View Single Post
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 06-16-2017, 09:12 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,476
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
Following up on this point: if you attack everyone involved, the common denominator is you.

Judges regularly see people complain about their ex's lawyer in matrimonial disputes. Often, issue is either with the ex's conduct or with the outcome of court. This can be distilled down to, "my ex's lawyer is evil because my ex is not providing disclosure" or "my ex's lawyer is corrupt because I have to pay child support". It gives the appearance of splitting and weakens one's overall credibility.
Case on point:

Notay v Bahra, 2017 ONSC 1755 (CanLII)

Date: 2017-03-20
Docket: FS-16-0188-00
Citation: Notay v Bahra, 2017 ONSC 1755 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/h2mng

I am actually working on a write up on that case law but, have been waiting for the costs award in the matter to get posted. It is one of the best defrocking of a failed attempt to attack another party's lawyer with bullshit.

In addition to the point: Following up on this point: if you attack everyone involved, the common denominator is you.

William Eddy dedicates a portion of one of his books about the whole behavior pattern identified here by OrleansLawyer. It is a tell-tail sign of who the high-conflict party is.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote