Reform Attorneys with functional oversight

We are hearing about counsel that fail to represent their clients.  They fall asleep, overlook documents, evidence but still do the minimum to be considered ethically competent.  This does not help the client that is sent to jail. 

When such damaged clients try to rectify the failure they are told that they have "sour grapes", are "stupid" and laughed at with the comment "sure you are innocent, that is what they all say". 

The client is also told that they should have "researched" their attorney, that "word of mouth" would "regulate" the profession.  Yet one finds that web sites that claim to allow "reviews" do not post negative reviews.  This means that clients researching prospective counsel is provided with biased material.

In Virginia in the year 2000 the Virginia State Bar changed its policy from addressing "strategy" with Code of Professional Responsibility to avoiding "strategy" with Professional Guidelines and Rules of Professional Conduct.  Which means that as long as ones attorney has good attendance and turns in their papers they are considered good attorneys.  The client is expected to regulate the Bar's members.

Since 2000 we have Jay Scott Bybee and his memo that demonstrates how laws can be "interpreted" and the lengths their crony's will go to protect them.  If they are willing to take such risks with issues like that where does a client stand.

The bottom line is that only two parties know the truth, what was known and available.  One party, the client is silenced by a predatory population.

Recent Signatures