The Ex's Lawyer

[MS Mom]

I've mentioned the ex's lawyer on another thread.

Has anyone looked up opposing counsel on Canlii to see what they've done in the past? I'm sure at least a few of you have.

Well, I found what my ex's lawyer has done in the past, and quite honestly, it amused .... and still amuses the hell out of me. So, I thought I'd share it.

The ex's lawyer recently represented someone who purchased a historical building in the downtown core. This person decided to sue the former owners because he heard in a bar in town that the building was haunted. Nobody saw a ghost, but they heard there was one while having a few brewskies one night at a bar, and decided to sue the former owner for non-disclosure of said ghost. Yes, they lost. But the hilarity of the lawsuit itself made the front page of the city newspaper. Unfortunately they didn't mention him by name, but, when I came across the canlii case I just started to HOWL. It really alleviated some of the self-rep fears I tell ya.

I've changed the ring tone to his number on my cell phone to the Ghostbusters theme song and any opportunity I have to say "Who ya gonna call?" will be utilized to it's fullest. Ah, the small pleasures in all of this.

 

[FWB]

Has anyone looked up opposing counsel on Canlii to see what they've done in the past? I'm sure at least a few of you have.

Sure did, but just for curiosity sake

This person decided to sue the former owners because he heard in a bar in town that the building was haunted. Nobody saw a ghost, but they heard there was one while having a few brewskies one night at a bar, and decided to sue the former owner for non-disclosure of said ghost. Yes, they lost.

That just takes being HC to stratospheric levels...I mean seriously? This is a good example of lawyers blowing smoke up the khyber pass of their clients, leading them on and telling them what they want to hear.

Ms Mom....The name of the Muppet lawyer is indeed available for those that might be tempted to hire him to run with their HC cases

 

[MS Mom]

Sure did, but just for curiosity sake



That just takes being HC to stratospheric levels...I mean seriously Trajan Fisca? This is a good example of lawyers blowing smoke up the khyber pass of their clients, leading them on and telling them what they want to hear.

Hearsay is indeed a b1tch, and I think the Justice is right when he says this: "In essence what we have is a double hearsay rumour about a ghost from a couple of people after they had consumed a few beers at a social function," Justice James Sloan wrote.

I am familiar with the area, and the building in question
Ms Mom....The name of the Muppet lawyer is indeed available for those that might be tempted to hire him to run with their HC cases

Huh? I remember reading the article when it was in the papers, but I didn't pick up on the name in the article I guess. When I canlii-ed him, I came across the case.

 

[Serene]

The ex in our situation used a lawyer that is heading up The Fair Parenting Project... although this lawyer did the exact opposite in terms of trying to negotiate a new access schedule. The lawyer actually suggested skyping his children instead of seeing them as frequently as he did, and removing his half of summer vacation with them to a mere 3 days a month over the summer. All that to say, this lawyer has been on the tv and in the newspapers promoting his "fair parenting" regime whereas he boasts that children are entitle to both parents equally.... and then represents a client and assists that client to try and obtain the exact opposite.

Moral of the story: Money makes people do stupid things.

Oh and this lawyer's wife stands behind him as a child psych and is involved with this Fair Parenting Project as well. She provides the psychological benefits to this fair parenting regime. So my question is, while I know that the lawyer represents his client's interests/wants/wishes, how is it the he can propel an access schedule and a slew of other things that is completely against his project? I plan to call him out on this discrepancy in a public forum eventually, just waiting for the right moment.

 

[FWB]

Moral of the story: Money makes people do stupid things.

That is a bit of an understatement innit? Add to that, say stupid things....turns them into DEMONS.... (this should be the official entitlement anthem, just listen to the lyrics)

this lawyer did the exact opposite in terms of trying to negotiate a new access schedule.

The old do as I say and not as I do....reminds you of anyone? Ghengis Khan, Mussonlini etc

All that to say, this lawyer has been on the tv and in the newspapers promoting his "fair parenting" regime whereas he boasts that children are entitle to both parents equally....

Smoke screen....sounds more like fair advertising for him, you don't get what you are paying for

I plan to call him out on this discrepancy in a public forum eventually, just waiting for the right moment.

Be careful with the DEFAMATION of Character, something some people still haven't got a grasp of...it's actually a crime in Canada, and the forum that you choose to unleash this on, can be held responsible as an accomplice....you are talking about a lawyer here after all.

 

[mememe]

I found it useful to look up cases with ex's lawyer. In one case, the judge admonishes her for not responding to something until the last minute. Had she responded in a timely manner they wouldn't have been in court. She did win in court--but the judge did comment. She is doing the same thing in my case. I am so down in dealing with ex and his lawyer.

They had our NFP with correct numbers. They didn't send an offer when they said they would. Letter sent to them that we are waiting and we are setting up a trial conference date. They send us an NFP that totally ignores all the evidence sent to them on how to correct his NFP . He says I owe him ---2.5 times our calculation)
and he hasn't declared his assets. I tried doing a few emails to him to outline what he needs to look at in the NFP. My lawyer bills reading these poor financials is killing me. At the settlement conference they admitted to poor financials---but obviously they don.t care what the judge said.

I am so down and out about the games of him and his lawyer, and that the judges may not consider how they continue to block moving forward (the settlement conference judge said maybe he is not good with numbers--if someone says that to me again I a going to say that a grade 6 student could compare 2 forms and find where the numbers differ.

Any thoughts--I have trial conference coming up and I assume I will be going to court.

My lawyer says----only 20 per cent go to court. There was no reason for this proceeding to last so long-other than it is theintent of my ex and his lawyer.

 

[FB_]

Any one in a court battle would be wise to check out the opposing lawyer...However even more important would be to check out your own lawyer.

I searched both and found interesting things with both.

My lawyer had way more court records than the opposing lawyer. He did not win all of them but when you look at the facts in some of the cases I would say they were long shots and I can guarantee he told them so just based on how he dealt with my case.

 

[arabian]

I find it amazing that people don't ask for references, and thoroughly vet, before they hire their lawyer. Divorce is one of the most expensive things a person will ever go through. Too often people are "wowed" by the impressive letterhead or the list of partners in the firm.

I was very fortunate to select a good young lawyer. Even though I had a very good 'feeling' about him when I first met him, I checked him out thoroughly prior to retaining him.

Knowing what I know now, and hearing the horror stores of many on this forum, I would recommend examining the prospective lawyer in court. I would recommend canvassing some former clients and I certainly would perform a simple check with the university/law school he graduated from. Incredulous as it may seem, there are people out there who pretend to be lawyers but they are nothing more than para-legals who are neither licensed nor have any courtroom experience. (Paralegals can be perfect for some people but you should pay accordingly).

People are so afraid to ask questions about the individual they are about to invest their lives in. Why is that?

 

[MS Mom]

I find it amazing that people don't ask for references, and thoroughly vet, before they hire their lawyer. Divorce is one of the most expensive things a person will ever go through. Too often people are "wowed" by the impressive letterhead or the list of partners in the firm.

I was very fortunate to select a good young lawyer. Even though I had a very good 'feeling' about him when I first met him, I checked him out thoroughly prior to retaining him.

Knowing what I know now, and hearing the horror stores of many on this forum, I would recommend examining the prospective lawyer in court. I would recommend canvassing some former clients and I certainly would perform a simple check with the university/law school he graduated from. Incredulous as it may seem, there are people out there who pretend to be lawyers but they are nothing more than para-legals who are neither licensed nor have any courtroom experience. (Paralegals can be perfect for some people but you should pay accordingly).

People are so afraid to ask questions about the individual they are about to invest their lives in. Why is that?

I hired the first lawyer I found. And, initially she worked out great. But, she failed to grasp the idiocy I was dealing with completely.

Eventually I found that her and I, while both being single moms with difficult exes, our worlds were so far apart financially that she just couldn't see my perspective. I needed someone more aggressive, but by that time I was completely broke.

In hindsight I should have realized that I would need a few different things in my lawyer. That was my big mistake there.

As for my ex's lawyer, he's been with this guy for a few years, pre-dating the ghost case. But, he's lawyer number 3 for him. And, since my ex also has another daughter with another mother who he also launched legal war on, this lawyer has made a fortune of my ex and his parents. Incredible to think of just how much money he spent on useless, baseless crap just to up and leave both his kids behind anyway. Crazy really.

 

[arabian]

I checked up on my ex's lawyer and heard that the fellow gets his clients by hanging out by the place where prisoners seek bail....

I do wish that my ex would get a decent lawyer someday. He has had several.

When my ex ended up with the current lawyer I was initially gleeful (seriously) but I very soon learned that the lawyer's incompetence did indeed cost me in the end. The "old guy" my ex retained isn't up-to-date on family law. He's a pitiful character and plays his deficiencies to the hilt. My lawyer is most respectful of him (don't know how he does this) and it is quite the gong-show none the less.

 

[MS Mom]

I checked up on my ex's lawyer and heard that the fellow gets his clients by hanging out by the place where prisoners seek bail....

I do wish that my ex would get a decent lawyer someday. He has had several.

When my ex ended up with the current lawyer I was initially gleeful (seriously) but I very soon learned that the lawyer's incompetence did indeed cost me in the end. The "old guy" my ex retained isn't up-to-date on family law. He's a pitiful character and plays his deficiencies to the hilt. My lawyer is most respectful of him (don't know how he does this) and it is quite the gong-show none the less.

That's the really frustrating part - it ends up costing you more money by either doing the work for them or in delays in getting the work done.

I've expressed my concern to the ex's parents, who are footing the bill. But, as to be expected, they don't really want to hear it. But, that is to be expected I guess.

 

[arabian]

Likely "old school" where everyone deferred to the doctor, lawyer, preacher etc.

I get it.

Many people were scammed through this era....

 

[mememe]

In my case it doesn't matter who my lawyer is-----his lawyer behaves the same and no matter what you do , say, be nice not be nice--she behaves the same---they do nothing. No finances, no reading information sent to them, withholding information....just read my posts. My first lawyer was nice, but I didn't get anything done after a year (recommended). THen I thought I will go with an aggressive person--she gave me more anxiety than the divorce and added to her already extensive diamond collection. HIs lawyer just did the no communication thing and delayed as she did before. I couldn't take the lies (I rarely use that word, but she did) so I moved on to lawyer 3. I did get my financials done, but after 2 years and more megabucks----no behaviour change in his lawyer. I blame our court system that allows this to happen.

I usually investigate etc..... but really-- no matter how you research it is the luck of the draw and it is dependent on how the opposing lawyer acts.

 

[Thomas]

My ex's lawyer scored a solid 0 out of 5 on one the rating boards.
He actually was such an arse that I even posted my perspective from the opposing side in that he was so bad he caused us huge issues.

When the lawyer never responds and can't complete paper work it hurts everyone.

My lawyer scored 5 out of 5!
Not cheap, but in the end worth every penny.

 

[Tayken]

Has anyone looked up opposing counsel on Canlii to see what they've done in the past? I'm sure at least a few of you have.

Not only is it done it is advised that all litigants (and counsel) do this. (Search for past case history.)

Like all things in life lawyers, more than most, have common patterns of behaviour. Look both at how cases have been argued against them and how they argue their cases.

For example, if a lawyer loses a case where a claim that the children are fearful of their client they will try to make similar nonsense claims in a future application for another client to gain an advantage in establishing a false status quo...

Crappy lawyers, of which there are many, will do anything to "win" a case or to impress their clients. Mr. William Eddy writes about this in his book "Splitting" in the chapter about negative advocate solicitors. It is the most succinct review of this kind of conduct by counsel I have been able to find... The law societies don't want to investigate these issues for some reason... although most *good* lawyers know these textbook tactics...

PS: MS Mom. I don't recommend you disclose personal information as you have done in this thread.

Good Luck!
Tayken

 

[Tayken]

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

 

[MS Mom]

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?

 

[arabian]

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.

 

[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?

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.

 

[MS Mom]

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.