.....*most* lawyers are akin to used car sales people i.e. they are shysters with a primary mandate to suck you dry, hence the reason why they ask for your financials upfront.
The more you have, the more they know you will be paying for their next exotic location, or help payoff their luxury car. Better yet, your money as in the recent case posted on here, will be used as loan to a client the lawyer is banging
I get what you're saying. Unfortunately, there are a few bad apples in every bushel .. but this is in nearly "every" profession. We have to be careful not to generalize. I personally don't find it strange that lawyers ask for financials up front. Financial companies also do this to make sure they'll get paid.
What I disagree with is the extraordinary amount they charge, including the thousands up front. This is precisely why many begin to self rep.
It's just getting too expensive to hire lawyers and unfortunately they'll put themselves out of business in the future. We live in the age of internet, FLIC offices, etc. Most are becoming aware that they can actually do well self-repping in court if they're willing to put in the blood, sweat and tears...saving tens of thousands in the process.
Remember this is a business. Case conferences, settlement conferences, mediation, 4 way meetings, etc. Everyone in those rooms are making a ton of cash except the litigant.
There's so much cash being made that there's no incentive for lawyers to settle. This is the bottleneck of the system. The litigants are stressed, some not seeing their children .. but the more court appearances and "non-settlement" (due to there being no incentive for lawyers to settle - their pay stops), the more inflamed the situation for everybody...except lawyers, judges, etc bank accounts.
They write these rules and claim to follow them, but many don't.
We call them the Primary Objectives:
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE
(2) The primary objective of these rules is to enable the court to deal with cases justly. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 2 (2).
DEALING WITH CASES JUSTLY
(3) Dealing with a case justly includes,
(a) ensuring that the procedure is fair to all parties;
(b) saving expense and time;
(c) dealing with the case in ways that are appropriate to its importance and complexity; and
(d) giving appropriate court resources to the case while taking account of the need to give resources to other cases. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 2 (3).
DUTY TO PROMOTE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE
(4) The court is required to apply these rules to promote the primary objective, and parties and their lawyers are required to help the court to promote the primary objective. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 2 (4).
DUTY TO MANAGE CASES
(5) The court shall promote the primary objective by active management of cases, which includes,
(a) at an early stage, identifying the issues, and separating and disposing of those that do not need full investigation and trial;
(b) encouraging and facilitating use of alternatives to the court process;
(c) helping the parties to settle all or part of the case;
(d) setting timetables or otherwise controlling the progress of the case;
(e) considering whether the likely benefits of taking a step justify the cost;
(f) dealing with as many aspects of the case as possible on the same occasion; and
(g) if appropriate, dealing with the case without parties and their lawyers needing to come to court, on the basis of written documents or by holding a telephone or video conference. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 2 (5).
Honestly, just think about your case if you've had one, go through the primary objectives one by one and see if your lawyer (or the OP's lawyer) adhered to them. I bet your bottom dollar one of them didn't. So why have these laws even been drawn up so neatly if they're rarely followed?
Why is it that lawyers have
carte-blanche and rarely get penalized for going "sideways" as the article puts it. If judges like the one in the article are starting to drop the "costs" hammer on self litigants, I sure hope the same will be done more often for lawyers who go sideways and ignore the primary objectives.
Just like we can get jaywalking tickets but nothing for abduction. There are close to no repercussions for lawyers not following the primary objectives of court .. and that my friends needs to change.
Regarding the article, if self-reps don't put in the blood, sweat and tears they may go "
sideways" for sure. On the other hand, if judges want to start placing self litigants in lose-lose situation (Pay a lawyer or pay the courts) people may just start taking matters in to their own hands altogether and stop using courts .. at which point our prisons will start filling up and society as we know it will go awry.
Let's just start putting kids before money in all instances if that's at all possible.
