The so called “Neutral” “AME” Psyche Examination.

"Isn't true..  you HATED your mother as a child"

 

COMING SOON TO OUR BLOG...

Throughout our blog, we’ve advocated the need for more transparency between the lawyer and his client. We have always maintained that when a client knows what the lawyer knows with regards to his case, there is no room for mistrust, misunderstandings, and plain out LIES.

Here is the case of a LAZY LAWYER who shafted HIS OWN client, and really left him out hanging, when a so called  “AME” ( Agreed Medical Examination) went awry. In this case, the poor client was harmed, because a so called “Neutral” “AME”  was orchestrated and mischievously manipulated by the client’s own LAZY AND LOUSY LAWYER...who was in cahoots with the Examiner himself ..against the unsuspecting client...who was handicap.

    In 2004 a honest and hard truck driver worker named Oscar ( different name to protect the real victim) had an on the job accident seriously injuring himself. Oscar had never had a need for a lawyer before, but he felt he needed one, when he discovered his own company had cheated him out of 9 months of over time pay, and were refusing to pay his temporary disability payments while he laid sick in bed.

    So one day Oscar, talked to a family member who worked at the police department in Van Nuys, who told Oscar about a “Good” lawyer, a fellow worker’s relative had used in the past with “good” results. “ I heard this guy is in tight with all the worker’s comp judges at the worker’s comp board in Van Nuys”  this relative told Oscar..  ”I am even told he is even a temporary Judge there” The relative said. “ This guy is good” said the relative.

    So with phone number in hand Oscar made contact with the “Good/ Temp Judge” Lawyer whose office was in Encino. When Oscar called the law office, he found it kinda odd that the “Good/ Temp Judge” lawyer was answering his own phones. No secretary, no staff, Oscar thought. That should have been a red flag, but maybe that’s how all lawyers do business thought Oscar, who had never even talked to an attorney before.

STAY TUNED FOR MORE ...This one will be an eye opener..

"GO AHEAD... FIRE ME... I DARE YOU"

"GO AHEAD AND FIRE ME...WHO CARES... 

I'LL JUST PUT A LIEN ON YOUR CASE FOR MY FEES"

 By Louis Nogali 

Often times a client is forced to FIRE his BAD lawyer when it’s self evident, the lawyer has abandoned the prosecution of that client’s good case. 

It all starts with the usual unreturned phone calls, the phone battles with the arrogant receptionist, the missing court dates, the failure to keep the client reasonably informed on the status of that client’s case, etc.. ( probably because nothing has been done since he was retained, safe sometimes for the sending of a simple representation letter to the insurance company, or to opposing counsel ) 

A client could also be forced to fire his BAD lawyer, perhaps because the BAD lawyer once thought he had a million dollar case when the client walked through the door, and saw the crutches and the bruises (he probably told the client that his case was worth a million bucks). This bad case evaluation, could have been primarily based on the following facts: 

1. On the BAD lawyer’s inability to either know the law on the issue when the client came in for consultation,.. 

2. Or because his inability to establish some type of legal theory on which to base a claim upon 

3. Or because of pure and simple laziness, 

4. OR because after some reconsideration, he realized post retention, that to bring such a case to trial in front of a jury, (if is a contingency agreement) it would cost the BAD lawyer an arm and a leg, in expert fees, jury fees, and other incidentals, something 99.9 % of other GOOD reputable lawyers normally advance for the client without a glitch, but a BAD lawyer, never agrees to pay out of his pocket anything if all possible. 

5. Or because the BAD lawyer sticks to his motto of “Settled cases pays the bills” and “tried cases’ “Bills” makes you ill” In other words LOTS and LOTS of work...and money....Something foreign to a BAD lawyer’s.. Modus-Operandi ... 

So it’s easier for a BAD lawyer to just put the file in the “Forgotten” or the “Let’s see what happens” drawer, until a phone call comes in from some adjuster who wants to bestow a little mercy on behalf of humanity, (something that occurs once every millennium) And offers a “nuisance value only” “Found money” or “Take it or leave it” so called “Settlement Offer”.. 

So once that occurs, your so called “GOOD “ lawyer gets to put all his “negotiation” knowledge and skills he’s learned at all those Los Angeles County Bar Association (LACBA) seminars to a test and good use by bullshitting the client into accepting such a “Good Offer” so that the BAD lawyer can get some type of fees, and buy himself a new life...pay his rent, or pay his State Bar membership Fee.... 

It doesn’t matter what the Client gets... 

BUT if all of the above never happens and the CLIENT wises up and decides to FIRE the so called “Good lawyer”, despite the stellar performance as described “hereinabove” (“hereinabove” is one of those $400 word some Bad lawyers like to use to dazzle and BS the opposition when they can’t write themselves a cohesive sentence out of a paper bag if their lives depended on it) But if all that fails, the BAD lawyer still has one more trick up his sleeve.. 

If a client FIRES his BAD lawyer’s ass because of any of the above, the BAD lawyer thinks he has nothing to worry about... He thinks he is “FULLY” protected because in his retainer agreement, he has very cleverly placed a “LIEN” clause, giving him priority in getting his exorbitant, and extortionate fees and costs paid in the event of termination prior to a settlement or a judgement. 

Perhaps you saw something like one of these clauses below in your BAD lawyer’s retainer agreement and wondered what it all meant.. Or perhaps you never read that sentence during your interview because you were being dazzled with all the brilliant courtroom legal battle victories by the so called GOOD lawyer...you know the ones where he gets a $20,000 jury verdict after 10 years of litigation. 

Here is what a BAD and so called GOOD lawyer has on his retainer agreement. 

“LIEN. Client hereby grants Attorney a lien on any and all claims or causes of action that are subject of Attorney’s representation under this agreement. Attorney’s lien will be for any sums owing to Attorney for any unpaid cost, or attorney’s fees, at the conclusion of Attorney’s services. The lien will attach to any recovery Client may obtain, whether by arbitration award, judgement, settlement or otherwise. The effect of such a lien is that Attorney may be able to compel payment of fees and costs from any such funds recovered on behalf of Client even if Attorney has been discharged before the end of the case. Because a lien may affect Client’s property rights, the Client may seek the advice of an independent lawyer of client’s own choice before agreeing to such a lien”  

And here is what another “GOOD” lawyer has on his retainer agreement: 

“LIEN: Client hereby grants Attorneys a lien on any and all causes of action Client may assert in any court action brought by Attorneys on Client’s behalf under this Agreement. Attorneys’ lien will be for any sums due and owing to Client to Attorneys at the conclusion or termination of Attorneys’ services. The lien will attach to any recovery Client may obtain in the court action, whether by judgment, settlement or otherwise” 

AND still yet another on his retainer agreement also says: 

“ Client shall pay ATTORNEY as his fee for such representation the sum of THIRTY THREE and 1/3 percent ( 33 1/3%) of any settlement obtained. If a lawsuit is necessary and filed, then the Client shall pay ATTORNEY as his fees the sum ogf FORTY PERCENT (40%) of the settlement, verdict, award or recovery. ATTORNEY shall have a LIEN on my cause of action and any favorable judgement obtained, to the extent of the percentages mentioned above in the event of premature termination by the client” 

As you can see this last guy wants it ALL.. This last guy, if the client gets a new attorney to continue representing him, will get NOTHING for his services according to this lien’s verbiage. 

BUT are these lawyers allowed to do this ? 

99.9% of all REAL GOOD attorneys have similar clauses in their retainer agreements. Such lien clauses are allowed under California law... Most of these REAL GOOD lawyers, use these clauses as protection against scumbag clients who despite a good representation and good settlement or jury verdict, they still nickle and dime their REAL GOOD attorney when the time comes to distribute the spoils of the litigation...ie the MONEY...

Often times these scum bag clients do not agree on the fees and thus refuse to sign off or endorse the settlement check. It is on those RARE instances where a LIEN clause is designed to protect these REAL GOOD Attorneys.. 

BUT what we are talking about here, are those BAD and so called “GOOD” lawyers who are lazy, and do absolutely NOTHING for their client during their representation as their lawyer and now that the client has decided to substitute them for a REAL GOOD lawyer, the BAD and so called “GOOD” lawyer suddenly tries to hide behind his “LIEN” clause to get “HIS” exorbitant fees and costs paid. 

The Law here in California is very clear on this issue.. In the most recent California Supreme Court Case of Fletcher v. Davis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 61, the court very clearly stated that California Rules Of Professional Conduct 3-300 goes against the applicability of a Lien by a former BAD lawyer who the client was forced to FIRE, to hurt a client by purposely holding settlement or judgement moneys back until his fees are paid by the client...

Said rule states as follows: 

Rule 3-300 Avoiding Interests Adverse to a Client: 

“A member shall not enter into a business transaction with a client; or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security, or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client, unless each of the following requirements has been satisfied: (A) The transaction or acquisition and its terms are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner which should reasonably have been understood by the client; and (B) The client is advised in writing that the client may seek the advice of an independent lawyer of the client's choice and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek that advice; and (C) The client thereafter consents in writing to the terms of the transaction or the terms of the acquisition.” 

In other words. Let’s say you had a good personal injury case, but your so called “GOOD” BAD lawyer that you hired did nothing and forces you to FIRE his ass. At the firing, he arrogantly tells you to go pound sand because he doesn’t care what you do since he has a “LIEN”clause in his retainer agreement, for his fees and costs. ( that portion was never fully explained to you by him when you retained him. At the firing you are NOT told how much as of that day his fees and costs are..) 

So the next day you find a VERY GOOD attorney to substitute the BAD one. The new retainer agreement also calls for the payment of 33 1/3 % of the settlement amount etc..... 

After another year, the VERY GOOD lawyer manages to get you a sizable settlement agreement for let’s say $350.000. GREAT you say...$233.345 for you for compensation for your injuries, and for your VERY GOOD lawyer $116.655.. CASE RESOLVED you say...Right ??? WRONG !! 

Your happy fairy tales dream is quickly shattered when your VERY GOOD lawyer tells you that your former so called “GOOD” BAD lawyer who sat on his ass for most of the time he was your “attorney” and did nothing for you, has sent your VERY GOOD lawyer a statement of “HIS FEES & COSTS” in the amount of $$85.000. And now that your case has been settled, he wants “his money”. 

As security, your former so called “GOOD” BAD lawyer has sent your VERY GOOD lawyer a copy of the “LIEN” he has placed on the outcome of your case. To make matters worse, the shyster insurance carrier adjuster, sent the settlement check payable to YOU, the BAD lawyer, and the VERY GOOD lawyer’s name. Your VERY GOOD lawyer wants to sign the check but won’t until the BAD lawyer reduces his extortionate fee to a much more realistic amount, like $200. 

The BAD lawyer tells your VERY GOOD lawyer, he did LOTS, and LOTS of work on your file and he is entitled to get $85.000 pursuant to a valid LIEN and that he’ll only sign the settlement check once his entire amount is paid ... 

YOU want to sign the check so you can get your $233.345 so you can feed your family who by now are near starvation... BUT at the same time, you tell your VERY GOOD lawyer not to pay the $85.000 claimed by the BAD lawyer..

.So in the mean time YOU as the client get NOTHING.... 

That’s what the NEW California Supreme Court case of Fletcher v. Davis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 61 is designed to avoid... 

Under this new mandate, the BAD lawyer can’t just hold the former client hostage or the payment of his extortionate unearned fee by withholding signing off on a settlement check. In fact the mandate states that the BAD lawyer if he has a dispute over his fee with the former client, or vice-versa, he must IMMEDIATELY take steps to resolve the issue without causing an adverse HARM to the former client. 

The BAD lawyer must get declaratory relief from the court, or by arbitration of the fees IMMEDIATELY. 

He cant just play dilatory games and hold off endorsement of the settlement check in a capricious fashion, with the sole intent to force the payment of a fee that’s been disputed by the client..The mandate suggested placing the disputed amount in a neutral account if agreed by everyone, where no one can get it while the determination process is obtained. If that meets with everyone’s approval, the rest of the settlement proceeds MUST be released to the client... 

The mandate clearly indicated that it’s the BAD lawyer who must seek judicial intervention or Arbitration IMMEDIATELY and not the client.. 

So if you are in a similar situation and you have a so called “GOOD” BAD, lawyer who you are contemplating FIRING and if you do and he gives you a load of CRAP about his “Lien clause” etc, YOU can now tell him to pound sand... 

Or if you are contemplating retaining an attorney and you read that portion of his retainer agreement which contains a LIEN clause, it may be a good idea to have him/her explain in detail what that clause means, and INSIST to include an hourly breakdown of his fees in the event of premature termination (OR you FIRING his ass ) 

In other words, agree to a LIEN clause, but for the reasonable amount of work ACTUALLY performed, at the rate of let’s say $250 per hr (or less if you can get it) in any event make sure he/she is a VERY GOOD attorney .. Don’t get suckered. GOOD LUCK. 

I hope this posting has helped you. If it has, and you have your own story to tell, please do so and share it in your comments below. Thanks for Visiting our Blog... 

(DISCLAIMER: No portion of this post should be considered as giving legal advice, but is to be used for informational purposes only. If you need an attorney ,The publishers of this post are NOT lawyers and strongly urge its readers to consult with a reputable legal professional or to contact the State Bar Association for a proper referral)

5 WAYS LAWYERS SCREW THEIR CLIENTS !

"We are screwing our clients 

left & right, 

but we won't tell them"

By Attorney Justinian Lane, Esq    
(Very Good Attorney)
(Reprinted by permission)


I knew before I went to law school that I wanted to work on behalf of citizens, not corporations. I always have been and always will be an advocate for “the little guy.” I wrote this post because I see too many plaintiffs’ lawyers doing things that are bad for their clients. Here are five things that plaintiffs’ lawyers do that hurt their clients.


1: Making settlement decisions based upon their investment in the case.
It costs money – a lot of money – for a lawyer to finance a lawsuit. A case against the manufacturer of a defective drug can cost literally hundreds of thousands of dollars. Unfortunately, some lawyers invest so heavily in a case that they are no longer able to remain objective about the value of the case. I’ve personally seen lawyers recommend that their clients take lowball settlement offers because the lawyer needed to get his or her investment in the case back. That’s why I always associate with another lawyer to finance an expensive case. I want to limit my personal investment in a case so my judgment never gets clouded. I won’t let the lawyers I associate with make decisions based upon anything other than what’s best for the client.

2: Cutting corners.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers only get paid if they win, and they don’t get paid more if they spend more time on your case. So plaintiffs’ lawyers have a financial incentive to be “good enough guys” – doing the bare minimum to get by. I’m not a perfectionist about anything in my life except the practice of law. If I’m going to put my name on a document and submit it to a court, I’m going to make damned sure that it’s something I’m proud of. Admittedly, I’m only able to do this because I am not a “high volume” lawyer. If I had to work on 100 cases at once, I’d probably be forced to be a little sloppy in order to make deadlines. But I’d rather do a good job for a small number of clients than do a “good enough” job for a larger number.

3: Going to trial when they should settle, or vice versa.

The only way a plaintiffs’ lawyer can really make a name for him or herself is to go to trial and get a big verdict. Some lawyers are so desperate to go to trial and try and get that big verdict that they advise a client to take a very good settlement offer. And some lawyers are so “gun shy” about going to trial that they’ll recommend that their clients take a mediocre settlement in order to avoid going to trial. John F. Kennedy once said, “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” I take the same attitude about settling a case vs. going to trial.

4: Cheaping out on experts.


By far the worst error that plaintiffs’ lawyers make in product liability cases is not hiring enough experts, or not spending enough time preparing their experts. If lawyers don’t spend enough money to hire the right expert witness, or don’t spend enough time working with that witness, then one thing is guaranteed to happen: The case will be thrown out. Courts are very hostile to “junk science.” And these days, courts are very skeptical of plaintiffs in general. Lawyers therefore need to make sure that they’ve got the right expert witnesses, and that their expert witnesses are prepared.

5: Letting the defense lawyers control the litigation.

When a plaintiffs’ lawyer files a lawsuit, the defendant’s lawyers immediately are put on the defensive because they have to file an answer. It’s not fun to be on the defensive. You don’t know what’s coming, you’re responding to their issues, and you’re not in control. Unfortunately, many plaintiffs’ lawyers let themselves be put on the defensive as soon as they file their lawsuit. Instead of filing their own motions to keep the pressure on, they let the defendants file most of the motions. Those plaintiffs’ lawyers then end up playing defense. And nobody ever won a war by defending their own turf. You win a war by taking the other guy’s turf. That’s why my preferred litigation strategy is to be the lawyer who keeps the other side playing defense.

If you think I sound like the kind of lawyer who you’d like to have represent you in the Texas area, then shoot me a message in this Blog.

Even if I can’t help you, I’ll point you in the direction of another lawyer who shares some of my beliefs about how to represent a client effectively.

( DISCLAIMER: No portion of this post should be considered as giving legal advice, but is to be used for informational purposes only. The publishers of this post are NOT lawyers and strongly urge its readers to consult with a reputable legal professional or to contact the State Bar Association for a proper referral) 

Why Most People Hate BAD Lawyers

"Bad Lawyers Suck, BIG time"

By Louis Nogali:
 

The BEAST within:

 Regrettably, I heard of  a consummately uncouth and ill-mannered PERSONAL INJURY Lawyer. He reminds me of a cockroach in a cheap suit. His manner is so churlish, his presence so ignoble, that interacting with him is like suddenly discovering two-month old putrid leftovers in a refrigerator. Picture it. The only reaction is flight. 

When I hear him on the Radio on his weekend Radio show, I keep a fragment of stale bread in my pocket. When I hear him, I fling it into a corner. Then I can get away safely while he demoralizes another caller (neat trick, huh?). 

I'm not exaggerating. Well, maybe a little - sometimes I use old cheese instead of bread. 

Wonderfully, no other attorney I've ever heard of plummets even close to this creature's blackened depths. 

But most bad lawyers have pretty awful manners. In a Catholic grammar school, most would get many sharp raps on the knuckles with a ruler. Bad people skills always head people's hate-list for lawyers; and that's strange, because all legal problems involve people. If a Lawyer wants happy clients, but he is a bad lawyer, who is willing to pay for his/her services?  No One...Then it makes sense to have good manners. 

 

Hey, What's Your Name Again?:

At the root of this is that lawyers have a misplaced sense of self-importance. It starts with not listening. Most lawyers don't really listen to clients. Lots of them take turns talking with clients, but few carefully and actively listen. Most think clients are stupid people when they come for consultation and once a client utters anything even faintly recognizable as a magical legal Issue, they then interrupt them and begin their invocation. Often a lawyer doesn't even know the full extent of the problem first before the verbal flood spews forth. Sometimes lawyers do this when the poor client is visibly upset, or worse - crying. Lawyers should stop doing this to clients.. They should listen first before they say anything. They should make sure the client has told them everything about their case before they talk. 

The client is hurting. That's why they're in their office. They want the hurt to stop. People don't go to lawyers with little problems. Clients are in emotional pain, and they want the pain to go away. They suffered some type of physical trauma and it hurts...

Sometimes the pain is emotional...and it never goes away...Lawyers should try to remember how painful their first visit to a Dentist was... That's how the client feels all the time. This is even more pronounced for a Personal Injury client. These type of clients, are often strangers in a  legal system which seems very unfriendly and threatening to them because they don’t’ understand it. 

Many Personal injury clients have had their lives turned upside down for no fault of their own...A good lawyer should respect that.If a Personal injury client wants to talk for a while, a good lawyer should let them talk. If they want to cry, he should give them some tissues and let them cry. Better yet, a good lawyer should go over and sit or kneel next to them while they cry. It's reassuring, and comforting. If a client is  initially uncomfortable, a Good lawyer should not sit across the desk. He should sit in a chair next to them. He should read their emotions, and try to understand them. 

Do the client’s spoken words match the body language? Could there be something important they're not telling the lawyer? Sometimes the real answer is about five or six questions deep. Sometimes "yes" doesn't mean, "yes"; it means, "I'm too upset to tell you." If the lawyer is unsure, he should ask them. No client (or spouse, or child, or colleague) ever gets upset because a GOOD lawyer is sincerely trying to understand them.

 When a client has settled in, and the Good Lawyer has established some trust with them, then the Good Lawyer can ask them if they want to discuss legal matters. But until then, he should not.. First a Good Lawyer should make sure the client is comfortable and at ease. 

 The client doesn't really care how smart the Lawyer is, or how many awards he has, or  what groups he has spoken to, or how many senators he  knows. The client doesn't even care about a legal solution - until they're sure the Good Lawyer understands them.Clients aren't paper bags full of legal issues for the Lawyer to spot. Clients are living, breathing, feeling, and emotional creatures. Very often they are heartbroken as well.  

 A Good lawyer should keep his self-anointed legal brilliance to himself until he is sure a client has said everything they need to say. Otherwise a client will justifiably dislike him. It’s sort of like a doctor who started prescribing pills before the patient is even finished describing the symptoms. 

DO YOU WANT TO BE A GOOD LAWYER ? Do you want to be a superstar listener? Feed it back. Tell the client you'll repeat back to him/her what you think she said, so that you're sure you've understood him/her. Then do it...!!  clearly, point by point, in your own words. Very often and attorney will  find that a client has missed something. Even if the Lawyer hasn’t,  feeding it back will endear the Good Lawyer  to the client. His/her jaw may drop to the floor. 

When was the last time anyone, a lawyer particularly, took great pains to understand a client to his satisfaction? Probably never.A Good Lawyer should be a good listener that it's almost disarming. A Good Lawyer should listen to a client closely. Watch their body language and listen to them. Make sure the words match the demeanor. Get everything. Listen.

 

Teach Your Child (Or Lawyer) To Wait For A Pause In The Conversation:  

Here's another way Most Bad lawyers get clients - or anyone - to dislike them: interrupt them. Want to arouse resentment in someone, even another attorney? Interrupt them. 

There was an attorney in the San Diego area once who recently talked and talked and talked about some post-conviction relief one of his clients needed. It was almost an athletic event trying to get a words in before he would interrupt. You've been through this. Finding yourself rushing your sentences so you can convey a complete thought before the other fellow starts talking. It's like the other person's mouth is a twitching racehorse in the starting gate. A conversation with an Interrupter is unpleasant and difficult for anyone much more for a client... Is hard to imagine how this Bad Attorney can keep clients if he interrupts them like that. 

Good salespeople know how irritated prospects get when they're interrupted in mid-sentence, and avoid doing so at all costs. Bad Lawyers, unlike good salespeople, think they're irreplaceable; and that no matter how churlishly they act, people just have to accept it. Most BAD lawyers never stop to think about how inconsiderate it is to interrupt people and that's a big mistake. The Client is the ULTIMATE BOSS. He can fire you at any time simply by finding another attorney who is polite and considerate. An attorney is  a fool when he loses clients through thoughtless behavior. So a Good Attorney must be  considerate. Don't interrupt.  Specially a client !!
 

Stupidity: The Deliberate Cultivation Of Ignorance:  

A Bad attorney can still be a boor without interrupting people. How about not giving someone their full attention? Treating them like they're less important than a housefly flitting across your desk. There are many  attorneys who are very skilled at making people feel incidental. When a client is talking to them, they perpetually and on purpose seem to be doing something else. 

When a client is in their office they check their e-mails and tap on computer keys - while the client is  speaking to them. Or when the client calls them, The Bad Lawyer  immediately puts them on the speaker phone, so that it sounds like he's talking from a megaphone across the street. And while he does this a client can hear papers shuffling and more keyboard tapping in the background.

A Bad Lawyer should not do this either. It’s academic. When a client is in an attorney’s  office, he should give them their full attention, even if the client it's only the cleaning lady.  A Good attorney should turn his computer screen off. That will remove any temptation to look at it. And a Good Lawyer should not use the speaker phone for a conversation. Speaker phones are for waiting on hold, not for talking to people. 

If a Good Lawyer must do something else while their clients are on the telephone, they should use a headset. Or Better yet don't do anything else. If they do, chances are very good that he might miss something very important, and it may be something critical. 

A Good Lawyer should never take telephone calls when he is with a client. He should not even take a quick glance at his cell phone. It's very rude and inconsiderate. How would a Bad Lawyer  feel if his doctor was watching television while he was examining him?In law school a Bad Lawyer develops habits of trying to cram as many things as possible into every millisecond of his available time. That's what leads to all these bad habits. And clients dislike it intensely. 

So if an attorney wants to be liked by his clients, he should be considerate and polite: He should give other people his full attention; listen to them actively, not casually; he should be eager to understand other people and make them feel valuable. He should not  be a self-involved boor; everyone else is at least as important as he is.

Inebriated With The Exuberance Of Your Own Verbosity…:  

Here's another beautiful habit by a Bad Lawyer.  Along with poor listening, interrupting, and not giving people their full attention, Bad attorneys seem to think it's their divine right to lecture people; even to other lawyers. This is a terrible practice destined to cost a client  money and make that Bad Lawyer even more unpopular. Most clients couldn't care less about the "why"; all they want is the "what." That is, what the law means to their case. A Good Lawyer should tell them that. And he should tell them in language they can understand. A good Lawyer should not lecture a client. If client wants legal clarification or elaboration, then a Good Lawyer should go into more detail. But make sure a client asks first. 

Most Bad Lawyers sometimes think that whatever they say sounds like music, so they give a client  a four-hour Wagner opera rather than a short, catchy jingle. A Good Lawyer should keep it simple; keep it brief. 

A Good Lawyer should always speak in plain English, completely devoid of legalese. A Good Lawyer should avoid all Latin phrases and legal buzzwords. Talking like that actually diminishes his standing. A Bad Lawyer might think it makes him sound like an experienced, battle-tested lawyer; but in reality it actually it gives the impression that he doesn't know what he is talking about but is desperate to sound like he does. The client (or boss, or prosecutor, or judge) might think a Bad Lawyer  talks like that because in reality he is not a very good lawyer. A Good Lawyer should speak plainly, so that any fourth grader can understand him (and then most law professors can too… maybe). 

And of course.. A Good Lawyer should have respect for other attorneys. A Good Lawyer should give them credit for having half a brain. If a Good Lawyer is discussing a case, He should not lecture a fellow attorney. Most of them already know the law and   talking about it anyways, won't impress them by being an unflagging windbag. A Bad personal injury lawyer speaking to a non-personal injury lawyer often launches into a ten minute speech outlining the difference between damages and inadmissibility, or the difference between MRI results and deposition techniques. No one cares. No one is impressed. When a Bad Lawyer  does it, he seemingly paints the other lawyer as a dummy. A Good Lawyer should know when to keep his mouth shut.

Being A Woman Lawyer is Supremely Difficult, Mostly Because They Must Deal With Bad Men Lawyers: 

 Professional Women think they have a superior ability for lawyering. They think they're naturally good at critical people skills: listening, empathizing, reading body language; and feeling, sensing some one's sincerity. Yet somehow an idea has gotten around, perpetrated by law schools, that female lawyers need to act more like men: tough, insensitive, rude, and haughty. Nothing can be further from the truthSome professional Women attorneys  certainly know how to be strong, whether to a spouse, a child, to a another attorney, or a jury. Men may be a little more thoughtless than women, and more often run their mouths off without thinking; but they certainly aren't any tougher. Being male guarantees nothing, certainly not good lawyering. Lots of male attorneys are terrible litigators.  And "being tough" is really a last resort, like scolding. It cleaves away hard-earned good will very quickly.

Some Female attorneys - intuitively and without thinking - are wonderfully competent because good lawyering is wholly dependent on people skills. Women can read emotions better than men can, they fully trust their intuition; and women naturally are more considerate and polite than men are. People have an easier time trusting women attorneys. Here's what's powerful: giving a client such full attention that within five minutes they trust you as a Good lawyer, or being able to read a person so well that you know immediately when they're lying. What's powerful is achieving such a deep trust that someone will unflinchingly follow a Good Lawyer. Women lawyers can intuitively do that more easily than men can. Why would anyone want to change it? Frowning and using clipped speech and being abrupt isn't powerful. It's bad manners, and it's also bad for business. Who'd want to pay a Bad Lawyer to be rude to them? 

A female attorney should  forget all the law school twaddle, and the tough acting, fast-talking, domineering, power-woman nonsense. All that does is make her less effective. The greatest skill any attorney can have is being able to build trust, and that happens when lawyers listen well and sincerely try to understand their client. Boorish, inconsiderate behavior isn't the least bit powerful. It's just bad manners, and all it does is piss people off, specially their clients . Bad Men Lawyers seem to be naturally good at that. If you're a woman Lawyer , it's best not to copy it. 

A Little Neglect Breeds Great Mischief:

A Good Lawyer should NOT neglect clients. Neglecting anyone - a spouse, children, friends, and clients - tells them that they're unimportant. A Good Lawyer should remember that a client's problems are big problems. Even if a Good Lawyer is  working ten hours a day on their case, if you don't keep in touch with them, they'll resent it. They'll think you're ignoring them. The problem is very common, 

The second most common complaint against attorneys is neglect. Either the lawyers fails to return telephone calls, fails to meet deadlines, ignores your letters, repeatedly forgets critical facts of your case or passes you on to a clerk or paralegal each time you call or visit the office. 

How do you feel when a grocery clerk ignores you when you're looking for a particular item in a grocery store? Irritated? Imagine how a well-paying client feels when you don't contact them for two months? 

With any case, a good lawyers should notify the client whenever something happens. If a court clerks alerts you to something, or if you discover a relevant memo, or if a new idea occurs to you about the case, tell the client. 

Even when nothing is happening, keep in touch with clients. A hand written note every few weeks is enough to ease some one's mind a bit. And don't be e-mail happy either. E-mail is quick and easy, and too often indelicate and sloppy. Clients know that. Writing a letter or jotting a quick note shows that you took the time, and that you care. A Good Lawyer’s time  is valuable, but clients are more valuable. A Good Lawyer should Let them know he regards them as important and should not neglect them. 

The Honorable Brian Sullivan said, many years ago, that the highest compliment an attorney can receive is to be called a “Good lawyer”. Every lawyer should make it their goal to have Judge Sullivan one day call them that. So even if a Good Lawyer has  a lousy case, with terrible facts; and even if he loses the case, your client may still regard you as "a good lawyer" if you take proper care of them. A Good lawyer should stay in touch; make sure they know  he cares. He should not neglect them.

Love And Compassion Are Necessities, Not Luxuries:  

A Good lawyer should return phone calls and all other inquiries promptly - immediately if possible. When a Bad lawyer doesn’t return calls, he is telling people they're unimportant. How would he like it when he leaves messages to the court clerk and no one calls him back? Also, a good lawyer should not argue small matters. If something is of trivial importance, a good lawyers should  just let it go. Allowing people to like or love a Good lawyer may consist of little more than biting his tongue about a half dozen times a day. 

A Good lawyer should always be patient with everyone: clients, first year associates, interns, paralegals, and secretaries. He should not bark at them, but help them. He should be agreeable. Smile at people, and help them fortify their spirits. He should strive to make people eager to be around him because he is so nurturing, pleasant, and encouraging. 

A Good lawyer should do this, not only because it pays well, but also because it's proper, it's right. Why else would a good lawyer do this and  work so hard and for so many hours?  When a Good lawyer fails to do a good job for his client,  the public at large will detest them, and scatter when they see them coming.. That Bad Lawyer has become...The Creature. 

There is an old story about God and the devil discussing repairs on the pearly gates. God wants the devil to pay half because the devil's tenants continually damage the gates trying to get into heaven. The devil refuses to pay anything. God says, "I'll sue you." The devil says, "Where will you find a lawyer?" 

By being a GOOD LAWYER TO ALL CLIENTS,hopefully  God will  hire him. 

( DISCLAIMER: No portion of this post should be considered as giving legal advice, but is to be used for informational purposes only. The publishers of this post are NOT lawyers and strongly urge its readers to consult with a reputable legal professional or to contact the State Bar Association for a proper referral) 

GOOD vs. BAD LAWYERS

FAMOUS QUOTES BY LOUSY LAWYERS:

BAD LAWYER..

QUOTE: "Of course divorce is the only course for you. You've got plenty of grounds, and I suggest we get started right away before s/he beats you to it."


Problem: If a lawyer tries to push you into filing for divorce, or to push you into any other action that you are not ready to take, don't go back.

QUOTE: "Don't worry about a thing; I'll take care of everything."


Problem:      With these types of large promises, you may have a hard time getting this type of lawyer to take care of anything, even returning your phone calls.


QUOTE: "Don't even think about my bill. It will come out of the settlement."


Problem:     You are ultimately responsible for your own lawyer's bill, and it is important that you know FROM THE BEGINNING! how it will be computed.


QUOTE: "I'll make all the decisions. Trust me. That's what lawyers are for."
   
    Problem:     Your lawyer should be an advisor and your representative not your boss.


    QUOTE: "You are not going to understand any of this, so I won't bother explaining it or sending you copies of anything. Why confuse you with the facts?"


    Problem:     You do not deserve to be patronized on top of all the other things you are going through. You are entitled to know what is happening in your case, and to receive copies of all correspondence and court papers.


    QUOTE: "It's all in who you know, and I know all the judges."


    Problem:     Any lawyer who makes a statement like this is revealing his or her own lack of integrity and competence.

Statements a Competent Lawyer 

is Likely to Make

GOOD LAWYER

    "Are you certain that the marriage is over? Have you had counseling? Would you consider reconciliation?"

    "I can't make any promises, but I will make my best effort to secure a reasonable agreement for you. I'll arrange for us to meet with your spouse and his/her lawyer to negotiate a settlement, as soon as financial statements have been exchanged."

    "To make sure that we are both clear about the fee agreement, I'll put it in writing, and we'll each have a signed copy."

    "I'm accessible. I can almost always return your call by the end of the day. If you have an emergency, be sure to say so when you call."

    "I'll send you copies of all the correspondence and pleadings as I receive them, and I will consult with you before taking any action in your case. I also expect you to keep me posted about significant changes."

    "A contested divorce is a last resort, and a very difficult process. You're far better off with an agreement, but an agreement does require flexibility and compromise on both sides."

    "I'm here to advise you, to inform you, and to represent you, but not to make your decisions for you." 

( DISCLAIMER: No portion of this post should be considered as giving legal advice, but is to be used for informational purposes only. The publishers of this post are NOT lawyers and strongly urge its readers to consult with a reputable legal professional or to contact the State Bar Association for a proper referral) 

YOU WANT “GOOD” CLIENTS ONLY ??? PLEASE..GIVE ME A BREAK !!

"CAN I BE YOUR CLIENT..?

I WON'T ASK OR SAY ANYTHING, PLEEEZZEE"

"Every one in the world wants “good” things. No one wants BAD.. You want a good job, a good car, good salary, good life etc. You want everything “GOOD” But what may be “good” for you, it may be the WORST for others..specially if you are a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER WHO HURTS CLIENTS..

LOUSY, LAZY &
ARROGANT
LAWYER

A LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER is no different than you and I when it comes to wanting “good” things. The only difference is the definition applied by a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER to the word “GOOD”.

To a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER, the word “GOOD” has a very different meaning when it comes to the type of “CLIENT” or “CASE” they’re only willing to accept...If it’s a personal injury matter, a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER will only accept such a case if it has LOTS AND LOTS of undisputed Liability from the Defendant, and LOTS and LOTS of DAMAGES to YOU the client.
 
To a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER, a “GOOD” client is one that does NOT fit into the following categories below. If you do, a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER will never represent you...BUT in fact will go out of his way to avoid you at all costs:

The Angry Client:

To a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER an Angry client is the potential client who is full of rage over what happened to him. A LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER feels that just because that anger is directed at the person or entity who caused the harm or injuries, it doesn't mean it won't be directed at him in the future. To a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER, If a client seems to have anger management issues, a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER recommends it may be best to stay away from such a client. To a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER, this type of client is “NOT GOOD” enough and far too likely to make his life miserable. To a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER, some things are not worth the money, and that includes not representing this type of client..So to a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYERS, only "HAPPY" clients need to apply..you know the type who are "happy" over their accident or their wrongful incarceration..
 
The Vengeful Client:

To a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER, this type of client is often the same person as the angry client, but not always. To a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER, the vengeful client is the one who follows the mantra that "revenge is a dish best served cold." The LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER thinks that this type of client only hires a lawyer solely to make another person’s life miserable. To a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER, if you are this type of client you are more interested in hurting people than in achieving some positive goal, and as such, a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER will avoid representing you. WHY ? Because a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER feels he could easily become the next target on the vengeful client's hit list... (specially if he botches your case)

The Unrealistic Expectations Client:

To a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER there are four kinds of unrealistic client expectations: (1) expectations about service; (2) expectations about time; (3) expectations about costs; and (4) expectations about results.
( Could this be because of the many lies and falsehoods told to the client by the LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER himself to entice the client into hiring him) A LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER will often times verbally tell a client his services are the BEST, he can make things happen RATHER QUICKLY, and he’ll jack up his fees, if they see the client is in dire needs, or if he/she is indigent. And lastly, a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER will verbally tell a prospective client, he has “NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT” because now you are in “good hands”.
 
Because of such verbal unrealistic falsehoods and misrepresentations, the end result will be an unhappy client and a confrontation will result, when the LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER’s “promises” are not met. If you are this type of client, you must establish the ground rules on what to expect from a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER from the very beginning.

To a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER If such a client persists in requesting that all verbal promises made to the client at the onset of the interview be in writing, a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER most likely will NOT represent you and will recommend you find another attorney.

The Inappropriate Client:

Law school does not spend a lot of time teaching LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYERS how to fairly and appropriately treat a client. To a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER this type of client is to be avoided specially when he/she turns down a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER’s proposal of exchanging sex for legal services. If a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER wants to trade sexual favors for legal services, the client needs to very quickly establish that this will never be an option in the attorney-client relationship. And if it occurs, immediately REPORT the incident to law enforcement and to the appropriate Bar Association. If the LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER accepts this rule and drops the idea altogether, then there may be no problem in the LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER going forward with representing the client. However, if the LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER persists in trying to seduce the client or if the client believes he or she will yield to temptation over time, it is best to terminate the attorney-client relationship immediately. No client should risk his/her case or life over a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER advances who is only pretending to care for his client to get sexual gratification..

The Rude Client:

To the LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER most clients are difficult to deal with anyways. A LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER would much rather deal with indigent clients who don’t ask or demand good services. To a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER an “ASSERTIVE” client is to be AVOIDED at all costs, and a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER will turn away an assertive client without losing sleep over it. But to the LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER a rude client is another matter entirely. A LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER will categorize a client being rude simply for standing up against being disrespected by the LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER.


To a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER a client is rude if he will push him to do his job, or demand that his inquiries about his case be answered, and annoying if such a client tries repeatedly to get a simple phone call or a message or an email message returned. To a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER a client is rude when he/ she will not appreciate the LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER failure to protect him during a deposition or in court. To a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER a client is considered Rude, for being critical over his continued failure to make the proper appearances in court on his behalf. And to a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER a client is rude and not satisfied, when the results obtained are dismal compared to the ones promised by the LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER. To a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER Every interaction with this “RUDE” client will be unpleasant, so a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER will never represent you because most likely to a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER when your case is lost, a “RUDE” client will want a refund. Or report you, or even sue you. To a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER he will consider a waste of time representing a “RUDE” client...

So our suggestion and opinion.. DON’T WASTE YOUR TIME with such a lawyer, and if you are already stuck with a LOUSY, LAZY & ARROGANT LAWYER and he does any of the above, you are probably better off getting a better lawyer....

If something similar to the above has ever happened to you, We welcome your comments and ask you to share any similar experiences THANK YOU..

GET SOME ANSWERS BELOW:

( DISCLAIMER: No portion of this post should be considered as giving legal advice, but is to be used for informational purposes only. The publishers of this post are NOT lawyers and strongly urge its readers to consult with a reputable legal professional or to contact the State Bar Association for a proper referral)

DEPOSITION FROM HELL

"JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION.."

“You have been sworn to tell the truth Sir.... JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION ..I ask you again Sir..  have you EVER lived at 8004 Mount Royal Court in San Gabriel California ?  And  have you EVER lived at 5781 Rio Tinto Way in Los Angeles... And have you EVER lived on 11232 Keswick Street in San Diego, California.  YES or NO Sir !! ???

You are a Plaintiff in a slip and fall case. It’s your 5th day of testimony on a Defense’s scheduled Deposition..  You have answered this similar type of question OVER, and OVER, and OVER for the umptieth time..... It’s 3:30 p.m. You began testifying at 9:00 a.m. You feel your head is about to explode, You are tired.   You look over at your LOUSY, LAZY AND ARROGANT LAWYER who is sitting across from you for some help, and all you see him do is yawn, and tap his pen on some blank yellow legal pad. 

You begin to wonder why is he even there. Through out the entire Deposition, He has not once uttered  a single word in your defense, safe for his famous mantra at the end of each deposition day, when told the questioning is not over and we must come back again for another day......  “Yes we stipulate” 

You look at Defense counsel and he gives you a look which tells you “I care more for a rattle snake than for you right now”... You slowly turn your head towards your lawyer again and he tells you ”Just answer his question... It’s OK” ...

”But I’ve answered that question many other times before..I've said NO many times” You say....

“Strike that as Non-Responsive!! ....NO SPEAKING OBJECTIONS...Sir..  YOU are NOT allowed to make any objections here..Sir..  You are here to answer MY questions. THAT’S ALL....Nothing else...If you object to my questions, let your lawyer here make them...  That’s why you hired him.. “ Says Defense counsel somewhat mockingly ...

Then he says on the record to your LOUSY, LAZY AND ARROGANT LAWYER,.. “Counsel, Unless your client answers my question in the next ten seconds, I will stop this deposition and will move the court for an order to compel, and will seek sanctions and attorneys fees. So you better instruct your client to answer the question as posed”

Then out of the corner of your eye, you see your LOUSY, LAZY AND ARROGANT LAWYER, frown for a moment and then a loud sigh....and then he tells you....”Come outside..  Let’s talk”...So you gather your crutches and you slowly follow your LOUSY, LAZY AND ARROGANT LAWYER who is way ahead of you out of the room into the hallway area....outside Defense counsel’s luxurious offices..Then he unloads on you with the following verbal  barrage ...

“What the fuck is the matter with you ?? Why won’t you answer the guy’s question for Christ’s sake..  It’s only a simple fucking question..I am not about to get sanctioned by the court, and made to pay attorneys fees because of your bullshit..whatever it is do you hear me ??...Besides I got another trial on another much more important case than yours starting next week and I don’t have time to be going to court, and answer for your shit..  So you better get with it and answer whatever questions he has for you...  So let’s go back in there and all I want to hear from you are answers. Do you hear me ?? Do we understand each other ??  Coz if you don’t, THEN I’ll make my own motion to withdraw tomorrow,  and you can find someone else to deal with your shit....I don’t have the time nor the patience for this crap..  So let’s go back inside...” 

And he leaves you standing there speechless in the hallway.. All alone...

 

Has this happened to you ?? Have you been a VICTIM of your LOUSY, LAZY AND ARROGANT LAWYER shenanigans during a DEPOSITION ??? did he/she THROW YOU TO THE WOLVES!  during a Defense Deposition and allowed Opposing  Counsel  to very cleverly convert and turn a single scheduled deposition session into a DEPOSITION FROM HELL ?? Filled  mostly with irrelevant questioning, and personal attacks against you!

If your LOUSY, LAZY AND ARROGANT LAWYER allowed Defense counsel to conduct an “Inquisition type” no holds barred commando styled verbal raid against yourself type of Deposition without any protection whatsoever from him/her and you lost your case as a result, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT..  REPORT HIM TO THE BAR, or better yet SUE his ass...

If During a deposition the line of questioning at anytime  becomes REPETITIVE , NON PERTINENT, IRRELEVANT, INTRUSIVE, and filled with UNWARRANTED ANNOYANCE, and EMBARRASSING questions, your  LOUSY, LAZY AND ARROGANT LAWYER should do something about it and protect you against such abuse...The law is very clear...

In  California Code Of Civil Procedure § 2017.020(a) it says in part:

   

        “The court shall limit the scope of Discovery if it determines that the...intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the Discovery of admissible evidence...”

    Also..

 California Code Of Civil Procedure § 2025.420(a)(b) states in pertinent part:

            (a) “..During a.. deposition.. any deponent may promptly MOVE FOR PROTECTIVE  ORDER...”

        (b)(10)“The court, for good cause shown may make any order that justice         requires to PROTECT any..Deponent .. From unwarranted embarrassment, or oppression...The protective order may include One or more of the following: That the scope of the examination be limited to certain matters”

a Professional  attorney must take protective measures to protect his/her client from any type of verbal abuse or attacks during a deposition at all times...

Has this ever happened to you??  We welcome your comments and ask you to share any similar experiences THANK YOU..

 

( DISCLAIMER: No portion of this post should be considered as giving legal advice, but is to be used for informational purposes only. The publishers of this post are NOT lawyers and strongly urge its readers to consult with a reputable legal professional or to contact the State Bar Association for a proper referral) 

THERE IS NOTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT IT

NOTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT IT...

 

 I am assuming you all agree that keeping ALL potential Clients and or current clients and all consumers apprised of their legal choices when selecting a legal representative is a POSITIVE thing.

If that is so, you must also agree that after making that selection, a client’s case or legal matter is in essence “in the hands” of that chosen legal representative and subject to   the “personal tendencies” or “work ethics” of that same legal representative.

In other words, a client has absolutely no way of knowing what type of “worker” that same chosen legal representative really is, after retaining that legal professional ...Is he/she lazy, and likes to put off working the file, does he/she assign those duties to a legal assistant or a “paralegal”, does he/she procrastinate doing legal research when needed, does he wait until 10 minutes before the statute is to run out before filing a case in court, ( or sometimes forgetting all together) etc ?? No body knows .  You must also understand, that just because an attorney has “Passed the Bar” is no safeguard against laziness, procrastination, and plain out ineptness, and incompetence.

When your legal representative farms out his work in your case to someone else within his office, via his associate or his/her “legal assistant” or “paralegal” now you are in the hands of that individual’s work ethics or personal tendencies. So if your legal representative is lazy, does lousy work, or is inept and arrogant on top of it all, and if his/her legal staff has or shares the same tendencies, the ultimate loser is the client.

When an attorney is retained, no client ever asks that attorney, what his work ethics are, or if he is Lazy or does, lousy work, or if he/she has ever been reported to the State Bar. WHY ? Because first of all most clients never think of asking these type of questions, and because if asked, most attorneys will say, they are the BEST at what they do.

Is not until that same LOUSY, LAZY AND ARROGANT attorney  loses, or negatively impacts their client’s case due primarily because of their work ethics, laziness, arrogance, and plain out incompetence, causing lifelong harm, that their clients find out about it. For most, is too late to do anything about it for others, they wish they had known what to do before hand.

THERE IS NOTHING NEGATIVE, about providing all legal consumers, former clients, current clients, and prospective clients, with information that could assist them in making a much better informed decision, or if faced with an adverse legal decision and consequence caused by their once trusted legal representative, informing them that they are not alone, and that there is a place which could guide them to get some form of assistance and help to a situation thrown in their laps for no fault of their own.

Each year, Americans file 100,000 disciplinary complaints, which allege that their attorney has charged excessive fees, neglected their case, lied, misrepresented evidence, or committed other misconduct. Still, many more legal consumers do not know what to do when an attorney has victimized them.

That’s What Our Blog...LOUSY, LAZY AND ARROGANT LAWYERS HURT CLIENTS, through  CLIENT ALERT, and the Information Contained herein Is Designed to do. There is nothing NEGATIVE about it. Just pure and simple solutions to a problem most clients did not ask for..FEEL FREE TO LOG ON...We welcome your comments..

 

( DISCLAIMER: No portion of this post should be considered as giving legal advice, but is to be used for informational purposes only. The publishers of this post are NOT lawyers and strongly urge its readers to consult with a reputable legal professional or to contact the State Bar Association for a proper referral) 

 

"JUST KEEP ME INFORMED... I AM THE CLIENT, YOU KNOW "

"JUST KEEP ME INFORMED.. I AM THE CLIENT.. YOU KNOW "

 

 LET’S READ THESE 

CALIFORNIA  CODES FIRST...

California Rule of Professional Conduct § 3-500 - Communication

A member shall keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments relating to the employment or representation, including promptly complying with reasonable requests for information and copies of significant documents when necessary to keep the client so informed.

California Business and Professions Code Section 6068 (m)(n)

It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following:

  (m) To respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of clients and to keep clients reasonably informed of significant developmentsin matters with regard to which the attorney has agreed to provide legal services.

   (n) To provide copies to the client of certain documents under time limits and as prescribed in a rule of professional conduct which the board shall adopt.

--------------------------------------------------------------
 Part 1


One weekend, You and your Family were on your way to visit your wife’s ailing relative who had surgery at Cedar Sinai Hospital in the west side of town in Los Angeles. You were heading North on the 101 FWY.  As you exited on Melrose Ave, you turned left. While you were at the intersection of Melrose and Rossmore Ave awaiting for a green arrow to make a left turn, out of nowhere it seems, you suddenly see out of the corner of your eye, a late model black Rolls Royce Corniche, doing 65 mph,in a 35mph zone, and runs the red light, and crashes into your vehicle as you were trying to clear the intersection. You had the right of way.