absorbed the expenses, if she had a vehicle to drive the dog would not have bitten her. We know that if an attorney feels like they have a win they will take a case based on contingency - especially against individuals or businesses. We do not have issue with the contingency concept. What we do have issue with is the inability to address matters of legal malpractice, having been financially destroyed by counsel's "strategy" only to discover that to address the issue would cost a small fortune. Shall we say that there is no viable mechanism to ensure the integrity of the profession. The Virginia Bar cited "strategy" as an excuse for counsel's ommissions, the Bar then claimed that if we had issues they should be addressed in Civil Court. When we approached counsel they cited retainers of $10K+ without even hearing our issues. This was not economically feasible after filing Bankruptcy, immediatly followed by an injury. Our issues were put on hold for five years after which time the "contingency" attorney vanished along with our case. |
|
From: "George, Martin, or Konnie" Subject: Re: I Submit.... Date: 17 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <39C41F7E.F4F7414D@flash.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:32:20 CDT Newsgroups: alt.lawyers.sue.sue.sue scotter8@my-deja.com wrote: > Quite a predicament we have here, if I read this correctly because I > have a low legal income I am not profitable and should not be > represented - bad for business. [snip] > > When I was in law school (mid-70's) one of the few (two, to be exact) > >instructors [snip] said no P.I. suit was worth "taking" on a contingency > basis if >it was not worth at least $20,000 in damages. Obviously I failed to communicate effectively. My apologies. the term "contingency" means the lawyer gets paid only when the suit is won & he ONLY gets a piece of the action, not a separate award in addition to the client's damages recovery. You don't work for free, and neither should lawyers. And that's why CONTINGENT fee cases have to be of at least a minimum value in order to be economically viable for the lawyer. You don't want the lawyer to get all the recovery from the suit, do you? sorry my previous post was so unclear. George |
|
Well having to have the last word on things I and to focus on the issue that I am attempting to communicate I posted - Hell I just spewmed more verbage. |
|
From: scotter8@my-deja.com Subject: Re: I Submit.... Date: 03 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Sep 03 16:45:53 2000 GMT Newsgroups: alt.lawyers.sue.sue.sue I thank you for participating in this discussion. You are right in not being able to convince me that this process is functional, it is not. Over the last decade I have witnessed the process at work, walking in a path with someone that was attempting to escape from an abusive relationship - they survived. Having served in the military and in professional capacities I convinced this lady to believe in the "system", the "system" consisted of "professionals" whose mission was to arbitrate disputes in a "fair" and "impartial" manner. They would be ethical because that was these peoples chosen professional service and the industry would not want an incident to occur that would reduce their credibility. I followed the party line and discovered that it was a lie. I hear the excuses presented and I submit that statistics should be based on facts and should be reevaluated. Over the last decade we have retained five attorneys, friends, relatives and from our website we have at least 50 more people who have claimed similar experiences with attorneys and Judges who had "God Complexes". What is interesting is the fear we elicit when we broach this issue - a lot of these people are unwilling to leave contact information. Then there is the Virginia State Bar who quickly discards "issues", in the case of the vanishing attorney (2000 Jun 01) we were sent our files (missing crucial evidence - such that it could contaminate our case) and dismissed being told to find another attorney - the case is damaged (five times - lucky the sixth ? ). The Virginia State Bar is generally unaware of dissatisfaction with their membership, citing that dissatisfaction must be addressed in Civil Court. Just because someone can pass the State Bar does not ensure that they will be competent, ethical or represent their clients interests in a satisfactory manner. In fact diligence is not profitable and in this arena incompetence is easily disguised as strategy. The Virginia State Bar quickly dismisses incompetence as strategy, stating that the issue can only be addressed in Civil Court. Clients, such as us, damaged by "strategic" incidents cannot afford to press the issue in Civil Court. In this manner the culprit gets away with and discovers that they can continue to get away with negligent service, uncontrolled and uncensored. This is a perfect environment to "skim", "scam", "cheat" and "steal" from people, it even provides a means to access all assets of an individual. Who is going to censor these people, the poor client who lost everything, the Virginia State Bar, the press - no one. If you are an "ethical" (oxymoron) attorney I Submit that you are deluded and should take a real good look around. We have had five attorneys, a crusading attorney, a Judge and other officers of the court - plus at least fifty people that have stated that they have had similar experiences with the courts - you have "lip service", the "Party Line". Being a professional in one field I naively believed that this Judicial arena would be service conscious at one time. Instead I see volume processing, so what if a lot of clients (victims) fall through the cracks, the real revenue comes from the "Drug War" initiative - those clients are profitable so they will be zealously defended. The Virginia State Bar has nine Canons that it does not enforce - a mantra to be broken, like the Ten Commandments. The "Institution" is not diligent in ensuring an ethical membership. Along with the attorney's I question the competency of the Judges that they have on the bench, how often have they undergone thorough psychological examinations to ensure that they remain impartial and have not given in to the stresses or temptations of their profession ? As for "business" the Judicial System is not the only method to resolve conflict, it is a relatively new process and thanks to the current piss poor implementation an excellent concept is being destroyed. For example because the courts did not enforce their restraining orders the lady continued to be stalked, assaulted, harassed and threatened - a coincidence according to the courts. To avoid a physical incident a psychological deterrent was attempted. The deterrent was a phone call, this resulted in a Civil Suit against us "Intentional Inflection of Emotional distress". Five years folks, looking back assessing skills and opportunity a whole sequence of events could have been terminated in less than ten minutes worth of work. At that time, the recession, outside agents were also available for hire, these professionals were more affordable than the damage suffered at the hands of a crusading attorney, incompetent representation and prejudicial (unprofessional - not impartial) courts not to mention a decade of time. Before getting upset with the last statement look at society, others have already figured it out. Because the courts cannot resolve an issue in a fair or impartial manner, to obtain a solution through this medium is out of scope so what are alternative solutions ? These solutions also fit into the scheme, because if caught who profits - again legal representation, courts, security services and jails. Because of past indiscretions - prejudicial, discriminatory rulings, precedence was set. Now the industry is controlled by politics - ethnic, economic, religious and sexual discrimination determines the outcome of a case - not the facts. Because the institution re-implemented a process that was called "Prohibition" and is now called "Drug Wars" a tremendous underground economy was created this the System taps into. The System profits from the conflict, the average citizen as a client is no longer competitive - especially when someone else has money and is in need of services. The average citizen is no longer a viable client. I Submit that the Judicial institution is negligent in its responsibilities to society. Having turned the industry into a business enterprise this implementation has lost the "Spirit" of the Law. This implementation ensures that the illusion outweighs the reality. The illusion being a "fair", "impartial" and "competent" Judicial System. There are no functional and affordable mechanisms to address incompetent representation without controls or viable censorship abuses will continue. As the abuses continue the service will deteriorate, the abuses become accepted practice. With the deterioration of the service the institutions position as an authority in society will falter - solutions will be sought elsewhere and this is not a good thing. "Issues2000" Maybe I am wrong, a sixth attorney will perform competently but where does this stop, seventh, eighth, tenth ... thousandth ? When we talked to the attorney that disappeared he had stated that he was very disenchanted with the courts in Virginia, the impression was that the courts disregarded evidence or process when it suited them. We believe that the stress of the field and the whimsical nature of the courts led to this attorneys desertion. I know that the courts would be prejudicial in addressing charges that they themselves are profiteering from the misery of others and a contrived initiative designed to generate revenue for associated industries. If it were to be proven there would be some interesting repercussions. I stress the Virginia State Bar because that is the institution that claims ethical responsibility of membership for the individuals that we have hired. The problem may not reside only in Virginia. Sorry for the length of the posts Scotter8 I'll be back. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. |