Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ethics of lawyers

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

  • StillPaying
    replied
    Over four thousand dollars for a simple document - debatably the easiest one - would be financial abuse.

    Leave a comment:


  • rockscan
    replied
    Originally posted by Victorviola View Post
    he agreed with 7 statements pertaining to date of marriage, divorce date child's birthday ect. Miniscule items. He disagreed with over 200 points and provided ZERO explanations. Zero. None. Zilch. I spent o er $4k to prepare this request. My lawyer is seeking strike of pleadings now. This is a game for the rich while the people seeking justice get screwed, 6plus Yeats but there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Any thoughts?
    I wouldn't worry too much. Make sure your lawyer pushes the judge at the appearance. Your ex can think whatever he wants, the judge is the one who matters. And yes it is costly but in the end, you (hopefully) get things settled.

    Just don't push your lawyer to do anything extra or unnecessary. That should save a bit of money.

    Leave a comment:


  • StillPaying
    replied
    My ex wouldn't agree to anything! The conference judge ended up writing a few items into their endorsement; dates of marriage, separation, mat home purchase, kids bdays, etc and that was all we had. It really doesn't matter though and will all be handled at trial. Nothing to do with rich or getting screwed... don't stress.

    Leave a comment:


  • Victorviola
    replied
    My ex was served with a request to admit on March 18th as per courier receipt although he doesn't live where he states but rents out primary residence. No iidea where he really lives still. He had 20 days to respond as per family law rules. 212 points in request..... he emailed my lawyer on april 3rd that he received the request on March 26th contrary to receipt from courier. Guess his tenant signed for package... on may 2nd I received his response which my lawyer received on may2nd.

    He states on the request to admit form that he received it on April 2nd, he dated it and signed the request to admit april 20th but emailed it to my lawyer may 2nd.... he agreed with 7 statements pertaining to date of marriage, divorce date child's birthday ect. Miniscule items. He disagreed with over 200 points and provided ZERO explanations. Zero. None. Zilch. I spent o er $4k to prepare this request. My lawyer is seeking strike of pleadings now. This is a game for the rich while the people seeking justice get screwed, 6plus Yeats but there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Any thoughts?

    Leave a comment:


  • Victorviola
    replied
    Question: march 5th ex was served with request to admit via mail and courier, (as his email for the past 6 moths has bounced back from the lawyers office) he responded on April 4th via email to my lawyer, He blames my lawyer for the email bouncing back, and says he only received the request to admit march 24th. My lawyers legal assistant also spoke with my ex on march 5th at which time he advised he has no email and is not willing to setup a new one. ( and he's an IT professional) priceless... he is past the due date of 20 days, he states that he should be given more time to respond.... thoughts???

    Leave a comment:


  • rockscan
    replied
    They also do it because they can't find a lawyer to represent them. One of the dads on here that I worked with, his ex was fired by three lawyers and she self repped and was a disaster. Ditto for my husband's ex. Her lawyer told my husband's lawyer he was on a limited scope retainer because she wouldn't listen to his advice. He came on fully for the settlement conference as she was struggling to resolve the matter. Too bad neither one of these women understood they were the barrier to a settlement!

    Leave a comment:


  • StillPaying
    replied
    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
    A self represented litigant is someone who chooses to do it themselves often because they think it is "easy" to do. Unrepresented litigants have to do it because they have no other option. Get that squared away in your head.
    I never looked at it like this but it makes sense. It is very limited and rare when someone could self rep. I will always say having a lawyer is better. Unfortunately it's not a reality for all making unrepresented a no choice situation.

    The system is designed to help the unrepresented with the ease of forms, appearances and conferences. This is where the limited hand holding ends. Motions are very serious where orders will affect you and big dollars can come into play with cost. Trial is a whole other beast, where all your research time spent so far will easily double.

    It's not unattainable by any means but you're right - be prepared to spend hours everyday studying, researching, countless meetings at flic, and asking questions here as you go. The appearances are limited but the paperwork is endless. And then there's trial...

    Leave a comment:


  • Tayken
    replied
    As well, I will quote Working dad in Ukrainian and English:

    UKR: Я не представляю себе, я не представлений. Якби я міг дозволити собі адвоката, я б його мав. Це різниця, ваша честь.​

    ENG: I do not represent myself, I am not represented. If I could afford a lawyer I would have one. That's the difference, your honor.​

    That is a direct quote to the Honourable Mr. Justice Pazaratz when he corrected the Honourable Justice on the use and reference to him as a "self represented" litigant. See, WorkingDad would have hired a lawyer if could have afforded one. Never ever think that WorkingDad did what he did because he "could" do it. He did what he did because he couldn't afford a lawyer.

    A self represented litigant is someone who chooses to do it themselves often because they think it is "easy" to do. Unrepresented litigants have to do it because they have no other option. Get that squared away in your head.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tayken
    replied
    Originally posted by newerwavers View Post
    Having no salaried job (i.e., no T4) while being able to afford high-quality legal representation has always been a significant advantage for stalling proceedings and sidestepping financial responsibilities. The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) is a perfect example of a system struggling to keep up, and Small Claims Court can take years to resolve even the simplest disputes. By all accounts, things have deteriorated from their pre-Covid state across the board.
    Court is not the only option. Settle matters. Arbitration. Etc...

    Originally posted by newerwavers View Post
    From my experience, self-representing is far easier than most people are led to believe, emotional components included. The real challenge lies in discovering that for oneself amidst a dearth of reliable information. It's almost as if there's a concerted effort to obscure the viability of self-representation, maintaining the status quo of dependency on legal professionals. This trend, I'd argue, isn't incidental but rather a reflection of a system designed to perpetuate its complexity and necessity—intentionally so.
    Disagree strongly on your first point that "self-representing is far easier than people are led to believe". In case law there are few successful unrepresented litigants with success such as WorkingDad. Knowing WorkingDad personally (Я знаю його в реальному житті) I can honestly say I have never met a single unrepresented litigant that can do what he does. There are those who "believe" they can but, having spent personally 1000s of hours with him on his matter most people want instant and easy access to information. They won't do the digging he does. He basically read all the first year law books and beyond. He spent hundreds of hours in the law libraries at Universities reading and learning. He met with and talked to top experts on his own accord. He created a network of support far beyond what any unrepresented litigant can do. His cross examination of the OCL clinician was hundreds of hours of research on how to do it. He built software systems to assist him in his "devastating" examination on the stand of the OCL investigator.

    I haven't seen anything contributed by you newerwavers that even comes close to the depth of knowledge WorkingDad had/has.

    Feel free to post your caselaw for all to review and/or scan in your whole magical case file and post it. Its a matter of public record if it went to court anyways.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tayken
    replied
    Locating someone in Canada is not hard in legal matters.

    1. Skip tracers (PI's) can pretty much find anyone given name and some backing information. Retain one.
    2. You can obtain an order for a Sheriff to also locate the person. In Ontario sheriffs are part of the Superior Court of Justice Enforcement Office, which was previously named (and is still sometimes referred to as) the Sheriff's Office. They are very good at finding people.

    Your lawyer, can get these disclosures done at a Settlement Conference and with no need of a motion. You can even get your costs for having to retain the PI if you go that path to locate a litigant. But, you need to focus on locating the person in question if you are not able to locate them through regular means. You don't even need the other party at the SC. Just insure that you put in your brief all the disclosures you want and ask the judge to order the disclosures (which they can do!) right then and there. 99% of them do it as its a matter of moving the case forward.

    As well, its not widely known but, a judge at a SC can order CS to be ordered. Good lawyers can get non-appearing parties, with the right filings, imputed income and CS ordered. This takes some understanding but, any lawyer, in my opinion, who practices primarily in Family Law in Ontario should know how to do this.

    Any lawyer worth their salt knows the various ways to locate and serve the opposing party. Its near impossible to vanish in Canada.

    As well, you can as a part of a Settlement Conference get any and all disclosure orders. You can even get open orders that you can inquire with every financial institute. Estate lawyers have to do this all the time to locate people who are heirs to family money all the time.

    A search for "skip tracer Ontario" nets about 312,000 results (0.30 seconds). Contact one and get the ball rolling. Stop playing victim and hire a lawyer who knows what they are doing and stop letting excuses pile up.
    Last edited by Tayken; 04-09-2024, 05:05 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • newerwavers
    replied
    Originally posted by rockscan View Post

    Not so much anymore.
    Regarding what, exactly? If we're talking about the ease of accessing quality legal advice or the ability to self-represent effectively, I have to push back, especially based on what I'm currently seeing in the GTA. The delays and wait times for public court access, particularly post-Covid, have ballooned massively. The landscape has shifted, and not for the better.

    Having no salaried job (i.e., no T4) while being able to afford high-quality legal representation has always been a significant advantage for stalling proceedings and sidestepping financial responsibilities. The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) is a perfect example of a system struggling to keep up, and Small Claims Court can take years to resolve even the simplest disputes. By all accounts, things have deteriorated from their pre-Covid state across the board.

    Moreover, my other post from today touches on the noticeable decline in high-quality information available online for those looking to self-represent. This forum included. The digital landscape, once rich with resources and open dialogue for self-repping, seems to have thinned, leaving would-be self-representatives at a disadvantage.

    From my experience, self-representing is far easier than most people are led to believe, emotional components included. The real challenge lies in discovering that for oneself amidst a dearth of reliable information. It's almost as if there's a concerted effort to obscure the viability of self-representation, maintaining the status quo of dependency on legal professionals. This trend, I'd argue, isn't incidental but rather a reflection of a system designed to perpetuate its complexity and necessity—intentionally so.

    Leave a comment:


  • rockscan
    replied
    Originally posted by newerwavers View Post
    I dealt with a similar situation recently: a single mom, strapped for cash, against an absent dad with a trust fund and a penchant for hiring expensive lawyers to play hide-and-seek with his income—or lack thereof, considering he treats doing his taxes like he's allergic to them. It's like the system's tailor-made for these types, making it a cakewalk for them to stall proceedings and bleed the other party dry. It's been years and she hasn't collected a dime, all while her legal bills continue to stack up. And, just to add my own twist to the tale, I’m wrestling with outstanding FRO payments from my ex, which she seems to dodge with alarming ease. Chasing them down, even through Small Claims, turns into a herculean effort on my part. Through this ordeal, I’ve picked up on how easy many of these legal tasks are, which lawyers bill hundreds for per hour. I’ve since taken to fully representing myself.

    Looking back, I'd tell her straight: don't bother. The whole venture's akin to throwing your money into a black hole. And here's a slice of truth you're unlikely to get from your garden-variety lawyer: wading into this battle is often an exercise in futility. It's essentially the old adage of never asking a barber if you need a haircut—there's always a vested interest.

    The real issue (including on this forum): is this ongoing blame game between dads and moms. It's all just a smokescreen, diverting attention from the core problem. The real adversary isn't the fathers or the mothers; it's the system. Broken, morally bankrupt, and fueled by a relentless drive for cash and perverse incentives, it shows no genuine concern for what's fair or for the children caught in the crossfire. This system flourishes on conflict, raking in profits, while genuine issues are buried under a mountain of legal fees and endless, meaningless paperwork.

    So, why are lawyers the gatekeepers of legal advice? Ever wonder why there's such a strict barrier against obtaining free legal counsel from anyone else? It's because the entire legal framework is needlessly complex, a self-perpetuating monopoly that transforms straightforward human conflicts into a drawn-out spectacle. What you're essentially paying for is overpriced copywriting, dressed up with unnecessary legal fanfare. It's a setup engineered to ensure you keep coming back, shelling out more, as they protect the convoluted citadel they've constructed. Justice has little to do with it; it's about fueling the machinery, all on your dime.

    Good luck, but be ready to consider if it's time to cut your losses.​
    Not so much anymore. There is plenty of advice on the internet through sites like government and legal assistance sites. So much more is shared on legal blogs and forums like this one. The problem is emotion gets in the way of logic and a lot of people aren't strong enough to self rep as a result. My husband could never self rep and his lawyer had little to do. The ex was the one causing all the problems and we sat back waiting for the hearing dates and providing information. If she had been reasonable, we never would have gone to court.

    The system has some blame but unreasonable parties have a lot more to do with it. A judge and lawyers can only do so much when a party comes along wasting time. That includes parties who don't want to provide info or comply with orders and those intent on fighting. And the court is hesitant to put ramifications in place if it would impact rights or access to justice. Which is what has gotten it to this point.

    Leave a comment:


  • newerwavers
    replied
    I dealt with a similar situation recently: a single mom, strapped for cash, against an absent dad with a trust fund and a penchant for hiring expensive lawyers to play hide-and-seek with his income—or lack thereof, considering he treats doing his taxes like he's allergic to them. It's like the system's tailor-made for these types, making it a cakewalk for them to stall proceedings and bleed the other party dry. It's been years and she hasn't collected a dime, all while her legal bills continue to stack up. And, just to add my own twist to the tale, I’m wrestling with outstanding FRO payments from my ex, which she seems to dodge with alarming ease. Chasing them down, even through Small Claims, turns into a herculean effort on my part. Through this ordeal, I’ve picked up on how easy many of these legal tasks are, which lawyers bill hundreds for per hour. I’ve since taken to fully representing myself.

    Looking back, I'd tell her straight: don't bother. The whole venture's akin to throwing your money into a black hole. And here's a slice of truth you're unlikely to get from your garden-variety lawyer: wading into this battle is often an exercise in futility. It's essentially the old adage of never asking a barber if you need a haircut—there's always a vested interest.

    The real issue (including on this forum): is this ongoing blame game between dads and moms. It's all just a smokescreen, diverting attention from the core problem. The real adversary isn't the fathers or the mothers; it's the system. Broken, morally bankrupt, and fueled by a relentless drive for cash and perverse incentives, it shows no genuine concern for what's fair or for the children caught in the crossfire. This system flourishes on conflict, raking in profits, while genuine issues are buried under a mountain of legal fees and endless, meaningless paperwork.

    So, why are lawyers the gatekeepers of legal advice? Ever wonder why there's such a strict barrier against obtaining free legal counsel from anyone else? It's because the entire legal framework is needlessly complex, a self-perpetuating monopoly that transforms straightforward human conflicts into a drawn-out spectacle. What you're essentially paying for is overpriced copywriting, dressed up with unnecessary legal fanfare. It's a setup engineered to ensure you keep coming back, shelling out more, as they protect the convoluted citadel they've constructed. Justice has little to do with it; it's about fueling the machinery, all on your dime.

    Good luck, but be ready to consider if it's time to cut your losses.​

    Leave a comment:


  • Victorviola
    replied
    Newewavers- great response... what drives my ex is Greed and $$$$$, it's not about our child as he has not seen her in two years and gave me full custody without a fight, should speak volumes...

    If i could turn back the clock i wouldnt have initiated these proceedings, my $$$ that went to lawyers would have been better spent on my kids, too far in too give up.

    One day I hope someone can use my case to their benefit...when all is said and done




    Leave a comment:


  • newerwavers
    replied
    I'm not going to delve into the minutiae of your situation or what drives your ex, but from the sounds of it, he was never even in the running for something resembling a 50/50 custody arrangement. It’s like he was set up to fail from the get-go, now finding himself in a position where he hardly sees his kids at all. This whole mess you’re enduring really shines a light on how the court system’s failures aren't reserved for just one gender. It indiscriminately steamrolls anyone caught in its path—mothers and fathers alike. We spend so much time arguing about whether the court favors men or women that we miss the forest for the trees: the system is fundamentally apathetic. Its main focus appears to be sustaining itself, regardless of who gets hurt in the process.

    The labyrinth you're navigating, with its financial hide-and-seek and judicial indifference, perfectly illustrates the court's impotence in enforcing its mandates. It’s a public secret in the family court circles that perjury, particularly regarding finances, goes largely unchecked. Contempt of court, whether through denied access or evading financial obligations, seems almost inconsequential. This lax enforcement emboldens individuals like your ex to flout the rules, fully aware of the negligible repercussions.

    He's probably watching from afar, smugly satisfied with how the system's ineptitude plays into his hands, leaving you to shoulder the financial burden and emotional toll. It's a grim tableau of the reality many face when stepping into family court: a place where the rules are more akin to guidelines and the costs of participation—both in terms of money and spirit—are exorbitant, with justice often remaining elusive.

    This sad state of affairs, where deceit and contempt are par for the course, exploited by those savvy or cynical enough to use them to their advantage, casts a long shadow over the notion of fair play and justice. It underscores a bitter truth: engaging with family court can feel like a quixotic quest, with the only assured winners being the legal system and its custodians, profiting from the ongoing conflict and confusion.

    Leave a 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