Just sharing some frustrations....
When Legal Aid funds a client in court, and that client discloses an income $15K above the LA threshold in their financials, that the client should be forced to repay 100% of the money. And be cut off Legal Aid for good.
When a Legal Aid "qualifying" client shows complete contempt for a court order (obtained using Legal Aid money), withholding access, etc, causing the other party to have to bring a court action for enforcement of the order, should Legal Aid be paying for a lawyer to enable this party in contempt to keep doing this?
When Legal Aid funds a matter that their client has little chance of success, or has taken an unreasonable position/ acted unreasonably with - why aren't they on the hook when their client loses and costs are awarded to the other party? If Legal Aid was on the hook, they would look much more carefully at the reasonableness of their client's positions, ya?
And why is it, that if costs are awarded to a Legal Aid client (paid by the non- Legal Aid party), the costs order is still worded so the money gets paid to the Legal Aid client, instead of back to Legal Aid? Something wrong here maybe?
Who is REALLY watching Legal Aid, anyhow?
And what, if anything, can be done to clip Legal Aid's wings?
When Legal Aid funds a client in court, and that client discloses an income $15K above the LA threshold in their financials, that the client should be forced to repay 100% of the money. And be cut off Legal Aid for good.
When a Legal Aid "qualifying" client shows complete contempt for a court order (obtained using Legal Aid money), withholding access, etc, causing the other party to have to bring a court action for enforcement of the order, should Legal Aid be paying for a lawyer to enable this party in contempt to keep doing this?
When Legal Aid funds a matter that their client has little chance of success, or has taken an unreasonable position/ acted unreasonably with - why aren't they on the hook when their client loses and costs are awarded to the other party? If Legal Aid was on the hook, they would look much more carefully at the reasonableness of their client's positions, ya?
And why is it, that if costs are awarded to a Legal Aid client (paid by the non- Legal Aid party), the costs order is still worded so the money gets paid to the Legal Aid client, instead of back to Legal Aid? Something wrong here maybe?
Who is REALLY watching Legal Aid, anyhow?
And what, if anything, can be done to clip Legal Aid's wings?
Comment