No wonder laywers have a bad name

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HappyMomma

New member
Attended question yesterday and it went very well but I left feeling terrible for my ex. His lawyer is a mess. My poor ex is having his bill needlessly wracked up by this guy and is going to end up with my costs on top of it all.

His lawyer will write something in an email then write another email denying that he wrote it. Really? It's in WRITING!!! He denies receiving documents that were sent electronically or were part of our brief. Within the same email he'll contradict himself. He makes ridiculous threats, emails my lawyer every 'brain fart' that he has, and has to be constantly reminded of the facts in the case.

I'm pretty sure his lawyer has not explained to him that he doesn't have a case and he should probably settle to avoid costs.

I just have to keep reminding myself that my ex has done this to himself. He already fired 2 lawyers because he didn't like what they had to say and he's pushed a simple issue to litigation.

I am SO thankful for my lawyer.
 
CSAngel said:
Attended question yesterday and it went very well but I left feeling terrible for my ex. His lawyer is a mess. My poor ex is having his bill needlessly wracked up by this guy and is going to end up with my costs on top of it all.
Click to expand...

One thing most people fail to really understand, which judges do understand BTW in a very unique way, is that the lawyer you retain often reflects upon you as a litigant.

Often, highly conflicted people seek out professionals who themselves match their personality and problem solving (or lack there of) skills. They will lawyer shop, disregard advice given to them and seek out a lawyer who will do exactly what they want, believe every irrelevant allegation no matter how ridiculous it is (i.e. Satanic Ritual Abuse Allegations) and even commission affidavits filled with nonsense and irrational junk.

These litigants who hire solicitors like this actually spend time seeking these dysfunctional people to support their arguments. They bounce from lawyer to lawyer until they find one that believes every word they say.

CSAngel said:
His lawyer will write something in an email then write another email denying that he wrote it. Really? It's in WRITING!!! He denies receiving documents that were sent electronically or were part of our brief. Within the same email he'll contradict himself. He makes ridiculous threats, emails my lawyer every 'brain fart' that he has, and has to be constantly reminded of the facts in the case.
Click to expand...

I have seen these negative advocate solicitors operate before the court on numerous occasions. Usually, they are on what is called a "limited retainer" and have NO IDEA what has been committed to affidavits. They have hundreds of clients at any one given time and just pass along whatever irrational material their clients draft, often without even editing it or reviewing it.

CSAngel said:
I'm pretty sure his lawyer has not explained to him that he doesn't have a case and he should probably settle to avoid costs.
Click to expand...

Even a negative advocate solicitor will give this advice but, the major differentiation is that they don't put their foot down and really shake their clients down on what they are getting themselves into. Generally they have multi-page retainers that are more complex the Children's Law Reform Act and other legislation that absolve them from anything.

They really are just supplying letter head often for their clients and a seal on completely ridiculous affidavit materials. They often will never consent to questioning and will avoid at all costs putting their client on the stand for any examination. They just hurl allegations, threats and other nonsense to try and keep their clients out of cross examination.

CSAngel said:
I just have to keep reminding myself that my ex has done this to himself. He already fired 2 lawyers because he didn't like what they had to say and he's pushed a simple issue to litigation.
Click to expand...

That says it all really. Not only has the other party gotten two different lawyers but, they have had to re-establish their entire file and position with new lawyers each time. Eventually the file will get so complex and become such a mess that when the current lawyer gets the axe... Not even a negative advocate solicitor will represent them because they cannot unravel the hand grenade that is their file waiting to explode.

CSAngel said:
I am SO thankful for my lawyer.
Click to expand...

CSAngel, having read your postings on this site... Your lawyer has very little to do with it... You are rational, well thought out and settlement oriented. Your lawyer helps but, ultimately the reason you are happy with your lawyer is ultimately (my opinion) that you are happy with yourself and not a dysfunctional and highly conflicted person.

Keep the balance, keep the perspective and keep trying to settle matters.

Good Luck!
Tayken
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In continuing with CSAngels observations...

I am wondering if my ex's lawyer is being a hindrance, rather than help to my ex.

When I interviewed for a lawyer, 2 of the 3 that I met face to face knew my ex's lawyer by name and both did eye rolls and said a few negative things about her, including that my ex could have done better to pick someone else.

As an example that I find limiting to reach an agreement, in court applications, my ex's lawyer is asking the court that I be required to have life insurance payable to my ex (which I do and always have). I find it odd, unreasonable, and troublesome that they are not asking the court to order that we both have life insurance, but just me.

My ex and are are equal - we have the kids equally and both work. If my lawyer (I am self rep'd) wrote that in an application I would require my lawyer to reword it neutrally and state that we both should have it.

Their one sided request to me represents being unwilling to move toward a final agreement by getting all the 'easy' stuff out of the way, such as the need for life insurance for both of us.

So for this example, does this represent a lawyer that is being unreasonable and not helping get their client to a final agreement, or is this par for the course? Is asking the court to order something that both parties must do, even if it is reasonable, just not done?
 
Tayken said:
CSAngel, having read your postings on this site... Your lawyer has very little to do with it... You are rational, well thought out and settlement oriented. Your lawyer helps but, ultimately the reason you are happy with your lawyer is ultimately (my opinion) that you are happy with yourself and not a dysfunctional and highly conflicted person.

Keep the balance, keep the perspective and keep trying to settle matters.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Click to expand...


:$
Thanks Tayken. I really try to keep perspective. It's not always easy, especially when dealing with a combative ex.

When I have wavered my lawyer has brought me back to reality. I doubt many lawyers would do that. She is smart, professional, rational, caring, and doesn't take crap (one of my favorite traits). I couldn't ask for more.

Your comment about litigants choosing like counsel is interesting. I hope you are right that judges see that. I am so excited to get to our settlement conference in Sept!! Then we can finally book the trial and get this over with!
 
billm said:
In continuing with CSAngels observations...

I am wondering if my ex's lawyer is being a hindrance, rather than help to my ex.

When I interviewed for a lawyer, 2 of the 3 that I met face to face knew my ex's lawyer by name and both did eye rolls and said a few negative things about her, including that my ex could have done better to pick someone else.

As an example that I find limiting to reach an agreement, in court applications, my ex's lawyer is asking the court that I be required to have life insurance payable to my ex (which I do and always have). I find it odd, unreasonable, and troublesome that they are not asking the court to order that we both have life insurance, but just me.

My ex and are are equal - we have the kids equally and both work. If my lawyer (I am self rep'd) wrote that in an application I would require my lawyer to reword it neutrally and state that we both should have it.

Their one sided request to me represents being unwilling to move toward a final agreement by getting all the 'easy' stuff out of the way, such as the need for life insurance for both of us.

So for this example, does this represent a lawyer that is being unreasonable and not helping get their client to a final agreement, or is this par for the course? Is asking the court to order something that both parties must do, even if it is reasonable, just not done?
Click to expand...

My lawyer has always made sure that any request I have is bestowed on the other person as well. Most recently, I asked for a blanket travel consent letter and she made certain to state 'reciprocal' letters of consent. So, no, it is not par for the course. Sounds like her lawyer is being one-sided.
 
My ex's first lawyer was a storefront guy who mainly did real estate and notarized wills. As I look back, after all I've learned over the years, I think I know roughly 10x more than he did about family law. I wouldn't put him down, except that he should have flat out told my ex to go to someone else. The advice he ended up giving her was probably as informed as advice you'd get from your bartender or hairstylist.
 
Wow, totally understand this, but in reverse. My husband's ex has this BULLY of a lawyer now and no one we have come across has anything good to say. The last time we were in court our coucel came back in the room, grabbed the file and muttered 'opposing councel is an idiot' and left. When he came back he put the file down stating that she didn't even read our history :) It's amazing how these people find each other!! (As my husband's ex is the same way - I want what I want because I say I should have it)
 
Mess said:
My ex's first lawyer was a storefront guy who mainly did real estate and notarized wills. As I look back, after all I've learned over the years, I think I know roughly 10x more than he did about family law.
Click to expand...

Generalist in law with no specialization in Family Law. It is a huge disservice in my personal opinion that solicitors are not required to have specialized knowledge in family law to represent someone in this area of law... For the reasons you site in this posting.

Mess said:
I wouldn't put him down, except that he should have flat out told my ex to go to someone else. The advice he ended up giving her was probably as informed as advice you'd get from your bartender or hairstylist.
Click to expand...

It is a systemic issue with "family law" and better governance needs to be put in place by the LSUC regarding what constitutes a professional who is knowledgable in "family law".

To me it is a malpractice issue similar to family doctors who try to pretend they are oncologists or any other specialty field in medicine. Just because you are a "doctor" doesn't mean you can practice in any area of medicine. The LSUC needs to look to other professional bodies and governance boards to better manage their professionals and the "advice" they offer. A good lawyer will not offer advice in an area of law they are not competent in... (i.e. OrleansLawyer's recent comments on tax law which represent in my opinion a highly reputable solicitor's conduct). But, there is no governance in place other than a solicitors "honesty" and better governance needs to be put in place in my honest opinion.

Good Luck!
Tayken
 
CSAngel said:
:$
Thanks Tayken. I really try to keep perspective. It's not always easy, especially when dealing with a combative ex.
Click to expand...

Continue to do so... Countless people benefit from the experiences you share and there is a silent majority who probably benefit significantly from your efforts and honesty.

CSAngel said:
Your comment about litigants choosing like counsel is interesting. I hope you are right that judges see that. I am so excited to get to our settlement conference in Sept!! Then we can finally book the trial and get this over with!
Click to expand...

They do... I have seen enough judges raise their voices at counsel notifying them and I quote "THIS IS NOT HOW WE CONDUCT FAMILY LAW BEFORE THE COURT!". Even telling the litigant to hire a "trial lawyer" and to "get another lawyer".

They will also call out a negative advocate solicitor's tactics and tell them that what the are recommending is unimplementable and even "gouging". Having a negative advocate solicitor will eventually be the death knell in any highly conflicted litigation. Hurling allegation after alligation on unsubstantiated claims eventually and over time destroys their client's position and reputation with the presiding judges.

My favorite behavior pattern is the "finger waiver" negative advocate solicitor who actually threatens to "tell on you" ("I will tell the judge how horrible your client is... blah blah blah). Eddy 101 negative advocate solicitor conduct and is transparent as glass to a judge... They hear it all day ever day...

The best is when a negative advocate solicitor tries to argue with a judge stating that they didn't know something about the law and/or that they have never heard a judge doing that before... That usually gets a great comment from the presiding judge as well...

The problem is that rarely costs are ordered against ill prepared negative advocate allegation factory lawyers...

Good Luck!
Tayken
 
Perhaps one of the mods can correct a misquote from above. Tayken, you were quoting CS angel and somehow (??) - it shows "resourceful" as making the quote. Rather odd. It's Tayken's post #1888. The second quote.

The high conflict indiviidual choosing a HC lawyer is classic and totally happened with regards to my ex's choice in solicitor. I truly would be embarassed to have that man represent me. In no uncertain terms would it EVER happen!! He is a bozo. But by God, they do suit eachother I must admit.

My lawyer had class and style. He commanded respect without being pushy, or a bully. I felt proud to have him represent me. He was phenominal, especially during our trial. The ex's lawyer was/is an outright liar (and not a very good one), made bizzarre, off the wall remarks, contradicted himself and basically made a fool out of himself, and his client. It was rather funny, considering the circumstances under which we were all brought together.
 
Last edited:
Tayken's observations are dead on. I wonder which rock my ex hired his last lawyer. The guy had major body odor. Sports jacket he wore in court was ripped under both armpits on the first time he appeared. Second time someone had taken a needle and basted the tears up. He is morbidly obese and can't walk 10 steps without sitting down, gasping and huffing and puffing. He argues with the judge and obviously doesn't know my ex's case whatsoever. It's pitiful really.
 
Arabian: Yes but what a gong show lol. I think of my ex's lawyer as the 'comic relief!' I often amused myself thinking what their conversations could possibly consist of. They both lie. Just the thought of them sitting together, one bs'ing the other, grandstanding about this, that, and the other. Hilarious. Ex's lawyer did him no favors.

The one thing the S.O.B was good at though, was requesting adjournments and dragging things on. I look forward to going up against him in my "other matter" before the courts, (not Family Court) for which I will represent myself. I totally have his number. The guy is a total idiot. I'm not in the slightest bit intimidated by him. The man has no shame and his lack of courtroom savvy is evident to anyone with half a brain.
 
My lawyer called my ex's lawyer a few weeks ago and the ex's lawyer "didn't know" if he was still representing my ex!!!!! What an idiot! I guess they are still officially representing them until they file something in court (notice of change of solicitor or probably along that line).

When I was last in court my ex's lawyer sat on the bench directly behind me (instead of up at the front where the lawyers are supposed to sit). He put his hand on the back of the bench under my hair and I could smell him and hear him gasping for air. It was TOTALLY creepy! EEEEWWWWW!
 
hadenough said:
Perhaps one of the mods can correct a misquote from above. Tayken, you were quoting CS angel and somehow (??) - it shows "resourceful" as making the quote. Rather odd. It's Tayken's post #1888. The second quote.
Click to expand...

Ya that is a weird one. Cut and paste gone haywire? Odd one for sure.

hadenough said:
My lawyer had class and style. He commanded respect without being pushy, or a bully. I felt proud to have him represent me. He was phenominal, especially during our trial. The ex's lawyer was/is an outright liar (and not a very good one), made bizzarre, off the wall remarks, contradicted himself and basically made a fool out of himself, and his client. It was rather funny, considering the circumstances under which we were all brought together.
Click to expand...

Having had the opportunity to review the case law in question I can absolutely state that what hadenough has present is 100% truthful and the judge presiding in the matter noted it in detail in the final decision in question.

What hadenough had to deal with in matters before the court was an odd mix of irrelevant and factitious statements blended with stupidity from the other party. The judge does call it all out in plain English in the resulting decision and lays it all to bear in the analysis of the matter.

Good Luck!
Tayken
 
My sister told me that her ex's lawyer used to write letters to her lawyer to tell her she had made a spelling mistake in her last correspondence! Crazy!

She said on their court date he showed up 45 minutes late and came down the stairs yelling at someone on the phone, shirt half untucked and file folders under his arm with papers hanging out. After a couple of minutes he started yelling "what the hell are we waiting for?".

She said he looked like Elmer Fudd. Too funny.
 
Elmer Fudd would have been an improvement on my ex's lawyer :)

I took a previous lawyer I had (not related to Family Court, but also to do w/my ex) to Court for his outrageous "bill of services." He arrived unprepared, lying through his teeth (as usual) and basically got his ass handed to him by me (and the Registrar). I did not have to pay that substantial legal bill, and for a smaller portion from a previous bill that I was supposed to pay (it was reduced to half) by that same Registrar: the lawyer emailed me and said "if you withdraw your complaint to the LSUC, I won't expect payment for that other amount."

Funny, seeing as he told the Registrar that the matter w/the Lsuc had already been "dealt with" when in actual fact, it was in full swing and he was under investigation for suspicion of professional misconduct at the time I took him to Court.

I forwarded his 'offer' to the LSUC without responding to him. I have never paid that reduced outstanding amt and have not heard another word from the lawyer.
He was another shameless liar born without a conscience or any moral compass.
 
hadenough: is that lawyer still practicing law? Wonder what sort of sanction the bar association took. Would there be any way, just out of curiosity, to find out?
 
10 month investigation. A flurry of his lies to the lsuc. It all resulted in a slap on the wrist for him: Remedial Reading/Best Practices. I imagine the aggravation of it all for him was the worst part. There certainly was no 'punishment.'

The only satisfaction I really took away from it was that I gave him a good run. He thought I was just some ditzy blonde. I believe he knows better now. Hopefully he has retired. The man was getting up there, and had seen better days as a Solicitor specializing in his area of law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top