"self-represented litigants are increasingly being ordered to pay, and pay big"

[Jeff]

Self-represented litigant is ordered to pay $15,000 for a motion because she "inflamed the issues not yet before the court and required a costly response by the respondent father."

Self-represented litigants not immune to high costs awards

The case does not seem to be on CanLii yet.

[blinkandimgone]

Great post, Jeff - thanks for sharing!

[hopefull]

....right, but still not a good enough reason for everyone to rush out there and retain a lawyer for there own particular case. Every case is different, and this one could have just been a one off

Conveniently, the article is being amplified by lawyers and law firms, whose primary mandate is to take advantage of clients and run up a bill.

Yes, some people are illiterate and will always need a lawyer, educated folks able to read and invest time can easily go it alone just like I and others on here have done.....getting results in the end.

Scare-mongering tactics by lawyers

[standing on the sidelines]

....right, but still not a good enough reason for everyone to rush out there and retain a lawyer for there own particular case. Every case is different, and this one could have just been a one off

Conveniently, the article is being amplified by lawyers and law firms, whose primary mandate is to take advantage of clients and run up a bill.

Yes, some people are illiterate and will always need a lawyer, educated folks able to read and invest time can easily go it alone just like I and others on here have done.....getting results in the end.

Scare-mongering tactics by lawyers

It takes more then just education and time to self rep. They have to have the right temperament also.

[hopefull]

.....add that to my points above.

It takes more then just education and time to self rep. They have to have the right temperament also.

[trinton]

yeah cause it really costs 15,000 for that 20 page affidavit for a one hour hearing...

[LovingFather32]

I could have self repped the whole way through, but I wanted to "ensure" I got what I wanted with no room for error custody-wise (50/50). My lawyer saw my tears, felt my pain, examined all the evidence and was livid about my ex's actions. She also handled and dealt Legal Aid Pitbull lawyer who bullied and heckled me in the court halls.

I knew my case better than anyone .. so I prepared all my materials. My lawyer spoke smoothly in court for me at a reduced cost (because I was doing most the work behind the scenes). When I was reunited with my daughter my lawyer was there in the flood of tears with my mom, my grandparents and myself. It was the happiest day of my life aside for when D5 was born. My lawyer was also in tears .. she knew what happened to me from the beginning and it was just so wrong.

Emotions run high in these situations and I still stand behind my decision to retain a lawyer. However, if it ever happened again I feel I would be well equipped to handle myself.

[Tayken]

It takes more then just education and time to self rep. They have to have the right temperament also.

This is the big differentiation. Most self-represented litigants cannot separate out the emotions from the facts and stick to *relevant* matters. I see so many self-reps arguing baseless emotional arguments based on how they "feel". It is very difficult to represent yourself in a matter that you are emotionally connected to. Especially when children are involved.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[Tayken]

I knew my case better than anyone .. so I prepared all my materials. My lawyer spoke smoothly in court for me at a reduced cost (because I was doing most the work behind the scenes).

This is probably the most efficient thing to do. No one will know your case better than you do. But, it is very hard for many self-rep litigants to "speek smoothly in court".

So, don't ever think you didn't do the right thing LF32 by having a lawyer. I think it was the best thing for you. You were (and are) very connected emotionally to your matter.

Emotions run high in these situations and I still stand behind my decision to retain a lawyer. However, if it ever happened again I feel I would be well equipped to handle myself.

You did the right thing. The reason you could possibly deal with matters going forward is possibly related to having a "final order". It is very hard to change a final order. In the beginning when you don't have anything finalized it feels like you can lose at any point in time. That every detail matters.

Now, it would be very hard and you would have to do something very stupid to have a final order changed. So, what is left are the more technical details but, those won't disrupt the major important thing - shared residency and joint custody.

Without the weight of the unknown many people can manage their family law situation. But, it is that waiting period until one arrives at a final order that often creates the unnecessary stress.

Joint custody and shared residency (50-50) as a default would end a lot of the stupidity in the court room and the anxiety that many parents develop when facing the unknown.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[Tayken]

Note: Their are lawyers who are actually worse than self-represented litigants.

Stupid lawyers are the most dangerous. You never know what they are going to do. The second worst are crooked lawyers but, at least they have a modus operandi that is easy to detect these days and good judges often filter their crap.

[hopefull]

.....*most* lawyers are akin to used car sales people i.e. they are shysters with a primary mandate to suck you dry, hence the reason why they ask for your financials upfront.

The more you have, the more they know you will be paying for their next exotic location, or help payoff their luxury car. Better yet, your money as in the recent case posted on here, will be used as loan to a client the lawyer is banging

[Tayken]

.....*most* lawyers are akin to used car sales people i.e. they are shysters with a primary mandate to suck you dry, hence the reason why they ask for your financials upfront.

I disagree. There are a lot of great lawyers who do not do this. Only a small handful of them do this. Unfortunately, they get more attention than the thousands upon thousands that are great.

[LovingFather32]

.....*most* lawyers are akin to used car sales people i.e. they are shysters with a primary mandate to suck you dry, hence the reason why they ask for your financials upfront.

The more you have, the more they know you will be paying for their next exotic location, or help payoff their luxury car. Better yet, your money as in the recent case posted on here, will be used as loan to a client the lawyer is banging

I get what you're saying. Unfortunately, there are a few bad apples in every bushel .. but this is in nearly "every" profession. We have to be careful not to generalize. I personally don't find it strange that lawyers ask for financials up front. Financial companies also do this to make sure they'll get paid.

What I disagree with is the extraordinary amount they charge, including the thousands up front. This is precisely why many begin to self rep.

It's just getting too expensive to hire lawyers and unfortunately they'll put themselves out of business in the future. We live in the age of internet, FLIC offices, etc. Most are becoming aware that they can actually do well self-repping in court if they're willing to put in the blood, sweat and tears...saving tens of thousands in the process.

Remember this is a business. Case conferences, settlement conferences, mediation, 4 way meetings, etc. Everyone in those rooms are making a ton of cash except the litigant.

There's so much cash being made that there's no incentive for lawyers to settle. This is the bottleneck of the system. The litigants are stressed, some not seeing their children .. but the more court appearances and "non-settlement" (due to there being no incentive for lawyers to settle - their pay stops), the more inflamed the situation for everybody...except lawyers, judges, etc bank accounts.

They write these rules and claim to follow them, but many don't.

We call them the Primary Objectives:

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE
(2) The primary objective of these rules is to enable the court to deal with cases justly. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 2 (2).

DEALING WITH CASES JUSTLY
(3) Dealing with a case justly includes,

(a) ensuring that the procedure is fair to all parties;

(b) saving expense and time;

(c) dealing with the case in ways that are appropriate to its importance and complexity; and

(d) giving appropriate court resources to the case while taking account of the need to give resources to other cases. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 2 (3).

DUTY TO PROMOTE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE
(4) The court is required to apply these rules to promote the primary objective, and parties and their lawyers are required to help the court to promote the primary objective. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 2 (4).

DUTY TO MANAGE CASES
(5) The court shall promote the primary objective by active management of cases, which includes,

(a) at an early stage, identifying the issues, and separating and disposing of those that do not need full investigation and trial;

(b) encouraging and facilitating use of alternatives to the court process;

(c) helping the parties to settle all or part of the case;

(d) setting timetables or otherwise controlling the progress of the case;

(e) considering whether the likely benefits of taking a step justify the cost;

(f) dealing with as many aspects of the case as possible on the same occasion; and

(g) if appropriate, dealing with the case without parties and their lawyers needing to come to court, on the basis of written documents or by holding a telephone or video conference. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 2 (5).

Honestly, just think about your case if you've had one, go through the primary objectives one by one and see if your lawyer (or the OP's lawyer) adhered to them. I bet your bottom dollar one of them didn't. So why have these laws even been drawn up so neatly if they're rarely followed?

Why is it that lawyers have carte-blanche and rarely get penalized for going "sideways" as the article puts it. If judges like the one in the article are starting to drop the "costs" hammer on self litigants, I sure hope the same will be done more often for lawyers who go sideways and ignore the primary objectives.

Just like we can get jaywalking tickets but nothing for abduction. There are close to no repercussions for lawyers not following the primary objectives of court .. and that my friends needs to change.

Regarding the article, if self-reps don't put in the blood, sweat and tears they may go "sideways" for sure. On the other hand, if judges want to start placing self litigants in lose-lose situation (Pay a lawyer or pay the courts) people may just start taking matters in to their own hands altogether and stop using courts .. at which point our prisons will start filling up and society as we know it will go awry.

Let's just start putting kids before money in all instances if that's at all possible.

[PeacefulMoments]

Note: Their are lawyers who are actually worse than self-represented litigants.

Stupid lawyers are the most dangerous. You never know what they are going to do. The second worst are crooked lawyers but, at least they have a modus operandi that is easy to detect these days and good judges often filter their crap.

I agree.

My daughter's first lawyer was so bad at the urgent motion that pretty much every word out of her mouth hindered my daughter rather than helped her.

It took everything I had to sit quietly and listen to her screw things up.
Despite being very emotionally connected to the situation, I am sure I could have made far better oral arguments, even unprepared.

[hopefull]

........Lawyering up should not be the first course of action for most people. People on legal aid don't really give 2 hoots anyway as it's not their money. If legal aid wasn't available, people will learn to sit down and work it out.

I get what you're saying. Unfortunately, there are a few bad apples in every bushel .. but this is in nearly "every" profession. We have to be careful not to generalize. I personally don't find it strange that lawyers ask for financials up front. Financial companies also do this to make sure they'll get paid.

What I disagree with is the extraordinary amount they charge, including the thousands up front. This is precisely why many begin to self rep.

It's just getting too expensive to hire lawyers and unfortunately they'll put themselves out of business in the future. We live in the age of internet, FLIC offices, etc. Most are becoming aware that they can actually do well self-repping in court if they're willing to put in the blood, sweat and tears...saving tens of thousands in the process.

Remember this is a business. Case conferences, settlement conferences, mediation, 4 way meetings, etc. Everyone in those rooms are making a ton of cash except the litigant.

There's so much cash being made that there's no incentive for lawyers to settle. This is the bottleneck of the system. The litigants are stressed, some not seeing their children .. but the more court appearances and "non-settlement" (due to there being no incentive for lawyers to settle - their pay stops), the more inflamed the situation for everybody...except lawyers, judges, etc bank accounts.

They write these rules and claim to follow them, but many don't.

We call them the Primary Objectives:



Honestly, just think about your case if you've had one, go through the primary objectives one by one and see if your lawyer (or the OP's lawyer) adhered to them. I bet your bottom dollar one of them didn't. So why have these laws even been drawn up so neatly if they're rarely followed?

Why is it that lawyers have carte-blanche and rarely get penalized for going "sideways" as the article puts it. If judges like the one in the article are starting to drop the "costs" hammer on self litigants, I sure hope the same will be done more often for lawyers who go sideways and ignore the primary objectives.

Just like we can get jaywalking tickets but nothing for abduction. There are close to no repercussions for lawyers not following the primary objectives of court .. and that my friends needs to change.

Regarding the article, if self-reps don't put in the blood, sweat and tears they may go "sideways" for sure. On the other hand, if judges want to start placing self litigants in lose-lose situation (Pay a lawyer or pay the courts) people may just start taking matters in to their own hands altogether and stop using courts .. at which point our prisons will start filling up and society as we know it will go awry.

Let's just start putting kids before money in all instances if that's at all possible.