The Ex's Lawyer

[ddol1]

read with interest, as my new lawyers asked in January after meeting the ex's lawyer for the first time....."Is my ex's lawyer as big of an ass as we think he is??" I suppose they asked with respect that even intelligent, honest truthful individuals have an off day.

As to how Tayken last described the system - the police work under the same model. Even speaking to the second highest ranking officer in the force, the response I got was of concern but as he put it, his only option was to forward the complaint to the officer in question to investigate??? Who the heck shall investigate their own breaking of the law, false claims entered in their own official police report? What could possibly come out of warning the offending officer that the harmed party is not going to sit quiet and accept the infringement on their personal rights and freedoms??

Answer, in the end? A young graduating law student who called me and asked for permission to dig into my file right from day one - and not accepting the response that for some reason the offending officer's personal notes were conveniently lost.... An apology from the Crown did nothing to restore the damage created as they tried three times to alter the charges to allow a trial to actually occur. Turns out it forced the prosecutor to realise that my ex's own testimony supported my side of "there is always two sides to every story" and the foolishness was put to an end, the BS assault charges dropped - but the damage done stands....

[MS Mom]

Because the governing authority is (The Law Society) is made up their peers. It is like having cats watch the mice. When a mouse gets eaten the cat who is supposed to implement the governance control on the cat who killed the mouse just won't happen. They are cats... They protect their own and don't really care about the mice.

This is why malpractice goes mostly addressed as clinical colleges composed of "peers" evaluate the conduct of their colleagues.

Okay, making much more sense to me now.

I thought the judges were the ultimate decision makers on that, but I suppose the Law Society is similar to a Union in that way.

[Tayken]

Tayken - why are deceitful lawyers, such as those that commission documents as you've suggested above, still practicing? As you've said, their behavior doesn't go unnoticed by the judge, so why isn't it addressed directly?

Because the governing authority is (The Law Society) is made up their peers. It is like having cats watch the mice. When a mouse gets eaten the cat who is supposed to implement the governance control on the cat who killed the mouse just won't happen. They are cats... They protect their own and don't really care about the mice.

This is why malpractice goes mostly addressed as clinical colleges composed of "peers" evaluate the conduct of their colleagues.

[arabian]

My ex has a stupid lawyer right now. I pray ex someday retains a decent one though. "Stupid" doesn't exclusively practice family law rather gets clients by hanging out at Provincial courthouse and solicits those who need to post bail for assault etc. "Stupid" receives regular dressing-down from judge on family court procedural matters.

[MS Mom]

There are three kinds of bad lawyers:

1. Stupid lawyers.
2. Deceitful Lawyers.
3. Stupid and deceitful lawyers.

The worst lawyer to deal with is #1 in my opinion. Why? At least with #2 you can figure out their game plan and they have one. You know what they are going to do. With #1... Their bad conduct is random and unpredictable.

#3 is not as dangerous as #2 because they will do stupid things like... purely as an example... have their client commission an affidavit the day prior to their client calling the police, making false allegations and abducting the children in contravention of section 283.(1) of the CCC all while claiming that the police "assisted" in the removal of children... and that day being a Saturday when courts are closed and when statistically 99% of parental abductions happen (as identified by Child Find). They will be even stupid enough to file this affidavit not realizing how transparent the nonsense is on their emergency ex-parte motion... Judges notice that kind of stupidity and don't usually have kind words when this transparent conduct happens.

A deceitful and not stupid lawyer would have in the above example simply setup the affidavit and not commissioned the affidavit until after their client had met with them and after they followed their lawyer's instruction to attempt to entrap the the other party in false criminal charge.

But, usually, these stupid lawyers have even stupider clients who themselves leave so much evidence in their wake of stupidity that it even makes it worse for their clients...

Good Luck!
Tayken

Tayken - why are deceitful lawyers, such as those that commission documents as you've suggested above, still practicing? As you've said, their behavior doesn't go unnoticed by the judge, so why isn't it addressed directly?

[Tayken]

There are three kinds of bad lawyers:

1. Stupid lawyers.
2. Deceitful Lawyers.
3. Stupid and deceitful lawyers.

The worst lawyer to deal with is #1 in my opinion. Why? At least with #2 you can figure out their game plan and they have one. You know what they are going to do. With #1... Their bad conduct is random and unpredictable.

#3 is not as dangerous as #2 because they will do stupid things like... purely as an example... have their client commission an affidavit the day prior to their client calling the police, making false allegations and abducting the children in contravention of section 283.(1) of the CCC all while claiming that the police "assisted" in the removal of children... and that day being a Saturday when courts are closed and when statistically 99% of parental abductions happen (as identified by Child Find). They will be even stupid enough to file this affidavit not realizing how transparent the nonsense is on their emergency ex-parte motion... Judges notice that kind of stupidity and don't usually have kind words when this transparent conduct happens.

A deceitful and not stupid lawyer would have in the above example simply setup the affidavit and not commissioned the affidavit until after their client had met with them and after they followed their lawyer's instruction to attempt to entrap the the other party in false criminal charge.

But, usually, these stupid lawyers have even stupider clients who themselves leave so much evidence in their wake of stupidity that it even makes it worse for their clients...

Good Luck!
Tayken

[Tayken]

Has anyone looked up opposing counsel on Canlii to see what they've done in the past? I'm sure at least a few of you have.

Not only is it done it is advised that all litigants (and counsel) do this. (Search for past case history.)

Like all things in life lawyers, more than most, have common patterns of behaviour. Look both at how cases have been argued against them and how they argue their cases.

For example, if a lawyer loses a case where a claim that the children are fearful of their client they will try to make similar nonsense claims in a future application for another client to gain an advantage in establishing a false status quo...

Crappy lawyers, of which there are many, will do anything to "win" a case or to impress their clients. Mr. William Eddy writes about this in his book "Splitting" in the chapter about negative advocate solicitors. It is the most succinct review of this kind of conduct by counsel I have been able to find... The law societies don't want to investigate these issues for some reason... although most *good* lawyers know these textbook tactics...

PS: MS Mom. I don't recommend you disclose personal information as you have done in this thread.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[Thomas]

My ex's lawyer scored a solid 0 out of 5 on one the rating boards.
He actually was such an arse that I even posted my perspective from the opposing side in that he was so bad he caused us huge issues.

When the lawyer never responds and can't complete paper work it hurts everyone.

My lawyer scored 5 out of 5!
Not cheap, but in the end worth every penny.

[mememe]

In my case it doesn't matter who my lawyer is-----his lawyer behaves the same and no matter what you do , say, be nice not be nice--she behaves the same---they do nothing. No finances, no reading information sent to them, withholding information....just read my posts. My first lawyer was nice, but I didn't get anything done after a year (recommended). THen I thought I will go with an aggressive person--she gave me more anxiety than the divorce and added to her already extensive diamond collection. HIs lawyer just did the no communication thing and delayed as she did before. I couldn't take the lies (I rarely use that word, but she did) so I moved on to lawyer 3. I did get my financials done, but after 2 years and more megabucks----no behaviour change in his lawyer. I blame our court system that allows this to happen.

I usually investigate etc..... but really-- no matter how you research it is the luck of the draw and it is dependent on how the opposing lawyer acts.

[arabian]

Likely "old school" where everyone deferred to the doctor, lawyer, preacher etc.

I get it.

Many people were scammed through this era....

[MS Mom]

I checked up on my ex's lawyer and heard that the fellow gets his clients by hanging out by the place where prisoners seek bail....

I do wish that my ex would get a decent lawyer someday. He has had several.

When my ex ended up with the current lawyer I was initially gleeful (seriously) but I very soon learned that the lawyer's incompetence did indeed cost me in the end. The "old guy" my ex retained isn't up-to-date on family law. He's a pitiful character and plays his deficiencies to the hilt. My lawyer is most respectful of him (don't know how he does this) and it is quite the gong-show none the less.

That's the really frustrating part - it ends up costing you more money by either doing the work for them or in delays in getting the work done.

I've expressed my concern to the ex's parents, who are footing the bill. But, as to be expected, they don't really want to hear it. But, that is to be expected I guess.

[arabian]

I checked up on my ex's lawyer and heard that the fellow gets his clients by hanging out by the place where prisoners seek bail....

I do wish that my ex would get a decent lawyer someday. He has had several.

When my ex ended up with the current lawyer I was initially gleeful (seriously) but I very soon learned that the lawyer's incompetence did indeed cost me in the end. The "old guy" my ex retained isn't up-to-date on family law. He's a pitiful character and plays his deficiencies to the hilt. My lawyer is most respectful of him (don't know how he does this) and it is quite the gong-show none the less.

[MS Mom]

I find it amazing that people don't ask for references, and thoroughly vet, before they hire their lawyer. Divorce is one of the most expensive things a person will ever go through. Too often people are "wowed" by the impressive letterhead or the list of partners in the firm.

I was very fortunate to select a good young lawyer. Even though I had a very good 'feeling' about him when I first met him, I checked him out thoroughly prior to retaining him.

Knowing what I know now, and hearing the horror stores of many on this forum, I would recommend examining the prospective lawyer in court. I would recommend canvassing some former clients and I certainly would perform a simple check with the university/law school he graduated from. Incredulous as it may seem, there are people out there who pretend to be lawyers but they are nothing more than para-legals who are neither licensed nor have any courtroom experience. (Paralegals can be perfect for some people but you should pay accordingly).

People are so afraid to ask questions about the individual they are about to invest their lives in. Why is that?

I hired the first lawyer I found. And, initially she worked out great. But, she failed to grasp the idiocy I was dealing with completely.

Eventually I found that her and I, while both being single moms with difficult exes, our worlds were so far apart financially that she just couldn't see my perspective. I needed someone more aggressive, but by that time I was completely broke.

In hindsight I should have realized that I would need a few different things in my lawyer. That was my big mistake there.

As for my ex's lawyer, he's been with this guy for a few years, pre-dating the ghost case. But, he's lawyer number 3 for him. And, since my ex also has another daughter with another mother who he also launched legal war on, this lawyer has made a fortune of my ex and his parents. Incredible to think of just how much money he spent on useless, baseless crap just to up and leave both his kids behind anyway. Crazy really.

[arabian]

I find it amazing that people don't ask for references, and thoroughly vet, before they hire their lawyer. Divorce is one of the most expensive things a person will ever go through. Too often people are "wowed" by the impressive letterhead or the list of partners in the firm.

I was very fortunate to select a good young lawyer. Even though I had a very good 'feeling' about him when I first met him, I checked him out thoroughly prior to retaining him.

Knowing what I know now, and hearing the horror stores of many on this forum, I would recommend examining the prospective lawyer in court. I would recommend canvassing some former clients and I certainly would perform a simple check with the university/law school he graduated from. Incredulous as it may seem, there are people out there who pretend to be lawyers but they are nothing more than para-legals who are neither licensed nor have any courtroom experience. (Paralegals can be perfect for some people but you should pay accordingly).

People are so afraid to ask questions about the individual they are about to invest their lives in. Why is that?

[FB_]

Any one in a court battle would be wise to check out the opposing lawyer...However even more important would be to check out your own lawyer.

I searched both and found interesting things with both.

My lawyer had way more court records than the opposing lawyer. He did not win all of them but when you look at the facts in some of the cases I would say they were long shots and I can guarantee he told them so just based on how he dealt with my case.