Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Legal Aid's Wings??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Legal Aid's Wings??

    Well, I can confidently give the other side of the perspective of "Legal Aid's Wings".

    Ex and I worked through all the issues and will be officially divorced in a few days.

    My first lawyer I paid for myself. I went through $5,000 that was lent to me by a family member to send a few letters and prepare an application. That firm did alot of "hand holding" by telephone as they rang up the bill. I have to pay back that money to the relative. At the time I mistakenly thought that legal aid did not cover divorce/custody issues.

    When I applied for legal aid, my financial situation was dire. I needed child support and was entitled to compensatory spousal support. I qualified for legal aid outright, no repayment plan, no violence issues.

    In less than a year, my legal aid lawyer got the proper child support ordered and a reasonable/compromised amount of spousal. He went to a case conference and a settlement conference and worked our thorough and lengthy separation agreement.

    Total cost to Legal Aid?? $1,717. Yes, for the whole thing.

    I was given a detailed accounting of what was billed and why.

    His work kept my family off of welfare. We weren't much above it but we made it. If I had collected welfare for my kids, it certainly would have been almost that PER MONTH! Yes, your tax dollars paid for my legal fees but it certainly saved thousands and thousands of dollars if I had not had legal representation.

    The problem isn't Legal Aid in my mind.

    It is very easy to simply blame the client.

    I am so sick of hearing Legal Aid gives you wings. No it didn't. The problem lies with the LA lawyers who cannot handle things as quickly and professionally as mine did. It is the lawyers who try to suck the system and their clients dry that are the problem, not the ones who are working quickly and efficiently. My lawyer only dealt with the relevant issues and wasn't shy to tell me when things didn't matter. Of course high conflict people might try to drag things out but that is what conferences and motions are for.

    I firmly believe that if the legal aid lawyers handled cases just as mine did, there would be very little abuse of the system.

    Legal aid didn't give me wings. It preserved the rights of myself and my children.

    So, thank you.
    Last edited by SadAndTired; 09-16-2013, 09:09 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by SadAndTired View Post
    Legal aid didn't give me wings. It preserved the rights of myself and my children....

    Very well said. How refreshing to read a post from someone who has actually used Legal Aid for their divorce.


    Congratulations on getting through everything!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Good for you on finally getting your divorce! What a relief that must be.

      I also have a legal aid lawyer and yes, he has done honest work for me. My ex's lawyer - is the one dragging things out and 'upping' his bill. In Quebec, 'regular' lawyers accept legal aid clients. (no wings involved)

      Comment


      • #4
        Nobody ever said that you couldn't win with legal aid. The problem is that you cannot win against legal aid.

        If I was up against somebody with legal aid, I would just cave immediately. They can push trial, I cannot. They win, I lose, end of story.

        Family law trials would definitely be shorter if one random side was given a gun and the right to shoot the other side if they didn't settle fast.

        Comment


        • #5
          There are not only lawyers who abuse the LA system but some clients as well. It is a system that is only meant for those in need.

          Claiming an abusive situation to check themselves and child into a woman's shelter. Claiming full household expenses (twice their income), obtaining LA and then moving back in with their bf refusing to claim total household income. Sure it gave her wings for a bit, but it took a little effort to get them clipped.

          Comment


          • #6
            Exactly. Wow, good for you. Legal aid worked and seemed to have done an efficient job. It also sounds like your case was reasonably simple and mostly that your demands/needs were reasonable.

            Take someone like me on the other hand. My salary is around 65k. However, "on consent" I am paying SS and CS which drops my salary below 28k, while my ex receives 20k from me plus another 12k in government aid.

            Now let's say she gets it into her head to make trouble.

            Guess who gets a free lawyer? Not me. On paper my salary is still 65k and I won't qualify for any kind of assistance, despite the fact that my net income is really close to minimum wage and my ex has more net income. The one with the higher net income in this case will be the one with the free lawyer.

            So with my 28k per year I won't be able to keep a lawyer long enough to do a trial, probably not even a motion, while my ex will have those precious "wings" to force whatever issue she wants into court.

            As just stated, legal aid may have problems, but the worst one is what I just stated. Facing off AGAINST legal aid is the problem, when you have already had all your money stripped away from you by FRO.

            See the always popular example of WorkingDad.

            Comment


            • #7
              From my situation, which was I am sure a narrow spectrum of the issues with legal aid.
              My ex who refused to work while her and her boyfriend where commiting welfare fraud and sat home all day got legal aid, even though she had all the time in the world to do legal research, attend court dates and so on. While I was not making alot of money at the time but just above legal aid threshold, I could not get a lawyer and struggled to get even an hour here and there of legal advice. While working 12-14 hour days and paying off all our joint debt to save my credit rating, and every day in court would cost me financially and also caused job instability, caused me to get passed up for promotions and a huge list of problems.
              Meanwhile she had me at her mercy, it was nothing for her to spend a day in court and just meant missing daytime tv shows.
              Though when I was younger my parents when through a nasty divorce, and if my mother had not had a legal aid lawyer I feel that she would not have been able to keep her head above water (this was in the 80s so no online forums and so forth to research). While their situation was vastly different it helps me understand that there are 2 sides to everything. The system was made to protect the vulnerable, but can be exploited.

              Comment


              • #8
                Regarding Legal Aid and people's income to receive it....

                If one pays SS they can claim 100% of that on their income tax return, drastically reducing their tax payable and/or in some cases set themselves up for a nice tax refund.

                If one receives SS they must also claim 100% of the money but instead have to pay taxes on it. SS is not employment income and you cannot pay into CPP. This can have a significant impact down the road when one collects CPP.

                So do the math. If someone makes 65k a year, pays 20k in SS as indicated by FFF (or was the 20k a combination of SS and CS? - don't know as people tend to exaggerate the amount of SS they actually pay). Tax on a 65 k salary is what around 12k without deductions? The payor still pays into CPP. A net salary of 37k vs. the recipient's net income (20k SS + 12k in "government aid" = 32k). Someone please point out if I have it wrong.

                It is so very easy to exaggerate and gloss over facts. That's all I'm saying.
                Last edited by arabian; 09-17-2013, 12:12 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The two of you are right - much easier and dramatic to make generalized statements than to deal with facts. That way you can also avoid an intelligent exchange of ideas and opinions. I should have known better and I stand corrected.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If I was up against somebody with legal aid, I would just cave immediately. They can push trial, I cannot. They win, I lose, end of story.
                    Legal aid is not a lottery ticket.

                    The legal aid lawyer will receive a set number of hours to work on the case. This will be substantially below what is required. To work beyond the set amount, they require discretionary increases from the local district office, along with increases to undertake specific actions (a motion, a trial, etc).

                    The purse strings are much tighter than they were 5-10 years ago due to past use of the system as unlimited legal resources.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      OrleansLawyer - thank you for clarifying and demystifying this for us. I had heard similar from my own lawyer.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Knave View Post
                        Nobody ever said that you couldn't win with legal aid. The problem is that you cannot win against legal aid.

                        If I was up against somebody with legal aid, I would just cave immediately. They can push trial, I cannot. They win, I lose, end of story.

                        Family law trials would definitely be shorter if one random side was given a gun and the right to shoot the other side if they didn't settle fast.
                        Bingo.

                        CanLII - 2011 ONSC 7476 (CanLII)

                        Originally posted by Justice Pazaratz
                        58. The dynamics on this file are all too common, and cry out for judicial awareness. In a troubled economy we are seeing more self-represented parties in Family Court, and certainly more people with limited finances. Inevitably, these ingredients create greater strains on the administration of justice. Combined with limited judicial resources, the need to encourage settlement and discourage inappropriate behaviour by litigants has never been more pressing.

                        60. In the case at bar, the Applicant conducted herself as if her Legal Aid certificate amounted to a blank cheque – unlimited resources which most unrepresented Respondents would be hard-pressed to match. A scheduled 3-4 day trial turned into 17 days, largely because the Applicant fought every issue and pursued every dubious allegation, to the bitter end. She appeared to make up evidence and allegations as she went along. She defied court orders directly impacting on the child, even while the trial was underway. There have to be consequences. Either we sanction this irresponsible and destructive behaviour, or we invite more of the same.
                        It is a well recognized problem with the system of Legal Aid in Ontario. It all depends on how the client uses their certificate and provides instruction to their lawyer. What those who seek reform to legal aid is for a governance structure for the review of LOA files to insure that people do not treat their certificate as a "blank check".

                        Per your comments and those of fireweb13 in this thread.

                        I would encourage anyone reading this thread to actually read the jurisprudence for which the phrase "legal aid gives you wings" comes from and what is discussed by the justice in that matter.

                        In addition the lawyers Lauren Bale & Kanata Cowan provide some additional insight as practicing lawyers on this jurisprudence that I recommend people review in addition.

                        http://www.hamiltonlaw.on.ca/docs/fa...n.pdf?sfvrsn=4

                        (You will note that the lawyers also quote para 58 as I have done in this response to you Knave... as well as some important others that LOA should consider as an organization but, I don't doubt the Ontario Ombudsman is reviewing this matter...)

                        Good Luck!
                        Tayken

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
                          Legal aid is not a lottery ticket.

                          The legal aid lawyer will receive a set number of hours to work on the case. This will be substantially below what is required. To work beyond the set amount, they require discretionary increases from the local district office, along with increases to undertake specific actions (a motion, a trial, etc).

                          The purse strings are much tighter than they were 5-10 years ago due to past use of the system as unlimited legal resources.
                          See jurisprudence posted in thread above. Would be interested to hear your detailed analysis of the jurisprudence provided in this thread and as well your possible "friends" additional opinion/article and the subsequent reflexing jurisprudence build from this case law...

                          The purse strings are only tight if the system of governance over how the money is being dispensed is properly administered. In this matter and others as investigated by the Ontario Ombudsman they are not being administered properly. One only has to read the Ombudsman's various reports to see the issues that are present in the governance process.

                          This is not to say that all governance processes in organizations like LOA work 100% of the time but, one would expect better from an organization dependent on taxpayer funds.

                          Again, as stated previously... No doubt the Ombudsman has been probably made aware of this matter and the hole in the governance structure in LOA as well, this matter happened less than the 5-10 year time frame.

                          I would agree with your OrleansLawyer that *today* since the cited case law provided above was issued and the legal community was made aware of this loop hole and the Superior Court's opinions (quoted above) were made very publicly known and enshrined in case law things have started to change.

                          One thing that most people don't realize (parties defending against LOA funded lawyers) is that they can make a complaint to LOA to request that the ethics hot line review the party's certificate. If someone suspects that the certificate was issued under fraudulent means - for example failure to disclose employment etc... This may constitute fraud. The complaint will trigger a deeper and more in-depth review of how the LOA client got their certificate and a deeper investigation into their finances.

                          The current issue with LOA right now is that they take financial disclosures on viva voce over the phone and do not review the client's banking profile. If you do not disclose your RRSPs, employment income, etc... They can (and have) taken this on face value and provided certificates for months at a time... Even supported "clients" in bringing improper "emergency" ex-parte motions... All to have to remove the certificate when disclosed by the non-client party that their "client" and counsel knew that the certificate recipient was earning significant income and held a significant cash accessible asset base... After having lost significantly on the return of their client's improperly filed "emergency" ex-parte motion...

                          This is not to say valid certificate recipients should be denied access... Just that the LOA should investigate (records search) their clients financial records, bank accounts, wire transfers from family members to these accounts and previous retainer agreements prior to issuing a certificate. In addition, they should review all family law matters that exceed certificate limits and better governance checks need to be put in place to insure we do not have repeats of the above provided jurisprudence.

                          In Justice Pazaratz's own words... It is all too common...

                          LOA does investigate ALL complaints raised. If anyone suspects that someone has recieved a certificate improperly I recommend they notify LOA Ethics anonymously through this link:

                          Legal Aid Ontario: Getting Legal Help

                          Good Luck!
                          Tayken

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            This is not to say valid certificate recipients should be denied access... Just that the LOA should investigate (records search) their clients financial records, bank accounts, wire transfers from family members to these accounts and previous retainer agreements prior to issuing a certificate. In addition, they should review all family law matters that exceed certificate limits and better governance checks need to be put in place to insure we do not have repeats of the above provided jurisprudence.

                            I can't comment on how things are in Ontario, but in Quebec, it is exactly as you state above. Before being accepted, I had to disclose a very detailed account of all financial records (going back 5 years). I was offered basic legal advice and told exactly what the limitations where.

                            Any unreasonable motions or abuse of the system would simply not not be tolerated - as I said above, this is in Quebec. My case is particular as there are criminal charges as well as family law issues involved. Many applicants are refused LA as there have been drastic budgets cuts in the last decade. It's not as easy to obtain as people think.

                            Comment

                            Our Divorce Forums
                            Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                            Working...
                            X