Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Ex's Lawyer

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

  • #16
    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

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Tayken View Post
      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?

      Comment


      • #18
        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.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by MS Mom View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Tayken View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              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....

              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