Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sending letters to MP to fix Family Law! Please provide feedback

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Kinso View Post
    100% agree. But talk is where results have to start from.



    Unified Family Courts, Case Conferences, ADR processes, PCs, Collaborative Law, an abundance of resources for self-reps, all steps towards less conflict. It's not enough, but efforts have been made.



    haha I appreciate the confidence. But even a former family lawyer turned AG with reform as his top objective could only make limited progress in a term. The machine is big, complex and unwieldy, there are too many interested parties who have to get on the same page (not just lawyers).

    These family law problems exist in every jurisdiction in every country. It's why family lawyers in Ontario meet with family lawyers from the Netherlands to discuss reform. We're all looking for better.

    Human beings are naturally complex animals. Add in the emotionality of divorce/relationship breakdown... and *poof*... all reason goes out the window.

    Trust me on this alone: there are no easy solutions.
    OK give me a year and a staff of eager beaver lawyers and I will fix it all.
    At my rate of $150 an hour

    Comment


    • #17
      Lol well I do applaud your optimism.

      Comment


      • #18
        I would hire you at $150 per hour. Heck even at 300. But why do lawyers have to charge more than a brain surgeon? When I was looking for a lawyer at least 3 of them told me their fees were 750 per hour. That is robbery. That is the reason families go bankrupt. Make a living. Earn your keep but don't rob hard working parents. There needs to be an overhaul and cap on the fees. No lawyer is worth $750 per hour! And why is it only this expensive in family court? I tell you why. Because most times there is equity involved between parties which translates to lots of money for the lawyer. A family law lawyer I had contacted to take my case said he was too busy but referred me to his colleague. He told me to tell his colleague that I owned a home so he would take my case for sure. Disgusting.

        Comment


        • #19
          It is not untrue when television shows depict divorced dad's in grungy bachelor apartments with no furniture. Eating dinner off of a TV tray?

          Why didn't I fight for the furniture which she took all of it? Too expensive in legal fees to pay a lawyer to fight for couches and wall units.

          Why don't I buy furniture to replace what she took? Family court leaves you crippled financially, as now I am paying supports and re-paying my lawyer for her services.

          RValentines: A point of clarification for you. Access and support are not linked to one another. You don't get rewarded with time because you pay support. Conversely, parents should not deny access for non-payment. That would be punishing the child.

          Comment


          • #20
            I m positive that a large part of law practice involves collecting fees. Many litigants do not have any clue of how much and how fast fees rise, and often they get pinned into the belief they will recover their costs when the "win" their case. Full disclosure should mandatory with fees agreed to up front. Would you hire anyone at these rates to do anything for you without a firm quote?

            How many have paid $10,000 for a simple separation agreement that SHOULD be filled in on an online form. Check the boxes. And the court forms are absolutely ridiculous. This should ALL be online 10 years ago with today;'s tech. Build Divorce Mate into the back end. Financial statements online. Penalties for misrepresenting. Scan in your NOA and T4s etc. (banks do this with cheques now). Forget notarizing. Require an accountant's certification for self employed, deductible accounting costs to the business likely.

            Paper filing? More insanity. Every trip to the courthouse to file a piece of paper costs you. People shop their car insurance to save $100 but allow lawyers to charge them thousands and thousands at will. It is insane. NOONE wins in 95% of the cases.

            The saddest part is this is the children's legacy. These exorbitant costs take food off the table, exhaust education funds and fuel even more conflict. SO it is not broken, it is shattered, and in the vast majority of cases NOONE wins and everyone loses. Especially the kids.

            Yes there are extreme cases that belong in front of a judge. Yes there are some complications. But most complications could be resolved with much simpler and more efficient methods with full cost transparency. If you cannot agree on a separation agreement (that you fill out online) then you BOTH pay into a fund for panel arbitration. Panel members set by the Ministry of Families (or whatever they call it). Not at $3,000 a day for an arbitrator. At $1,000 a day with a panel of a social worker, an accountant and a lawyer. 5 day maximum. Majority vote to decide. Panel decides if any added costs for being a jackass are levied. Standard form affidavits that can be rejected if stupid. In complex cases especially involving kids add time or get government subsidy. Pay a child advocate if needed. Make ALL agreements enforceable with pre-determined penalties for specific breach. If breach then back to the panel. No complicated court rules, no civil litigation, no boxes of filings in triplicate served and notarized. No years to get a case settled. No case conferences. No complicated motions. Only in the most extreme cases does a judge ever need to see a case.

            So these are my ideas based on my experience. If I wanted an accounting firm to audit my books and issue an opinion they would quote me up front and not even think about increasing that one dime unless I was a jackass during their work and I agreed in advance. Their problem to get the job done with what we agreed to.

            Why will this never happen? See my previous posts.
            Last edited by Abba435; 04-17-2020, 07:00 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              I hate to say it, but the system will NOT change ! In my opinion, major reasons include....


              1) MONEY !!!! Lawyers make a fortune from the divorce industry (among others) and guess what most politicians were in their "civilian" life ? You guessed it - lawyers ! Do you really think they'll pass fair laws which will result in less income for their industry ?


              2) While I realize that women can certainly get unfair treatment under the law also, most would agree that for the most part men get punished the most. Bottom line, men garner little sympathy and quite frankly public opinion would much rather see a male rendered financially devastated and living in his car than a female. Similar to a sinking ship - "women and children" get the life rafts, the men can sink with the ship !


              I think the only REAL solution, which the internet is helping with, is to make the general public, and men in particular, along with high earners in general, AWARE of how incredibly unfair Family Law is. This way, hopefully many more young people will NOT engage in marriage or common law (except Quebec lol). There is no reason not to simply date (for an extended period if desired) but maintain separate residences.


              It would be ideal if, prior to marriage, both parties had to complete a MANDATORY course outlining in detail the hell they will go through via
              Family Law if either party decides to divorce. Interesting how so many things in our society have formal waivers/warnings/courses to warn one of what could go wrong EXCEPT marriage. I strongly suspect that for many people, if they were FULLY aware of what inviting the state into their life meant, would back out and avoid marriage or common law. Of course, if this was implemented, the "divorce industry" would lose future revenue so I doubt you'll ever see that.


              Bottom line, it's too late for us already entangled in the grip of Family Law but hopefully younger people will be made aware of what awaits them and avoid the whole mess. Anyone who has children should stress the danger of marriage and common law to them to help them avoid the nightmare we've had to endure.


              In retrospect, knowing what I know now, I would have NEVER have married or lived common law. Hopefully younger people can avoid the same mistake !

              Comment


              • #22
                MONEY !!!! Lawyers make a fortune from the divorce industry (among others)
                Family law is far less profitable than many other areas of law. Do not assume that because the hourly rate is high, the net profit is high.

                $300/hr billable is not equal to $300/hr as a 'salary' job. (40 hrs a week x 52 weeks a year = $624,000). The most a family lawyer can expect to bill in a year is about 1100 hours or about $330,000.

                From that, only a percentage is collectible (ideally 95%, so write off $16,500 in a good year, more like 15% or $49,500 in a bad year).

                Less rent ($3,000 a month x 12 = $36,000) more if there's staff.

                Law society and insurance = $6,000/yr

                Accounting costs = $3,000/yr for filing.

                Office manager = $50,000. If you want to bill 1000-1100 hrs a year, you need someone to manage the phone, book appointments, day to day bookkeeping, scan documents, assemble courier packages, respond to routine correspondence, and triage calls when three emergencies come in at once. Plus if you want them to stick around you'll need to give them a bonus so let's say $5,000 at Christmas.

                CPD requirements can be $2,000 annually (for some it's more). Must keep that license in good standing.

                Printing costs, some bill this out, other's don't. ($2,400/yr, but this might be recovered)

                Telephones ($150/mo if you're lucky, $250/mo is more typical). Business lines are more expensive than personal lines. ($1,800 yr)

                Marketing (donations to build your brand, advertising, website, tech staff when things crash, etc.) $3-5,000/yr This one is somewhat variable.

                Travel (usually to regional courts) $100/mo or $1200/yr)

                Credit card fees (interchange fees of about 2.25% assuming 70% of clients pay by credit card, that's $219,800 x 0.025 = $5,495/yr)

                Other: internet, books, office supplies, computer equipment, coffee for clients and staff, insurance (non professional) - let's just call this $10,000

                So now we've gone from $330,000 gross revenue to $156,000 - $189,000 net (variance is due to bad accounts). Now, that's still a pretty good income, but I wouldn't call it a 'fortune'. Keep in mind this is without any tax payable, which come next.

                I mention the above because if you think cutting the costs of family lawyers is a silver bullet solution to the problem, you're quite mistaken. With $150/hr being the top line billing amount, the whole operation is simply break even. Why bother to work then if you make $0.00.
                Last edited by Kinso; 04-17-2020, 11:09 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The rates charged by lawyers may be justified.
                  Noone says a lawyer should not be able to make a decent living.
                  The hours charged are not justified for many reasons.
                  The system is set up to make what should be straightforward solutions complex which means high costs for families and too many lawyers.
                  Some lawyers can tend to protract, fail to dissuade and create controversy.
                  If there is one lawyer in a town they are broke
                  If there are two they are both doing fine.
                  Add a third and they are all rich.
                  Conflict, confusion and protraction are issues as are over zealous participants.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The system is set up to make what should be straightforward solutions complex which means high costs for families
                    This is true. The more informal we make the process the more 'rough' justice becomes. Quicker decisions means less informed decisions.

                    However, we much also acknowledge if people can't afford to get to the finish line, that rough justice is already the norm. What value is there in cross-examination and discovery if people can't afford to undertake the process?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Very germane point.
                      The law is not pragmatic. It treats every case like it is a detailed textbook example. So much of the process is overblown and fuels conflict.
                      Sure, questioning makes sense in civil litigation when appropriate but family law? Pitting parents against each other? Truly insane.
                      Justice? Who's version? And at what cost? Insanity.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        It takes two people to settle things amicably, only one to inflame conflict.

                        What do we do when one party insists the easily obtainable evidence doesn't tell the whole story? That a custody assessment is required, or forensic analysis of bank accounts, or their ex is secretly working but not disclosing? Do we tell them 'too bad, it's too expensive to investigate'? Do we admit anything into evidence and ignore reliability concerns?

                        I agree the system is broken. Nearly every lawyer does. This is evidenced by the number of self-reps and the obscene cost of litigation. But there are also reasons the rules of evidence, and the entire litigation process, evolved the way it did.

                        ---

                        In my view, the fix is at the start. It makes no sense to commence a process where you serve and file pleadings, documents designed to make one side look good and one side look bad, then enter a process designed to 'bring them back together'.

                        It's akin to punching someone in the face and then saying 'now let's talk about our differences and sort them out'.

                        I suggest a mandatory informal process first. More akin to an admin tribunal. With the social worker, lawyer, accountant (or financial expert) as the tribunal members. Give them the power to order disclosure, and make interim arrangements. Have them supervised by a Judge for quick informal appeals where necessary. Make this process mandatory before it's possible for people to run off to court and spend $100K in fees.

                        Start with Case Conference Briefs, not pleadings.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          You are absolutely right. Treating family law like civil litigation is wrong in many instances. It is an adversarial assumption. Yes there are absolutely cases of bad faith, malfeasance and risky conduct. The vast majority are not. The start should be the separation agreement. This should be statutory with predefined elements that are mandatory and carry sever penalties for fraud. Like tax returns. Detailed enough to catch complexity without burdening simple cases. Form 13 is atrocious. It confuses more than it informs. Stitch on Divorce Mate and spit out a form for FRO. Make annual updates online mandatory. Numbers spit out. Anyone that does not want 50-50 for whatever reason goes to a panel for binding decision.
                          Briefs should have mandatory sections rather than free form mayhem.
                          Big penalties for lawyers that proceed with nuisance claims or responses.
                          You need to get elected and make these changes. You would make more as Minister of Justice and get a juicy pension and a nicer office.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            "I want a fat pension and a nice office" will complement my other slogan well: "I'll be the first honest politician you've ever voted for"

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Kinso View Post
                              "I want a fat pension and a nice office" will complement my other slogan well: "I'll be the first honest politician you've ever voted for"
                              Quid pro quo

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                All - thank you for the great feedback and many notes.

                                I have taken your feedback and incorporated it, specifically, removing the child support portion and a few other changes.

                                I have sent the email to a couple of MPs, Rob Ford, and Canadian Bar Association.

                                Everyone here is saying the same thing which I agree with, too many parties DO NOT want to change the current system as it is BIG MONEY for Lawyers.

                                I am one of the victims. I've spent $50k in 6 months and I have no access to my kids. This does not include the $50k I will need to pay my criminal lawyer to defend me against my wife's false allegations.

                                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