Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 06-15-2017, 04:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,692
OrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Don't engage in additional torts that will only be used against you in your family law matter.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 06-16-2017, 10:12 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
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
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2017, 03:40 PM
plainNamedDad44's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 817
plainNamedDad44 is on a distinguished road
Default

OL and Tayken,

thank you for your responses. Yes, the optic put forward is a risk. But, what is one to do to hold lawyers to a higher standard. LSUC appears at best reluctant to discipline such lawyers. Am I wrong ?
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2017, 12:51 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
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

I wouldn't risk the additional conflict on your file. It isn't going to get you any further and only add unnecessary complexity. If you are violently successful in your matter then you may have a case. But, you should focus on settling / resolving your current matter before taking on additional torts.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2017, 07:20 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by plainNamedDad44 View Post
OL and Tayken,

thank you for your responses. Yes, the optic put forward is a risk. But, what is one to do to hold lawyers to a higher standard. LSUC appears at best reluctant to discipline such lawyers. Am I wrong ?
From what I've heard it's an extremely tough battle to win. I would agree with the others here. Take care of your current affairs first .. and if you still have energy make an example of this lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2017, 09:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,692
OrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
LSUC appears at best reluctant to discipline such lawyers.
Often, parties attribute motives to their ex's lawyers that are not there. A lot of suspect behavior is a matter of any of the following:
- the lawyer does not have the information/documents/whatever from their client, and so cannot give them to you;
- you are not entitled to them, and so they are within their rights not to give them;
- your ex is unreasonable and it is the lawyer's job to represent your ex;
- you are unreasonable and it is the lawyer's job to represent your ex;
- your ex is lying to you about what their lawyer has done/said/whatever;
- the relationship between your ex and their lawyer has broken down, and so while they are on record at court there is minimal communication;
- the matter is outside of the lawyer's retainer (for example, the 3-way call with a real estate agent - what value can the lawyer contribute?);
- the lawyer has clients other than your ex, which means your ex's file is on a shelf gathering dust because it is not urgent; or
- something else.

If you check out the discipline digest on the LSUC website, you can find a number of lawyers who behaved like asses (and were chastised). But quite often, LSUC reports disappear into a hole because the lawyer's reply is, "my client's ex has reported me because I did not give them information. I did not give it to them because I don't have it. They are angry with their ex.", and that really is the heart of the issue.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:52 AM.