Disposable People - It is all in the strategy.

The following recount of our experiences provides me with great amusement. On my girlfriends third attorney, the one that stuck with her case, she would relay experiences of stalking, assaults and being accosted at work. This attorney would make mention of these attacks to the court without foundation, such as contacting those that witnessed the assaults. When confronted with the expected excuses he would say "okay" and drop the matter. Throughout this courtroom experience we expected that this attorney had an underlying "strategy" to defend their client. In the end their client went to jail because she could not maintain a job as a result of her spouses stalking her at work, with no job she could not pay child support. The client was never visited in jail by their attorney, the client had been disposed of. The attorney allowed the resolution of the property, which was half community property, their payment, to be delayed, extended, culminating in the incarceration of their client for non-payment, the ironic part of this was that the house was more than half paid off so the equity could have settled the matter. What was this attorneys strategy, their motivation ? They were a partner in a reputable law firm, so they should have had the necessary skills to bring the case to conclusion. So why did this attorney dispose of their client ? If they were motivated by greed like other attorneys they would have fought for their paycheck, obtained the ruled upon settlement in a timely manner. During this case we had obtained a real estate agent who was slandered by the husbands attorney in court, when this third attorney failed to support them they looked into why the attorney was not representing their clients interests. The real estate agent relayed in a conversation that the third attorney was running for political office, at the time we thought that this attorney was "distracted" by his endeavor. Further research found out that the husbands attorney was a member of the Christian Brotherhood, connected with right wing political movements and in a conversation had relayed that they were going to destroy us - how far did this persecution go ?


The fourth attorney tried valiantly to resolve the failings of the third attorney, they managed to force the house to auction. During their tenure they complained about the failures of their predecessors. In the end my girlfriend filed bankruptcy to remove her from the suit her husbands attorney had filed against her and this fourth attorney advised an "abuse of process" action against the husbands attorney after a six month wait and visiting a specified psychiatrist. What did this attorney know ? We don't know, after six months this attorney had forgotten about the extra money we had paid, the psychiatrist and the action, the psychiatrist even called them up asking about the case and received no definitive response. What happened here ? Was it just work load ? or were they induced to drop the action, I ask this because of the vehemence with which this attorney disposed of us when I asked why, after we had complied with their instructions ?


This example represents a "strategy" failure that the Virginia State Bar, an Agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia, dismisses post 1999. Granted that this incident occurred in the period of 1989 and 1995 so the Bar should have addressed them if I had made a complaint specifying the failures then, I suspect that the Bar would rubber stamp any grievance we made at that time. The reason that we did not address it then is another story with another attorney. This describes a scenario where "strategy" failure is relevant an issue that the Virginia State Bar no longer addresses, their response is that one can hire another member to address "strategy" in court, then when one talks to another attorney, they respond that such an action is unlikely to result in a favorable outcome. Malicious, Failed or negligent strategy is reinforced through the policy of avoidance and results in an environment of profiteering whether by intent or negligence. Clients become disposable people when their assets have been consumed, they have no value and they cannot retain another member to defend them. Just what function does the Virginia State Bar, an Agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia provide the citizens of the State. From our experiences it appears that the institution shelters profiteering predators that prey on the citizens misfortune, when my girlfriends assets were consumed, she was bankrupted, the attorney paid and she was dismissed. The Bar dismisses correspondence addressing such issues, "strategy" is no longer relevant, not their problem, even when I claim that it is a trend, a reflection of its population and that they cannot claim diligence without the metric to identify their assertion that their members are diligent in their representation.


The Virginia State Bar's implementation of the dismissive policy of 2000 disenfranchises the low income citizens of Virginia who cannot afford a cascading series of attorneys in order to achieve a fair or impartial ruling, discrimination by proxy and allows "rule of law" to be undermined by profiteering, negligence and incompetence.

• What effect does the removal of "strategy" oversight have when applied to the legal theater ?
• What was the intent of this policy change ?
  • It does not ensure the integrity of the profession.
  • It does not protect the citizens rights.
  • It does not promote "rule of law", "due process" or "presumption of innocence".
• Is this just another example of an infected government institution changing policy to avoid its responsibility and nullify the alleged protections afforded by "rule of law" ? After all if there is no incentive to ensure that counsel will represent their clients competently, the only rule is profits, why go the extra mile if one can use the same time to scam another victim.
• Is this an example of what happens when members of a group execute self oversight ?

Is this "sour grapes" or a corrupt institution that chooses not to fulfill its obligations to the community by altering its policy and then claiming that the implementation has been accepted. With each threshold crossed, each protection removed our rights are eroded. I know of one foster child, high school education, mother, abused housewife who was persecuted with impunity by members of this institution. If "rule of law" was a concern then her rights would have been protected, the institution would be diligent in ensuring that its members maintained the integrity of the profession in their representation of its citizens.

I also find it noteworthy how ineffective "word of mouth" is at maintaining the integrity of the profession, this is another claim by those to whom I have discussed this subject. "Word of Mouth" is dismissed with the "sour grapes" response, that client had a hard case and was upset at the results, so another desperate client takes a chance and pays the money. Maybe they will be diligently represented, maybe not, either way the "customer satisfaction" metric is not maintained. There is greater diligence in the business community than in the State of Virginia's legal institutions. Again the question is asked what is gained from 2000 replacement ?