Not sure of an appropriate title

[Kkc]

Hi

So just some people's take on this. The ex is a very unreasonable person and in 2 years is on third lawyer. Just got rid of the last one 1 week before questioning.


Many people involved at length with the situation (doctors, psychologist, social workers) have made the comment that being on a 3rd lawyer is never a good thing for that person.

This is also a very very high conflict situation with parental alienation

I guess can someone explain to me the optics of going through lawyers like underwear?

I don't know if she canned them or they canned her, but like I said, she is very unreasonable.

I am still on my first.

[rockscan]

It doesn’t mean much other than delays. A judge only cares what is in the docket. Sure they may see new counsel and ask about making sure they are up to speed but in the grand scheme of things you aren’t going to “win” because your ex has had multiple lawyers. If they are inept then yes but the number doesn’t matter. It could also be that they are the same firm just different lawyers taking on the file. Or they fired the ex and that’s why they are new.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kkc]

Oh no it's all different firms

This current one is tough but doesn't put up with crap
And the mountain of evidence of a behavior problem will catch him off guard.

I have it on recording that she demands money to help with a transition. Just scared for what is happening to my daughter

[Tayken]

If you have a judge consistently on the file then they will notice. Generally swapping out lawyers multiple times signals the party who is high-conflict.

[cranberry]

Mine is on lawyer #6! Has our kids convinced they can just up and leave when they turn 12 next month. Yup, high conflict people tend to go through lawyers quickly. However, it really doesn't factor into your case.

[Tayken]

Mine is on lawyer #6! Has our kids convinced they can just up and leave when they turn 12 next month. Yup, high conflict people tend to go through lawyers quickly. However, it really doesn't factor into your case.

Your lawyer should be requesting case management.

[cranberry]

Our boys turn 12 in March. I will be surprised if I have not received an affidavit for him to remove them from my life by the end of that week.

Even though we have been on this roller coaster for 12 years, I am not quite sure what you mean. We don't have anything active, per se, right now. How does case management come into play?

[Tayken]

Our boys turn 12 in March. I will be surprised if I have not received an affidavit for him to remove them from my life by the end of that week.

Here is hoping the other parent and their lawyer is stupid enough to put forward an affidavit from a child. There is no sitting justice that wouldn't loose their mind if they did that. That is a huge NEVER DO THIS kind of thing.

Even though we have been on this roller coaster for 12 years, I am not quite sure what you mean. We don't have anything active, per se, right now. How does case management come into play?

You:

1. Hire proper legal counsel.
2. Review your matter with legal counsel.
3. Determine a path forward which may be to:
a. Bring forward an application.
b. Attend a case conference.
c. Bring a motion.
d. Custody and access assessment.
e. Ask for the court to case manage the situation (one judge for every motion and then trial etc...)

Really... You need a lawyer. You are NOT qualified to deal with the complexity of the legal issues if you haven't resolved it after 12 years.

You stop pissing into the wind with arguing with the other parent and seek the proper legal intervention to seek assistance from the court.

[cranberry]

I appreciate your advice, thank you very much. As for pissing into the wind, that's advice better passed on to my ex. But I understand what you are saying.

[Tayken]

I appreciate your advice, thank you very much. As for pissing into the wind, that's advice better passed on to my ex. But I understand what you are saying.

Both parties are responsible for moving the matter forward. Lots of time people sit on things without moving it forward. A good lawyer will be able to move a case forward.

[Tayken]

However, and most importantly, if a litigant has to resort to pointing to the # of lawyers as an argument to make in a case, they are grasping at straws and should be looking for better and more relevant arguments to present to a judge.

We are not talking about a file that has had 2 lawyers over the course of its history. As an example, a file that has been on for 5 years with 4 lawyers.

[Tayken]

Regardless, using that as an argument to articulate to a judge in a court battle for custody and/or access is pretty lame.

You don't even need to use the argument as a judge has the continuing record on their desk and will see it themselves.

Not really awful concept as the Law Society and various Judicial training sessions have had William Eddy present on this very topic. Covered in detail in various training and books.

"High Conflict People in Legal Disputes"

Its a well understood common pattern of behaviour in the legal community. Lawyer shopping is one of the patterns of behaviours that high conflict people in legal disputes often do. Like it or not its "common knowledge".

I suspect you are opposing this common knowledge because you are assuming that it is an "absolute" pointer to a "win" for the argument. It is not. Its just one of the patterns of behaviour that judges (and lawyers) are aware of. Its also not an "argument" you make. Its something that is obvious and one of those unspoken things.

Most lawyers that are any good won't take on clients that have had 3+ pervious lawyers on their family law file. It is the tell tail sign of a problem client.

Crafty and good lawyers identify it in arguments like this:

"Your Hounour. My apologies as my friend, The_lawyer_name, is the 5th lawyer on this file representing the_opposing_party and may not be as familiar with the issue we are currently canvasing a solution for and have been for the past three years. Might I recommend a short recess so I can provide my friend my copy of the continuing record so he may review the particular tab we are discussing."

etc...

[dealingWithEvil]

There are a lot of lawyers that need to be dismissed. I have seen examples of:

1) Not replying to emails, mumbling in court, getting confused = fired.
2) make all sort of promises but simply are in over their head and dying to get out = fired.
3) Screw up big time on an easy item and can't admit they did and don't follow direction = fired.
4) Not knowing the rules of the region = fired.

[dealingWithEvil]

Crafty and good lawyers identify it in arguments like this:

"Your Hounour. My apologies as my friend, The_lawyer_name, is the 5th lawyer on this file representing the_opposing_party and may not be as familiar with the issue we are currently canvasing a solution for and have been for the past three years. Might I recommend a short recess so I can provide my friend my copy of the continuing record so he may review the particular tab we are discussing."

etc...

I heard a lawyer do this once....basically they shot themselves in the foot when they did it. They came off looking very bad.