Disposable People - the client of choice.
Posted 04-06-2008 at 07:38 AM by jowey
In my deviation to lawyers.com with How does one sue a State ? one response stated that they suspected that our problems with attorneys were caused by us. Maybe they were, it brought back a conversation with my father who was an attorney. One day as a child we were driving around, the conversation turned to being an attorney and then somehow "the client of choice". As we were going through a community my father pointed to some people and said that they were "not clients of choice", as a naive child who thought that rules were to be applied fairly, I stated that "I thought that counsel was supposed to represent everyone". The response was startling, "those people were not clients of choice and therefore not worth the investment of time to represent them, technically though they will be represented". I felt bad for the the people deemed "not worth the investment of time". I realized then that this profession was a fraud, all those lectures of integrity and diligence has no meaning when implementation is dismissed with "not worth the investment of time".
My girlfriend was attempting to escape from an abusive relationship, her mother had tried to kill her as a child, numerous foster homes, abuses in said homes, a high school dropout, what jobs she did obtain were minimum wage and when she took a stand and said "no more" she ran into a prejudiced system. My girlfriend was not a "client of choice" not worth the investment of time and therefore "presumed guilty". Her first two attorneys passed her over after several months with "too busy, not enough time to represent competently". The third did not find her a "client of choice", not worth even bothering with contacting assets she had presented. When confronted with the crusader who found my girlfriend abhorrent, whose stated goal was to destroy her for leaving the husband there was no competition. In fact the husband's attorneys religious and political affiliations may have been a conflict of interest with their allegedly aspiring political career.
Before 2000 the Virginia State Bar had Canon's through which a client could register a grievance with the Bar on counsels representation. At that time it was possible for a client to challenge their representation without the expense of trying to obtain another counsel who may also perceive them as not being "clients of choice". This avenue could not be allowed, so the Virginia State Bar chose to change this policy and dismiss all "strategy" complaints. Their members were released from all accountability for their actions, except for attendance and filing papers. Grievances such as ours are dismissed as being the clients problem, the attorney is not liable for their performance, the courts never hear the complete context of the case and "presumption of guilt" reigns supreme.
I challenged lawyers.com to refute my position and ultimately the response came back to it being the clients problem that the professional is unsuccessful. That the lay community must accept that the population of attorneys are effectively self regulated and represent diligent representation. This is a faith based profession, there is no foundation, no metrics that can identify those that practice habitual "poor strategy", the lay community must "believe" that they are being represented competently.
Do you believe ? Do you have faith ?
My girlfriend was attempting to escape from an abusive relationship, her mother had tried to kill her as a child, numerous foster homes, abuses in said homes, a high school dropout, what jobs she did obtain were minimum wage and when she took a stand and said "no more" she ran into a prejudiced system. My girlfriend was not a "client of choice" not worth the investment of time and therefore "presumed guilty". Her first two attorneys passed her over after several months with "too busy, not enough time to represent competently". The third did not find her a "client of choice", not worth even bothering with contacting assets she had presented. When confronted with the crusader who found my girlfriend abhorrent, whose stated goal was to destroy her for leaving the husband there was no competition. In fact the husband's attorneys religious and political affiliations may have been a conflict of interest with their allegedly aspiring political career.
Before 2000 the Virginia State Bar had Canon's through which a client could register a grievance with the Bar on counsels representation. At that time it was possible for a client to challenge their representation without the expense of trying to obtain another counsel who may also perceive them as not being "clients of choice". This avenue could not be allowed, so the Virginia State Bar chose to change this policy and dismiss all "strategy" complaints. Their members were released from all accountability for their actions, except for attendance and filing papers. Grievances such as ours are dismissed as being the clients problem, the attorney is not liable for their performance, the courts never hear the complete context of the case and "presumption of guilt" reigns supreme.
I challenged lawyers.com to refute my position and ultimately the response came back to it being the clients problem that the professional is unsuccessful. That the lay community must accept that the population of attorneys are effectively self regulated and represent diligent representation. This is a faith based profession, there is no foundation, no metrics that can identify those that practice habitual "poor strategy", the lay community must "believe" that they are being represented competently.
Do you believe ? Do you have faith ?
Total Comments 0
Comments
Total Trackbacks 0
Trackbacks
Recent Blog Entries by jowey
- Disposable People - "I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!".... (07-24-2008)
- Disposable People - the loss of self esteem (07-09-2008)
- Disposable people - the Justice Department and the FBI (07-02-2008)
- Disposable People - It is all in the strategy. (06-23-2008)
- Disposable People - the Pelosi Syndrome. (06-11-2008)
