First of all, I'm not Laird. He's a great guy and I have to make sure that folks don't attribute my post incorrectly.
Second, it seems that nearly everyone missed the part where I said that the rare breed called known as good, honest, honorable, competent attorney did exist and that it was well represented here on these forums.
Thirdly, while I paraphrased what I heard, I also heard about the oath twist from an attorney who told me that there was the "official published oath" and the one they take. I don't think he was yanking my chain, he was rather upset about it.
Fourthly, I understand the premise that the person who represents themselves has a fool for a client. I support people having good advice and representation. And it is true that there are bad ones in every profession. I should have let the fact that an attorney didn't like a website which tried to give some options besides paying members of the bar in probate court drop... But I didn't. I've been on the winning side and the losing side and when both sides acted honorably, I had no problem with the decision. That's the way it goes. But, when I have seen unethical conduct from attorneys and judges, lies from attorneys and G.A.L.s, and bias from all three... when I have studies and reports that show that this conduct and bias is rampant throughout the Massachusetts legal system against certain people (fortunately, not me), and I have obtained the court documents and transcripts to prove part of this unethical conduct... Then I can only call it an
Injustice system for those who are hurt by it.
Finally, Gene... You won't see my stack of bins crammed full of file folders that prove what I wrote about the ethical violations. These go against two specific attorneys and two law firms. Not a single attorney, who is currently alive, will testify or take the case. (Unfortunately, the attorney who was ready, willing and able to testify to much of this passed away suddenly in February. He was 63, excellent health, ate right, exercised daily and suffered a massive & rare form of a stroke.) I said nothing disengenuous, so cut the condescending attitude crap with me. You're right. I'm not going to send over a couple of hundred pounds of papers for your perusal to prove my point. You can write that it has no basis in fact all you want, but you just show you don't have all the details.
Gene DeMambro wrote:And while certain divorces can be handled without too much trouble, I'd venture to guess that in many of them a good lawayer is needed to ensure that the client gets what's entitles to them, and to protect the rights of all parties involved. And I witnessed this first hand with my parents divorce, where mom needed a good lawyer to fight tooth and nail because dad didn't want to give her a dime. Expensive? Yes, but mom has said time and time again that it was worth every penny. And my parents saga is ongoing still, some ten years later.
I wonder how you or your mom would feel if your dad's attorney had lied that she was a bad parent and that she should be paying him instead. And then to compound things, what if your dad's attorney had claimed that your mom should be making 2, 3 or 4 times the income she was making. And what if your mom's attorney had laid out the truth of the matter and then found out later that your dad's attorney had gone into the judge's chambers alone. AND, what if your dad and his attorney had gotten a G.A.L. assigned for you and the G.A.L., being a long-time friend of your dad's attorney's wife wrote the report full of lies, innuendo, accusations and slander saying that your mom was the worst mother that had ever graced the face of the earth and should be paying your dad instead. AND having already taking the money when he walked out and leaving you and your mother to fend for yourself, what if the judge then ordered that your mother pay your father child support and that you weren't allowed to use your mother's health insurance (inculding dental), because your father didn't want to pay for it, so you were forced to use a base plan for insurance rather than the top-of-the-line plan that your mother has through work. AND what if the amount your mother was ordered to pay for child support to your father ended up being almost 80% of her actual pay (before taxes!) because the judge bought into your dad's attorney's position that she should be making 3 times as much money... Sounds incredible. I just saw that happen. And in the case I just saw go down, the ex-husband has openly sworn to make the ex-wife "out on the street and destitute with
nothing so that you beg me to kill you and then I'll put you out of your misery bi**h!" (Yeah, there were witnesses. There was also proof that he was an abuser, but the woman couldn't get a 209A because the man's attorney lied and got in to see the judge before the hearing ever started! The woman lives in fear, but she has to stay around because there is visitation. The man puts the kids in the middle and sends "messages" to mom about what he's going to do to her when he gets the chance. He is a sick POS. His attorney
knows about his abuse because the attorneys had to grab him in a discovery conference when he came out of his chair and started across the table at his ex-wife threatening to "get her", for committing the despicable act of pulling out a document that showed he was lying at one point. Regardless of that, his attorney went into court and lied that his client was never violent or abusive and that she was a paranoid that should be commited to a mental hospital! The only reason that didn't happen was because the woman had her counsellors in court that day to testify that she had battered women's syndrome because of her ex's relentless stalking and threats. Still... with that one exception, the judge found completely in the ex-husband's favor. The woman's attorney, mental health counsellors, friends and family have all expressed their extreme shock at the decision. BTW, the "friends" who started out willing to testify were told by the ex-husband that if they did, their children wouldn't be safe. Rather than contact the police and press further charges, they backed out of continuing to testify 1/2 way through. And the man's attorney, when informed of these threats, merely smiled and said, "you have no proof, that's heresay."
So, overpriced for their work or are they a good value?
Depends. The cost wasn't really the beef. It was the ethical issues. If we look at the BBO oath that you posted, in the first line it states, "...I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court..." It goes even further to again state the same in different terms. The man's attorney and the G.A.L. "friend" attorney
both lied, and willingly promoted a false suit and did so with malice for monetary gain. I have court transcripts, court documents, and mounds of other papers that prove this.
Yes, there are way to many lawyers who are dishonest, as is mentioned, but let's not make it sound that they are in the majority, or even are a truly significant protion, Every lawyer knows that violating their oath will invite invitations for the bar to find another line of work.
I simply disagree. I think that there is a significant portion of attorneys that are willing to take the money and say/do whatever is necessary to build their reputation for "winning" for their clients. While that might be good for those that hire such unethical, dishonest people, they leave a wake of wronged and destroyed opponents behind. Without their dishonest and unethical tactics, the courts may have made fairer and more reasonable decisions, but with their tactics, and judicial collusion, the courts can best be viewed as places for the O.J.'s of the world to walk away smiling.
Attorneys circling the wagons, protecting their own even in the presence of proof-positive evidence of wrong-doing resulting in lawyers successfully skirting sacntions by regulatory agencies? Attorney's looking the other way when blatant ethical violations occur, allowing the perpetrators to skip off without nary a punishment? Without any supporting information, this charecterization can't be relied on as having any basis in fact.
Don't dispute what you don't know. The woman is now out of money. She's being forced to borrow money to pay the man an extortionistic amount. So, she doesn't have any money to even pursue the matter currently. She's going deeper into debt weekly, just so she won't be in contempt for non-payment. And when she had some money, she couldn't get another attorney to take this case to the BBO, now that she doesn't have any left, attorneys won't even talk to her about it.
Pro se counsel? According to conversation I had a long time ago with Norm Abrahamson, people who act pro se are afforded a wide latitude to do what they wish in court. And people who act pro se aren't necessarily at a disadvantage, as witnessed by the Home Depot case and others around the country.
Perhaps in some cases, in some courts, but when faced with a dishonest and unethical attorney who will go behind the back against another attorney and do things, then the person who can't afford an attorney and must represent themselves faced with that dishonest, unethical conduct simply doesn't stand a chance.
The legal profession's reputation? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that for every winner in court, there is usually always a loser. And I noticed the winners aren't the ones complaining.
This wasn't my case. It was one that I observed. I've observed the same attorneys doing the same thing in other cases. In fact, I grabbed an opposing attorney in the hall before session one morning and told him that this attorney had just gone into chambers with the judge. That attorney watched him come out of chambers, but told me not to worry about it. I told that attorney right then that I'd wager $100 that he was going to lose that morning. In the end, the unethical attorney won his case that morning, but nothing was said about it.
