Virginia State Bar - facilitates malpractice

When the Virginia State Bar dismisses strategy/tactic complaints it is failing to ensure the integrity of the profession. By not accepting, with review, strategy complaints and applying a demerit system the institution has no idea which of its members are fleecing and sacrificing their clients. It may not be necessary to disbar a member for one or two mistakes but to dismiss a complaint of "bad" strategy is negligence, in a professional football game stats are kept on all the players and in that case there are other witnesses to the players failure.

The legal professions service is strategy and tactics, the law provides the framework. When assets are not applied the tactic becomes a two edged sword, if the strategy works everyone is satisfied, when it does not, it is failure, especially if a major asset was dismissed.

In the real world theft is profitable, minimal investment maximum returns. Behind the shield of the Virginia State Bar's "no strategy failure recorded" the risk becomes minimal. This provides an environment where theft, fraud and incompetence can thrive.

The investment of an attorney is his time, understanding the law and applying the assets of the client for presentation to the courts for a result. If this attorney does not communicate the circumstances of their clients situation within the context of the law, the courts cannot render a competent ruling and the client is not represented and it is possible that an innocent client may be punished.

The Virginia State Bar claims that a damaged client can go find another member so that they can sue the offending member for malpractice. When one approaches another member about such an action based on strategy failure one is confronted with excuses and is dismissed. For example in my girlfriends situation, her main asset was that she had years of seeing Social Services therapists and doctors http://home.comcast.net/~styx.cml-lsm/01/Cases/OurIssues07.htm#doctorswhy who she had confided in to aid her in dealing with issues and events that distressed her. Contacting Social Services would have provided years of documentation supporting these attorneys client - this was a major asset. The original attorneys never contacted the asset, attempts at filing a malpractice suit against these failures were dismissed by their associates. The Virginia State Bar responded that they do not address strategy complaints.

Ironically this profession states that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", yet confront this unyielding industry with their failures and listen to the excuses as to why they cannot provide competent service.

This is a performance industry where minimal statistics are kept, the Bar does not note when one of their members has performance problems and executes failed strategies. The only facts available to consumers are that these members appeared to be diligent. The reality was that they they showed up, filed a paper and were engaged enough to appear to be performing. The claim is that most of these members are diligent is unsupported, because strategy failure statistics are not kept market and performance pressures reinforce the tendancy to cut corners.

http://community.lawyers.com/messageboards/message.asp?channelId=29&subId=&mid=958979&mbid=120&threadId=938
From this earlier post I notice that there was no solutions presented - apparently members who have performance problems are accepted providing that they provide the image of representation. The solution presented is for one to go further into debt trying to censor a rogue member by hiring another one. One is invited to hire other esteemed members to address ones original issue (if too much time has not passed) and also address the original members malpractice.


http://home.comcast.net/~styx.cml-lsm/01/Cases/prolog.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A41405-2000Jun1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A32933-2000Jun10
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A40897-2000Aug5
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A26129-2000Sep7
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A30729-2000Dec6

When I contacted the Governor of Virginia he claimed that our issues were local, our representative never bothered to respond, the ACLU reviewed our material and replied that we may have a case but they did not have the time to address it - a polite dismissal.

The question that should be asked of this "Bar" are:
What are "they" doing to ensure that their members competently represent their clients ?
How can an institution be expected to self regulate when it is not in their best interests to do so ?
Just what are the statistics on members who sacrificed their clients by ignoring material that would support their clients position ?
Just why is the Virginia State Bar not recording these "strategy/tactical" failures and ensure the integrity of the profession ?
Just why did the Virginia State Bar drop their Nine Canons, around the time of my girlfriends deserting member, the old Nine Canons are now dismissed by the institution, why ?

First off, this isn't a place to vent/rant/pontificate but to pose a legal question and I'm not sure what your goal is here. The audience for this board is *VERY* limited.

You cannot expect folks to go off-site to see more stream-of-consciousness ranting, and note that even if the off-site info were helpful (it isn't), you sort of blew the chance of someone paying attention by the content of your post. I'm not sure if you have any objective folks in your circle of friends, but such people would tell you that your commentary is quite difficult to follow/all over the place.

"When one approaches another member about such an action based on strategy failure one is confronted with excuses and is dismissed."

If you are the person who represents your girlfriend to explain the basis for her personal injury case and subsequent legal malpractice action, this is frankly no surprise. I don't have the words to describe how difficult it is to get through even a few paragraphs.

The earlier thread here that you reference speaks for itself, if you would be objective. In it you did not pose any questions, only out-of-context commentary. Thus, I'm not sure why you're referring to the fact that "there was [sic] no solutions presented".

I'm not kidding here, and neither am I trying to be mean -- you should be talking with a mental health professional.

Sorry for the confusion. Usually when one presents a summation, details are requested.

When I signed up on this forum I noticed that one of its purposes was to present experiences, not just questions - maybe I misread. Regardless one can choose to ignore our experiences, I will not spam these experiences. I do apologize for my stupidity and mental instability. Pontification - maybe it is, I do not care.

When one approaches the legal community it is usually for a solution to a problem. I identify our experiences when we approached this community for such solutions. Each of the nine firms retained to address specific problems in twenty years failed to competently represent us.

Several attorneys begged out in the middle of a case, this resulted in several hearings without representation. One attorney would sit through the opposing counsels statements and when the client tried to provide documents of refutation the response was to pat their hand and say "professional courtesy". Several attorneys did not bother with contacting Social Services, who had been treating their client for years, had actively supported their client throughout events with documentation or had been responsible for an event occurring through oversight. In one instance video should have been available of an event that refuted statements made, no attempt was made to obtain this material, the client was told by their attorney that it did not matter - the client tried to obtain it themselves to prove their innocence and could not. I would not consider any of these "strategies" competent representation.

The attorneys that were retained were highly recommended, the most highly recommended attorney deserted all their clients - at least one probono client's case was so damaged by the desertion that they could not obtain counsel. This refutes statements that "recommendations" are a good thing, "recommendations" could be cronyism.

When we approached either another attorney or the Virginia State Bar and pointed out the failure to obtain material, the response is that it is a strategy issue and not actionable. Strategy is the service that this community is supposed to provide within the framework of these "laws", when strategy failures are dismissed then there is a possibility that the client will not be competently represented. The institution that claims to enforce the integrity of the legal profession does not so so when they dismiss strategy failures, doctors, therapists, witnesses and documentation.

My girlfriends issues are relevant to me because I get stuck with the bills and the emotional trauma of each of these failures called attorneys. This is highlighted by today's (09/20/2007) experience at the court house, my girlfriend had hired this attorney to represent her in court today, I paid the retainer and distanced myself. The attorney never showed up at the courthouse, my girlfriend was in tears coming home. I found myself making excuses, that maybe he was caught in another case, he probably called and would do something later. There was no phone call when we got home, no message - this makes attorney number nine. I am still hoping that this attorney number nine will have a strategy for my girlfriends sake and the retainer that I paid.

I am NOT the one to explain the "basis for her personal injury case" - that attorney deserted ALL their clients (do you want the links again). I like your reference to seeing a "mental health professional" I was instructed to and saw one for an "abuse of process" action against another attorney. Both the "mental health professional" and myself were perplexed when the attorney that started the the action forgot about it. This resulted in another complaint to the Bar which did work in getting my prepayment back. We were not aware of the strategy, when we approached other attorneys about this "abuse of process" the response was "no", they do not handle it.

This is a warning that the legal community is a racket as it is currently implemented, without oversight on the services allegedly provided. The community lacks integrity and any who enlists the services of these members risks not being competently represented. All the correct papers will be completed to fulfill the requirements of the racket but like any good scam the service provided by a retained attorney MAY be inadequate.

The concern is that if us stupid people cannot obtain competent representation because we are not "clients of choice", then where is "due process". Our issues were simple, separation/divorce with children from an abusive spouse, dog bite injury, a mistake with credit cards, adverse reaction to medication and police incident as a result. Maybe it is just us that have had incompetent representation or maybe it is the industry and how the Bar addresses the issues. One wonders how many "clients" seeking solutions absorbed the cost of this institutions member failure, the damn attorney made a mistake but it is just not worth the effort to address the members failure.

Again apologies for my illiteracy and stupidity.....

You are complaining about attorneys, to a board followed by attorneys. Does that make ANY sense?

Football is a game with a set of facts and specific rules. Law isn't even close to that.

Law is just like medicine. Bad things happen. No outcome is certain.

The site's purpose is to provide general legal info. Yes, one would present personal experiences ... but in response to folks' questions. This isn't a place to vent or pontificate, no.

You refer to 20 years' worth of presumably varied legal problems, and yet despite that it sounds as though you and your girlfriend still haven't figured out how to interview or do due diligence an attorney before hiring him-her. Or perhaps it's a matter of getting what you pay for, I don't know. It's equally difficult to find a decent auto mechanic, hair dresser, doctor, etc., etc. It seems you're spending a lot of time writing the Dead Sea Scrolls here vs. reading/educating yourself.

If you're trying to warn folks about something, your post (on a different site) might want to be cogent; yours are disjointed.

I didn't say you were stupid, by the way.

Yes it does - to observe the responses, complaining elsewhere accomplishes nothing. I have learned that I should see a "mental health professional" from posting here, that somehow the client should esp competent counsel.

"Football is a game with a set of facts and specific rules. Law isn't even close to that."
"Law is just like Medicine. Bad things happen. No outcome is certain."

Playing football by the rules "bad things" can still happen. Football has referees, witnesses and metrics are kept on the players. If the the player repeatedly uses poor strategy or drops the ball their position is in jeopardy. There is an expectation that the football player will perform, the game may not be won but the game would be played out. Football is a game where the players choose to participate. This industry is not a game for those seeking solutions, an industry that blames the client for their failure to engage competently and lacking even the minimal diligence in reducing such "strategies".

You are 100% right "Football is a game with a set of facts and specific rules. Law isn't even close to that."

"do due diligence an attorney before hiring him-her" - This must be an esp thing. Recommendations from other attorneys, recommendations from associates, partner in a major firm and the Bar claims that they are competent - what else ?

"Interview", present them with a list of contacts and information sources to support the case. After being paid, material is not used and the results unsatisfactory. I would consider a polygraph to ensure truthful responses to questions on representation, conflict of interest, distracted, desertion or just too busy but willing to take the money.

Material that was available is never heard by the courts and the client just watches a train wreak as their attorney loses their case. There is no record of these members "bad hair days", as long as the papers are filed. After the case is over and the damaged client tries to "interview" counsel the loss is applied to the client not to the member who failed - the client has "sour grapes". The Bar "theoretically" would be able to identify whether the omitted material would have had a potential impact on a case and a possible "strategy" failure. This would not be a judgment, but a question of diligence and provide a damaged client leverage to present to another attorney (if they could find one). This implementation would also provide incentive to ensure a quality service by the members of the institution.

With an auto mechanic, hair dresser and doctor one can usually find another that can fix the mistake. One also has recourse to point to the "mistake" and say they did not do their job and a complaint can be made to the Better Business Bureau. The BBB is not expected to address "strategy" or "performance" issues in the legal environment.

I did not notice that the experiences had to be in question/experience order. When my girlfriends attorney deserted in 2000 this site I did not find a "Legal Malpractice" section in it. Otherwise this esteemed community could have tried to aid us in resolving the "deserting" attorney and dismissal of a probono client by the Bar.

As for my scrolls, you implied that I have to improve my writing skills - actually proof reading, I agree, maybe a book, I have the facts and the material - disjointed as it may be - I also have time. I will take the hit on being a disjointed individual who should see a mental health professional. The industry can take the hit on failing to ensure an ethical membership and by not identifying strategy failures so that clients, doing due diligence, can know that the professional that they are considering does not have a lot of "bad hair days".

No you didnt call me stupid, it was implied - maybe justified.

Guess my buddies left me, nice to know that I need to see "mental health professionals", my girlfriend is already seeing one to address her breakdowns. The need for a "mental health professional" might be because I cannot expect to find competent legal representation for the amount that I can afford in Virginia.


I find it interesting that when confronted invariably members of this industry attack the credibility of the individual rather than addressing the facts of the issues presented. This is good theater. Statements such as "oh they are stupid", in need of "mental health professional", wrong color skin, wrong sex, speak funny - anything to detract from the facts or the issue. The presumption is that the client seeking assistance is the one that is wrong - presumption of guilt.



What I have identified was the following:

That we have experienced a high percentage of questionable representation by members of the legal community in Virginia.

That by dismissing "strategy" complaints the industry facilitates bad practice by its members.



Customers of this industry have no idea whether those members they retain will competently represent their position because failed strategies are not documented. "Winning" or "losing" are relevant but does not describe the competency of the member. Diligent members may take on the "hard cases" which would result in "losses" but they would have "fought the good fight". It is the alleged responsibility of the "institution" to ensure that the "shysters" are culled and the integrity of the industry protected.



The claim here is that we did not "interview", "do due diligence" or "got what we paid for" in obtaining competent counsel. Apparently within the interview process a distraught client must be imbued with psychic abilities in their interrogation of a prospective representative. In order to "do due diligence" one requires information on representation however because statistics on "customer satisfaction" are not maintained the skirts of "strategy" protects the "shysters" and the diligence of the member is ignored. Lets use an analogy for the "got what we paid for", if I were to purchase car I would expect it to function as a vehicle with what it had. At the minimum I would expect to be represented competently with assets that I provide. With this institution one does not even have the fall back of a "State Inspection" that would ensure the brakes on the vehicle worked. The illusion of diligence is maintained, but the reality is that cronyism and omission provides a sheltered environment for "accepted" fraud.



The social impact of this implementation results in angst and fear, the response to this failure is that alternate solutions to problems are sought, this is detrimental to the society. Why should one take this route and risk years of aggravation when a base ball bat and a dark night would resolve the dispute ? As a result of the institutions lack of diligence respect for the law falters and crime increases. The resulting increase in crime is then used to leverage more assets to "fight" it - a response to the symptom.



This discussion is relevant here because it highlights a rift in the diligence of the institution to ensure that individuals in need will have competent representation when their lives are on the line. That they will be represented and not processed because the one representing them believes that they should see a "mental health professional" or are "stupid". The Football Game industry has more diligence than this one because I can find all the stats on any player - passes, completions, interceptions....



No one on this forum has provided a venue to present or research strategy complaints which would identify diligence of an attorney. Therefore it can only be concluded that no individual can "do due diligence" for an in depth interrogation of a prospective representative. This is a racket that provides an illusion of an "arbitrated" solution. The institution is negligent, it became this when it removed the Nine Canons which included such things as "A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety" - Canon 9.



-----------------------------------------------



Hypothetically speaking how would one go about a law suit against the State of Virginia and the Virginia State Bar ?

What type of law addresses negligence, facilitation of fraud, emotional distress, cronyism and discrimination ?

Where do poor, stupid people in need of "mental health professionals" go to buy their justice ?


-----------------------------------------------

A similar case to "one" of ours had a law suit for 4.5 million dollars, http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=1212286

A probono clients attorney who showed Virginia diligence. The client was given their files and dismissed by the Bar as irrelevant http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A41405-2000Jun1

Stop your ridiculous generalizations. Nothing in my post constitutes any ad hominem attack.

"Hypothetically speaking how would one go about a law suit against the State of Virginia and the Virginia State Bar ?"

You file a lawsuit.

"What type of law addresses negligence, facilitation of fraud, emotional distress, cronyism and discrimination ?"

Negligence is tort.
Fraud can occur in many contexts.
Emotional distress is tort.
Cronyism?
Discrimination can occur in many contexts, and most discrimination is legal.

"Where do poor, stupid people in need of "mental health professionals" go to buy their justice ?"

That's not even a reasonable question.

You can tell by my silly ranting that I am not part of your clergy. Since you responded with the Latin "ad hominem attack" one can assume that this is an attempt to diminish me, similar to the statement by "Fxston" who stated that I was in need of a "mental health professional".

To which I respond, I do not care. This is because the foundation of this post is that those of us that are "lacking", are of "diminished capacity", possibly in need of "mental health professional" cannot expect to be able to obtain competent representation from this industry.

"You file a lawsuit."
I do like that response, we both know how far that will go. The first thing is that "anyone who attempts to defend/represent himself in a court of law has a fool for a client". Second I would not have any expectation of competent representation because of cronyism - I wont bore you with my documents that I claim would support this statement. Third I admit to our lack of knowledge of the "law", this was the reason why these professionals were retained in the first place. Fourth because of the probable protected status, any "law" would have an exception excluding the institution from liability, making such an attempt unsuccessful. Fifth because of the financial position that we are in I know that I could not buy competent representation.

Filing a "law suit" action would present a "no win scenario" within the arena. We cannot take action on our "discoveries" individually because of the statute of limitations. This leaves the responsible institution and documenting our experiences - the silly rant. Which is where we are at right now.

-------------------------------

"Where do poor, stupid people in need of "mental health professionals" go to buy their justice ?"

"That's not even a reasonable question."
How is this not a reasonable question ? Representation goes to those that can pay the most or a cause that supports the interests of the counsel, such as religion, politics or publicity. The law and facts are irrelevant, theater and spin are what is relevant in the modern courtroom. Either the implementation is failing or we are being discriminated against.

The bottom line is that we - especially my girlfriend who has had numerous breakdowns cannot expect to obtain competent representation in Virginia. Let me qualify this I hope that this ninth attorney will represent my girlfriend competently on her immediate needs - the past is still an issue. Odds are one out of nine - a real crap shoot.

I should go into storage and look up our past communications with the Bar. I noticed in our last complaint that the same person dismissed it as the one that dismissed my complaint about the attorney that would not respond to my communications to obtain store video evidence. Material that I believed would refute the police report and possibly refresh my girlfriends memory of the morning (reaction to administered medication). The complaint before that was the deserting probono attorney, I was upset that the bar dismissed a probono client with a damaged case with - here are your files - bye.

I'm not sure our boards are going to be able to help you. Most of your posts consist of rants against the system. Please note that our boards are not here for that purpose.

Thanks.

Erik
Community Moderator

Interesting facts and experiences, disjointed as they may have been are considered "rants against the system". Yet claims that I need to see a "mental health professional" are considered appropriate in this forum.

I posted here to illustrate the results of "due process", "experiences", "observations" and "conclusions". When I posted in another forum several years ago in a more restrained manner, facts were demanded. When facts are presented it becomes a rant.

The illusion that is presented is that once one hires an attorney they can expect some sort of competence within the profession. We followed the recommendations that have been outlined here and from other sources, yet still retained counsel "chose" a strategy that was not in their clients best interests. When attempts were made to address such failings the "excuse" was that there were some "bad apples".

I wonder how helpful this forum really is since the usual recommendation is to hire an attorney and the industry is not pro-active in addressing their "bad apple" problems.

This was not a "rant" against the system of law, it is a "rant" against the current implementation, the "bad apples" and dismissal of failed performance by responsible institutions. Note the "argumentum ad hominem" responses to what I presented, rather than identify that there are avenues for a dissatisfied client to take in order to address a member who chose not to present and failed, I a dissatisfied client am told that I should see a "mental health professional". Rather than responding that the institution is taking action to ensure that the "performance/strategy failures" are being addressed, metrics provided to future clients so that they can research their intended representative and the location of these metrics, I am told that I am ranting. I presume that this is a forum for assistance, note the "advice" provided.

For future clients after hiring one of these "professionals", note the dates, keep a diary, seek outside professional assistance/witnesses and look up the court records afterwords. If one is "lucky" they will be represented competently, if not there does not appear to be an action to be taken. The client is provided the the excuse that there are "some" bad apples or that they, the client, has "sour grapes" - pray that you, the client, can survive the damage.

The bottom line is that the client may not be represented, the illusion of representation is preserved and the result is that the client is processed. Our experiences are representative of performance, implementation and oversight failure. Our experiences identify that it is not just "one bad apple" that is in the barrel. The responses, both official and community identify a knee jerk reaction to any criticism of the industry and members thereof.

Since this forum claims to be a place where assistance can be sought, note also how someone who is believed to be distraught is treated - "rant", in need of a "mental health professional" or ignored.

I apologize for upsetting the feelings of this community....