View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2017, 01:09 AM
trinton's Avatar
trinton trinton is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,559
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
reading comprehension is something that a lawyer can and does assist clients with frequently
If the lawyer him/herself does not have a reading comprehension problem then yes, they most absolutely could. It's not uncommon for lawyers to frequently royally mess up clauses and/or wordings of things causing catastrophic mis-interpretations before courts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
I spent a considerable sum of money on legal fees and I have absolutely no regrets. I certainly did not have Legal Aid.
And what would you have done if you did not have that money and did not qualify for Legal Aid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
At one time my ex was self-represented and utilized paralegal. It was a total disaster for him - something he later admitted.
And that means all paralegals are bad and useless? What if he utilized a first year non-experienced lawyer which was also a disaster for him? Or would that mean that all lawyers are bad and useless?

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
Unprepared self-represented litigants are one of the major reasons that you face the gong-show system of case-conferences. (Valuable court time was taken up by people who, arrogantly, didn't know their head from their aholes).
They came up with case conferences way back when people rarely ever represented themselves. Lawyers "practice" law. They are not perfect and they don't know it all. They are learning as they go and are frequently hammered down by judges for taking up valuable court time because they arrogantly don't know their head from their own aholes and sometimes have it so far up their aholes - that is why you face case-conferences. My ex's legal aid lawyer got railed by the judge for making an allegation that I would kill my own kid if I was given unsupervised access. didn't file their settlement conference confirmation.. and at other times did not make any attempts to serve me on time and tried to lie about not being served with my SC breif at a point in time when I was self-repped, I cleared up things with the judge and the judge was furious at the legal aid lawyer! My last lawyer didn't serve a required party of a motion (didn't read the opposing affidavit properly) - guess what happend? Starts with A and ends with T and has a J somewhere in the middle - adjournment. Further, some lawyers LOVE these case-conference gong-shows - it makes them TONS of money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
I am an individual of average intelligence. I have a decent education. Not for one minute did I contemplate divorcing my husband without competent legal counsel. To be honest, I was shocked to learn that people actually did this.

Cudos to those few who have self-represented and succeeded at trial.
It's not easy and it's not for everybody. Especially so if you have a not so cut an dry case. Your matter however involved complex property and spousal support. The plan for paralegals is to only deal with custody, access, simple child support and restraining orders. Custody/access cases are classified as medium difficulty cases in courts. It's also important to understand that a VERY high percentage of family law cases don't even make it to a trial.


Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
Perhaps if people didn't have legal aid lawyers they would get their acts together and quit wasting the taxpayer's money and settle their matters.
My former spouse is on her second legal aid lawyer now. She would not get her act together and settle unless the judge started yelling and screaming at her. There was some of that with her and her legal aid lawyer to get them to give me unsupervised access. Again, I was self repped at that point in time and the judge railed her legal aid lawyer for making an allegation that I would kill my own kid if I was given unsupervised access. You are right though. Lawyers do often take unreasonable clients and cases and participate in the gong-show of case conferences - they love it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
It galls me that people can bitch about cost of lawyers when they are, themselves, using the public purse to fund their disputes with their ex's.
Is it just me or am I seeing the word bitch associated with another stereo type on this forum? They would not "bitch" about cost of lawyers if they are using the public purse to fund their disputes. They rather complain about costs of lawyers when they can't afford them and the public purse is triple chained.

Point being, you don't have to have a lawyer to succeed. If you hire a lawyer with years of experience, that does not mean that you will win your case. Yes it will give you an edge and advantage but it simply does not mean that you will win. It boils down to the facts of your case and how it is presented to a judge. Can a self represented party do this? Absolutely. Can a paralegal do this? Most certainly. Paralegals work with lawyers frequently and are in court and trials all the time. Is family law and area they can grasp and learn? Absolutely - they are humans and they have an ability to learn - just like lawyers.

Due to your reading comprehensions and inability to see things for what they are, I think I should mention I have nothing against OL. He's helped me quite a bit and his contributions have been greatly appreciated. Good lawyers are of course far and few in between and not everyone is as blessed as you and I to be able to find and hire a good lawyer. Similarly, they will not always be blessed to find and hire a good paralegal.

To stay relevant, you either will have self represented parties who cannot hire lawyers in court, or you will increase legal aid funding so they can hire legal aid lawyers and be present with legal aid lawyers in court.

To go on a tangent, you can also have parties that are represented by crooks - no - I am not suggesting that all lawyers are crooks.

Last edited by trinton; 05-24-2017 at 01:40 AM.
Reply With Quote