Surprise my how many self represent

[billm]

I had my first motion (adjourned).

I self represented, my ex has a lawyer.

Looking at the schedule, I was surprised how many were self representing - well over half (with some that had their former lawyer's name crossed out)

[lobsterpot]

I was self represented the other day in court. Toke me many hours of work ,reading and coping certain information. When I was in court ,I asked the sheriff how many people where self rep. She said at least half .

[Janibel]

I'm not surprised that over 50% are self-reps when you consider the costs involved. But I wonder if it helps to cross the finish line any faster?

[arabian]

80% of people before me when I am in court are self-represented. In my experience the majority of the people in family court who have lawyers representing them are there to dispute ballet or music lessons - rarely anything that would, in my opinion, be substantial.

[OrleansLawyer]

Looking at the schedule, I was surprised how many were self representing

If the lawyer is not on record at the start of the case, court staff may not add them to the list. This can be true even when the lawyer has filed an Answer and case conference brief.

However, it is true that there are many self represented litigants.

For some insight, I suggest reading
http://www.cfcj-fcjc.org/sites/defau...15%20Final.pdf
at pages 9-12, if not the entire paper.

[Tayken]

Looking at the schedule, I was surprised how many were self representing - well over half (with some that had their former lawyer's name crossed out)

Lawyers rates range from $275-600 per hour (updated since my last posting for "truisms")... This isn't including disbursements and other costs!

How many hours did you spend on this stuff? 10? 20? 30?

10 hours at 265 + HST: $2,994.50
20 hours at 265 + HST: $5,989.00
30 hours at 265 + HST: $8,983.50

10 hours at 600 + HST: $6,780.00
20 hours at 600 + HST: $13,560.00
30 hours at 600 + HST: $20,340.00

Median income for families is $66,700 (2011).

10 hours at 265 + HST: 4.5% of median income
20 hours at 265 + HST: 9.0% of median income
30 hours at 265 + HST: 13.6% of median income

10 hours at 600 + HST: 10.2% of median income
20 hours at 600 + HST: 20.5% of median income
30 hours at 600 + HST: 30.8% of median income

Not sure if many people are willing to spend 4.5% of their total income or if they even can! Looking at the highest on the scale 30.8%?! WOW!

It really puts it into perspective why 50% (I suspect more!) of family law matters either one (or both) parties are without a lawyer...

Stick in a pile of false allegations and nonsense and it really identifies why so many people are unrepresented...

Good Luck!
Tayken

[takeontheworld]

Those are interesting posts, OrleansLawyer and Tayken.

[FightingForFamily]

During my divorce my legal costs per month exceed my income by 50%.

In other words, I was making $1800 per month to live off, but due to my ex and her ways, my legal costs were over $3000 per month to deal with all the crap.

So I wish it was 4.5%... once you've been hosed and are already paying 48%-55% in interim child/spousal support, it is much MUCH higher.

[Tayken]

During my divorce my legal costs per month exceed my income by 50%.

In other words, I was making $1800 per month to live off, but due to my ex and her ways, my legal costs were over $3000 per month to deal with all the crap.

So I wish it was 4.5%... once you've been hosed and are already paying 48%-55% in interim child/spousal support, it is much MUCH higher.

I have seen this happen as well but, this more than often happens when one of the lawyers in the matter has been granted "wings". I would even argue that someone who has retained a lawyer can't compete with a $5000 legal aid certificate that bills at say $150 an hour. This is roughly 33 hours of billable time. (Now I know that this is a simplification and there are other things that go against the $5000. Just humour me for a second OrleansLawyer. )

So, if we look at the $600 an hour lawyer... It would take $19,800 to match the same investment of time. I don't accept the argument that the more experienced lawyer should take less time. Reading 1000 pages of affidavits takes just as much time for a $600 lawyer as a $Legal Aid lawyer. So, here we have a truly unfair advantage.

I would go on to argue that when of the parties has a Legal Aid Lawyer it is a rare situation that the other litigant who doesn't qualify for "wings" would be hard-pressed to match the 33 hours and the LOA lawyer could easily run up a bill of tens-of-thousands on the other party through complete and utter nonsense.

This is where LOA lacks SIGNIFICANT GOVERNANCE over how certificates are used. How did this case (and others) get to the point that an order was made such as this... ONE RESULTING FROM TRIAL? It is a failure in the governance structure of how PUBLIC FUNDS are being spent.

58. The dynamics on this file are all too common, and cry out for judicial awareness. In a troubled economy we are seeing more self-represented parties in Family Court, and certainly more people with limited finances. Inevitably, these ingredients create greater strains on the administration of justice. Combined with limited judicial resources, the need to encourage settlement and discourage inappropriate behaviour by litigants has never been more pressing.

59. With Legal Aid tightening eligibility rules, it is likely that just about any litigant retaining counsel on a certificate will have trouble paying costs if they lose. But combining a “free lawyer” with a perceived immunity from costs is a dangerous mix. Dangerous for opposing litigants. Dangerous for children like (the child), whose lives are needlessly disrupted by bitter and unnecessary litigation. And dangerous for a Family Court system whose resources are already strained.

60. In the case at bar, the Applicant conducted herself as if her Legal Aid certificate amounted to a blank cheque – unlimited resources which most unrepresented Respondents would be hard-pressed to match. A scheduled 3-4 day trial turned into 17 days, largely because the Applicant fought every issue and pursued every dubious allegation, to the bitter end. She appeared to make up evidence and allegations as she went along. She defied court orders directly impacting on the child, even while the trial was underway. There have to be consequences. Either we sanction this irresponsible and destructive behaviour, or we invite more of the same.

61. Encouraging settlement and discouraging inappropriate behaviour by litigants is important in all litigation – but particularly in family law, and most particularly in custody cases. No litigant should perceive they have “wings” – the ability to say or do anything they want in court, without consequences.

Good Luck!
Tayken