These are very familiar complaints about lawyers. But an important part of the context is missing. It is often said that the United States, in particular, has a pretty weak state. Canada's is stronger, but certainly not nearly as strong as in countries like France, Germany, Japan, or Sweden, which have large and very powerful bureaucracies. Instead, what the US has (and Canada to almost the same extent) is a powerful legal system, based on rights enshrined in the Constitution (and our Charter). These rights allow people to seek protection from the courts en masse when needed, and mobilize the corresponding army of lawyers. Sure there are the excesses we are all familiar with, and which are well summarized in this article. But I would much rather try to defend myself in an American or Canadian court than in a Japanese or a French one.

Great suggestion! I assume we would need a helluva lot more courts for a case to be heard in a reasonable time frame considering the increased number of cases. But nomatter the wait, it would be a lot less expensive.
BC's Attorney General (John Les?) isn't the type who would back this suggestion unless his lawyer friends gave it 100% approval - so Rafe my boy, don't hold your breath for a positive answer.

Mair has it right.

Given that more than half of our MP's are lawyers I see no hope of "law reform", of simplification of court procedures or of any move to unclog the glacial courts.

Changing the threshold for small claims court is a great suggestion. Alas, criminal trials are the true nightmare, frustrating enforcement officers and enriching the noble defenders.

Lantzvillain correctly points out the root of the problem.

Changing the threshold for small claims court is a great suggestion. Alas, criminal trials are the true nightmare, frustrating enforcement officers and enriching the noble defenders.

Changing any of this without meaningful changes to the way we 'make' laws, such as making it more likely that independant candidates can be even recognized on the ballots (or just getting the party "afiliations" off of the ballot); will be akin to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

No real effect and in the meantime more ordinary folks are cut out from their legal rights.

Jack's: It's Wally Oppal, not John Les. And I believe I heard him on CBC Radio last week talking about exactly what you suggest, so maybe there's hope.

I agree with most of this article. I've had aweful experiences with lawyers.

They are greedy and all about business. While I generally agree with the notion of supply/demand, Rafe is correct - they are (for the most part) self regulated and have made the law complicated and the use of lawyers necessary. You have to engage them, and a big bill always follows.

I do not know what the solution is. Lawyers have went through years of schooling and deserve to get paid.

I agree with Rafe - this problem will always exist as long they have a monopoly and they make up the rules. We can't remove the monopoly, but we can provide better governance over the rules.

It is not so much the fees that bother me, it is the fact that they have create a society where you need to use them. It is one thing to protect innovation and contractual rights.

I feel that they have artificially increased the demand for their services by creating a litigious society with very complicated laws.

Cappy/maybelle says:

You should be right at home.

Don't you recognize the kindred spirit?

If only we could legislate compassion and integrity.

Perhaps, as Jane Jacobs points out in "Dark Age Ahead", we need to consider the social implications of 'education versus credentialing' and 'self-policy by the learned professions'.

Correction to the above - should read 'self-policing by the learned professions'

Let's be careful of Trojan horses. It's well known the reactionaries want to reform the judicial system because it is one of the ways the citizens can fight their exploitation. Hence the smear campaign against 'trial lawyers' and a culturally inappropriate use of the term right out of the horse himself, Harper's mouth, 'activist judges'.

Japan has a complicated social structure in which behaviours are heavily manipulated and shaped through tradition and expectations.

This provincial gang, like other 'globalists' has limited legal aide and therefore access to the justice system in ways that mostly oppress women and people with less power in society, and that limits justice. If one can't access the justice system, it might as well not be there. And so, it is true that the system needs to be tweaked, but not by these fellows.

redrivergirl
Excellent points, RRG, given the stillborn effort this spring just past to restrict freedom of information and shroud contracts in even more obfuscating curtains of secrecy in this province, I wouldn't trust this gang to handle change in any area. Moreover, given the current prime minister's attitude toward openness and communication, don't hold your breath on the federal level either.

It's clear now that the bodies are coming back from Afghanistan more and more regularly, why little Steve didn't want too much folderol made about the spectacle. His declining status in the latest polls show exactly how prescient his hunch was.

He's also into information management big time and limiting the courts' ability to check up on him and his puppet cabinet would be a bad idea.

What's really needed is some kind of effective universal legal insurance scheme that will provide access to the 'system' for people who aren't millionaires and who have no way to pass the costs along to their long-suffering clients and customers…which is the usual and time-honoured tradition.

Right on Rafe !!!

RE: The Small Claims route...the small claims limits were prohibitively low for years,($10,000?) increased just last year I believe to $25,000. This makes the justice system far more practical and accessible...ie avoid costly lawyers.

However, the loser still has the legal right to APPEAL in a higher court ...I beleive..

Having been a plaintiff filng a Small Claims suit years ago...it was an extremely valuable learning experience....

Suffice it to say...like the medical profession..."an ounce of legal prevention is better than a pound of legal cure" ..especially after having gone through a small claims experience, or also sitting through an actual Civil trial.

By that I refer to analyzing the particular situation you are pursuing or thinking of engaging in...think of the worst case scenario... and if a legal case is ACTUALLY worth it beyond just the "principle " of the matter.

Perceive it possibly ending up in court...and even the probabilities of if you would win in court...

This evaluation also includes that you DO actually win in court but the defendant can't pay , or won't pay ,...and can play the system very well. ie the judge can't force them to pay, unless you move into garnishee orders etc...and more time and expense.

Seen it happen...peoples generosity seriously taken advantage of... especially seniors.

ADVICE: Many Court Decisions are now available on -line... EXTREMELY VALUABLE...use the "search engines" for cases similar to yours.....try " BC COURTS" ...read the judgements...the law itself is not really that complicated, its simply the legal system/industry that makes you feel it is.

When you go see a Lawyer..is their an actual " LAW" that says you CAN'T ask them to act like a Librarian and for your $300 + per hour charge have the Lawyer cite 2-3 past legal cases similar to yours...???

You then read the similar cases and the judgements, and then you yourself make a "NON Vegas bet" aka you then make the far better and more informed decision to continue or not, and avoid wasting a lot ot time and money finding out the hard way later.

HOWEVER Some lawyers are worth their weight in GOLD...

Years ago I saw some protestors picketing in front of a nearby Condo development being built and sold. These protestors were ex- customers of this same developer and were victims of the massive Leaky Condo problem.

This protest was as a result of a lot of frustration...given the legal gridlock they were apparently in... I discussed the matter with them and they told me they had a lawyer on the case.

However what was truly bizarre was that their strata had chosen a Lawyer who was known or "famous" for settling a then -recent lawsuit for a well known local recording artist ie copyright issues..etc. Their legal bill with this same lawyer was over $400,000 by that point. Somehow , some on the strata council were convinced Entertainment Law lawsuits = Building Code etc. law suits...

They continued their protests at this new development...a good strategic move..ie they told me they searched in the papers for other projects the same developer was selling...probably pissing off the developer and they told me later that ultimately they settled their claims ...

My view is the protest worked..the hiring of this lawyer was money wasted....the lawyer they hired was not an expert in their actually required field...and I have since talked to others who say that is a very very common mistake...This leads to the meter running...nothing solved...makes it worse.

HOWEVER...Recently a family member wanted to update their Will and Estate...and were referred by others to a Lawyer whose expertise was more in Criminal law... However, for various reasons..this meeting never happened but this relative was then further advised by their Bank who highly recommended a Lawyer whose expertise was in Wills and Estate planning...and this Estate Planning is also something that should have good professional advice.

The appointment was booked...and when the relative called me I expected that this was just the one of many future" legal fee milking" appointments...and the final legal bill would be thousands of dollars.

NO, actually , I was told the ONE single appointment made dealt with the Estate issue from A to Z..it was done in one meeting with this highly recommended ESTATE PLANNING Lawyer.

I could NOT beleive it was done so quickly , and it wasn't a simple Estate matter either.....

CONCLUSION :There are Good Lawyers out there....worth their weight in gold.....just find the best in the appropriate legal specialty field... do your homework ,...ask around and find them. One tip.....do the groundwork...do what you can yourself..know what you want before you meet with them. You want their expertise..or they will charge you for gophering etc. you can easily do yourself...

A couple of small things that happened around us. Last time we bought a place a couple of yeasr ago, the legal secretary did the paper work, the lawyer signed it. She gets little per hour he got the rest.

A few years back a couple of us where at a treaty maintable negotiations. It was going a bit slow, so started counting lawyers. These things go on for hours. 18 lawyers in the room. One other lawyer complaint, and I stop.

The senior provincial negotiator said a number of times. A treaty can be negotiated in about a year, then and only then call in the lawyers to do the small legal points, shouldn't take them longer than three months. Dream on.

The legal system is designed for the defense and maintenance of the wealthy, ruling minority from the claims of the poor and working-class majority. And in that it works. Only the former can really afford the high cost of bureaucratic justice-, with rare exception.

The emphasis of the capitalist system of justice needs to be placed upon its feet instead of standing on its head as currently, and re-designed to serve the majority "non-capital property" social interest. And this is not going to be achieved, in my view, short of a major socio-economic shift/radical re-arrangement in the "power arrangement" that prevails in current society.

Largely the system works as and to the ends it is supposed to-, all sanctimonious holding forth considered. As I've stated, the real concern and design of the current system is, the defence of this ruling minority from the "dictatorial demands" of "the mob" ie the lower class stratas of society, and contrarily provide protection of "minority right and interrest" instead. And everything is built around the rights protection of this "minority ruling class interest", especially their "property and money wealth interest".

This is the appropriate order of things standing on its head.

And no amount of bureaucratic "tinkering" is going to change this fundamental flaw in the way the system works, or more correctly, does not work. Period.

And it is going to take a new kind of "people's power" and a new, relative to the present, radicalized social restructuring of society and the "class order of things" to fix it, and stand society more appropriately on its feet.

Short of that, Mair and the would be "status quo reformers" are just so much pissing into the wind, with the overarching reality being that money and property interests will continue to rule.

The tide shifted "somewhat" and for awhile during the post WW2 "Prosperity Period", under the influence of the fear of trade unions and Communists which gripped "the system", and the excess availability of European reconstruction capital flow which inclined the ruling class to buy off the working class for awhile, and make it tolerant of Keynesian "reform capitalism" thinking which this period also allowed. And one of the consequences of this was sundry "legal aid" and other legislative regimes of various content which provided reforms to make the system more tolerable/accessible to the working class/consumer interest.

This period and its passing phase influences are now gone with the shift to neoconservatism that now arises out of the ruling class of capitalism and those who serve them, as the new operating dynmanic for the system, including its legal system. And with this new Neocon Capitalism period, the old reforms and tolerances, including within the legal system, have been allowed, nay encouraged to wither and die.

Surprise !

How pitiful that Rafe Mair and others here choose to comment on the death of access to justice activist Dugald Christie by trotting out their old criticisms of the legal profession. Couldn't Mr. Christie, of whom every BC lawyer is justifiably proud have a column to herald his courage and achievements on behalf of the under represented and unrepresented litigant. I guess not. Cue lawyer joke here.

Rafe ould you write a column for me for free? Would anyone here work for me for free? No? Well that is what the average person expect from us and what lawyers of every stripe do every day for others. Occasionally the pay is a thank you or more likely, a law suit or a complaint to the law society by the beneficiary of the freebie.

Rafe, you missed discussing one of Dugald's great achievements as a lawyer. He convinced hundreds of lawyers (including me) to donate their time as the clinics he founded and coordinated. Dugald's model for these clinics was that lawyer volunteers were to advise individuals on how to learn and make use of the law themselves. Volunteer lawyers were prohibited from taking any clients they dealt with at the clinics as paying clinics, but had to find ways to help the clients help them help themselves. Frequently I, and I know other lawyer volunteers, invited clients to book a repeat visit to the clinic so that they could get help as they worked their way through their legal issue. As one of my pro bono clients said to me, the issue she was dealing with "wasn't rocket science", it just took patience to deal with.

Dugald had his time as a "successful" (financially speaking) lawyer, but his greatest success, in my opinion, was the way he inspired other lawyers to make time to help others for free. I know I and other lawyer volunteers who worked with Dugald understand that it is our responsibility to continue Dugald's work.

Rafe, your other remarks about lawyers raking up billeable time in wasteful exercises at their clients' expense are so stereotypical. That is not the way lawyers I know practise and it certainly isn't the way I practise. It is a lawyer's professional responsibility to his or her client, from the outset, to discuss carefully and completely the cost benefit of litigation. No lawyer worth his or her salt wants to milk a file. Life is too short.

As in all professions, including journalism, there are good and bad practitioners.

Amen Eleanor Gregory!

Where would life be if we couldn't generalize our complaints about life's unfairness onto large, identifiable minorities? Rafe better be careful--he could get a human rights law suit based on the maligning of an identifiable minority.

Still, it's hard to argue with his basic thesis, which has more to do with essential monopolies (that is, essential services that have been taken over by monopoly providers) than with just lawyers. Any time we have only one provider of a necessary service, we, the consumers, are likely to get squeezed. (Feel the pressure?)

I remember an interview with the Chairman of Honda Motor Corporation during the 1980's when Japan was nearly the world's economic powerhouse. When asked what he thought was wrong with the American economy he didn't even blink: "Too many lawyers," he replied.

An American 'robber-baron' entrepreneur once remarked on lawyers, "I don't want a lawyer to tell me what I can't do; I want a lawyer to tell me how I can do what I want." In a world where generally only the wealthy can afford professional legal advice, I suspect that this is the driving force among the clients.

I dunno, Rafe. When you had the ability to do something, you were nearly as doctrinaire as the rest of 'em - supporting your buddies in the Socred administration, virtually no matter how bad things got. And things were bad then - it's just that most people chose to shut their eyes to the situations others faced every day.

Now you want to change the world, but you have no power. You're a harmless crank making for enjoyable reading, but no action. I'm not surprised John Les isn't replying to you (or to me either, for that matter). I AM surprised that so many people listened to you on the West Coast fishery issues. Influence is not the normal preserve of cranks, radio or otherwise. Research (and sometimes intellect) is.

You need to come out with a few more mea culpas before I'd believe this is your carefully considered opinion. Maybe I should read your books - as I said I do think you're interesting - but I'll bet I get no enlightenment there either.

If you really want to make a difference, use your legal talents for good and join the lawsuit for full funding for Legal Aid, volunteer your time on pro bono cases (as second chair if you have to), or sue a fish farm and the Department of Fisheries for polluting the environment.

You're not dumb. But it's easy to pretend you're naive when you're getting on in years. And that's the difference between Dugald Christie and you - he had the energy to get up in the morning and work for the good, not just talk about it.

A typical lawyer is that useless artsie that y'all went to school with. Couldn't change a tire to save their own life. Always in the pub or coffee house or lollying about on the student union lawn. Every now and they wrote an essay on something or other to justify their presence. When they finally graduated with their BA in history, they found they were really only qualified to become a civil servant, a school m'arm, or a lawyer. The really slick, sleazy ones most of them psychopathes of one sort or other went on to law school and here they are.

The slickest of the slick worked their way into the corporate world. They now control the boards of most major corporations. Even when they screw up (most of the time) they are able to negotiate huge pay/serverance packages with the other lawyers on the board.

The somewhat less slick joined their compadres in politics and they now own the party nomination apparatus of all political parties except the federal conservatives which is presently owned by religious fundamentalists. They write the laws which makes us all require their services.

Joining the political process can eventually give them a judgeship which they use to rule over the great unwashed.

Bottom line lawyers/judges have about the same amount of education as a kindergarten teacher with a masters degree, but less are far less important to society and have far fewer skills. They should be paid accordingly.

Joke:
What do you call a Canadian lawyer?
The chrysalis stage of a Canadian politician.

Little has been said about the cause of his death accept that, while cycling, he was in collision with a motor vehicle when coming to the end of a passing lane.

He was a compassionate person,and a staunch advocate for the underdog.

It shouldn't happen just because he was a prominent person, but his final contribution in his death will, perhaps, be an intensified investigation of the continuing slaughter and injury of cyclists on our roads and a serious assault on the reduction of those tolls.

What Rafe may or may not have done; did or did not do, in the past, is of little moment here, and does not diminish the importance of his message: our legal system is inefficient and wasteful, not to mention discriminatory.

I for one am happy that Rafe has chosen to do what he does (which he does well). As for his past, it's the past, can't be changed; let's move on.

Dugald Christie had the guts and fortitude to do what was correct, for this he was labeled eccentric, doing what is right can and does instill fear, and send chills down some people backs, which in turn can cause them to loathe that person, sad but true. It is good of you to honor his memory Rafe. Here is another sad and disturbing story, of what occurred to a B.C. Lawyer who was attempting to help people and a fellow lawyer. Not a pleasant story.

http://www.sisis.nativeweb.org/clark/cram.html

woody
I suspect it was Cram's and Ms Andres-Auger's allegations of pedophilia and corruption that were at the bottom of the 'official' response in this case.

On the other hand, the official explanation that this was an incident of psychopathic paranoia may also have some credence.

A strange rather old story, which has been told and re-told hundreds of times - and latched onto by a wide range of 'supporters' - not at all comparable with Dugald Christie's life long commitment to making the legal system more accessible to the people who often need it most, in my view.

Having very recently graduated from law school, I can assure you that things will only get worse. The average debt of a student going into 3rd year at Dalhousie Law School (for example)is in the $60,000 range, with another year to go. Those who had to borrow for their undergrad often have debts of well over $100,000.

Now I am not asking for sympathy. The point is that these debt loads are dramatically affecting both the way students approach law school and the options they have when they graduate. It is difficult to pursue a more 'public interest' approach to your career when the simple goal of home ownership in the suburbs plus your student loan leaves you facing $500,000 in debt plus interest. Further, the law school experience itself has become less satisfying and more competitive as students fall over themselves to get the higher paying jobs.

There are some bright lights on the horizon. There is a current move in Vancouver for a new model of law firm. The Pivot legal society is setting up a firm that charges significantly less per hour than other firms, with the lawyers compensated instead by working shorter hours, more holidays, and more time for a normal and sane life.

A while back I met a criminology student.

He mentioned a quote from his Professor , which was " The Justice system is a "SUCCESS" because of its "FAILURE".

I asked him to explain:

He said that the Justice system was structured as the Justice INDUSTRY ...that the more it failed...the more jobs it created thus a success for those within it.......ie for every criminal..there was a proportional need aka "jobs" for Lawyers, Judges, Parole Officers ,Sherriffs', Prison Guards, Court employees..etc.

In other words if there were no "law breakers" etc...the unemployment rate would shoot up. ie Could society survive???

Without trying to criticize lawyers...who are one part of this bigger picture, this is food for thought..

When one looks at ones' property taxes..the lions share goes towards police (and firefighters)... As crime goes up...the Politicians say "we need more police" A FIX?? ...or solves nothing???... or makes it worse???

I recall the missing women's case...and a local broadcaster made this a personal pet project years ago , as it was unknown to many of us...... His stats showed their were a lot of women from the Downtown East side that had gone missing...disconnected flukes??? or a blatant pattern ???

After public "pressure" it appears that a suspect was caught and a trial now pending. If I am not mistaken this trial will cost $50 million and I have even heard estimates of $100 million. However, there is no guarantee of conviction ..but approx. 50 + women are dead via the evidence.

So I am supposed to believe that , at least what has been reported..that the justice system hadn't been made aware a long time ago of this problem???..nor the likely suspects.??..but the justice system finally did something after a lot of pressure...???

NOW a lot of money is spent(ie GONE), and like the AIR INDIA $100 Million trial....no guarantee it will actually serve Justice System..the only guarantee is it serves the justice INDUSTRY.

It's much like when the police are called re a Break & Enter ie theft....you realize the police are really basically there for you to be able to legitimize your insurance claim...but then you fear your insurance premiums will rise, if not cancelled... and you say screw it...thus nothing remotely connected to "justice" results .

However, I do like the story of some neighbours who were tradesmen, had tools aka "livelihood " stolen,yet knew the culprits . The cops said their hands were tied, but "looked the other way" when the tradesmen formed a possee' and grabbed their tools back, using whatever "reasonable force they deemed necessary",..with the cops blessing.
"Economical do-it-yourself justice with guaranteed results"???

Maybe this criminology student is 110% right...the ENTIRE Justice System(ie not only some lawyers) is meant to fail society by design...when any other Industries would go broke and disappear for failing THEIR shareholder/customers.

Then people would take these OTHER industries to court for these "failures to deliver" and "breaches of contract" .....See the clever Catch 22 by the Justice System errr Justice Industry .....which by design often breaches its own societal contracts to provide simply "JUSTICE" ???

Speaking of lawyers, how is the case going between the Crown Prosecutors and the Government? The Crowns are suing the Gov for negotiating their working conditions/wages etc. in bad faith. The government allowed it to go to binding mediation/arbitration then when unhappy with the results engaged in more retroactive legislating. Gordo and the gang think if the law don't work for them, just change it. Reminds me of the Idiot non-Savant (P)resident and his "signing statements."

Men like Dugald Christie are too rare and valuable to lose - I was saddened to hear of this tragedy.

Ralph Nader, himself a lawyer explained why there are more lawyers per capita in USA than in Europe or Japan. Large percentage of North American lawyers are crooks, anothe large pack has to chase and prosecute them. The rest are just doing good job. There should be something like a Consumer Union, doing fishing expeditions to check lawyers honesty and disbar the crooks. Unfortunately even a Law Society seems to be protecting interest of the "partners" of the big law firms or ICBG than that of the public. There is a revolving door between judiciary and some big law firms. They can do no wrong. I do not think that lawyers should be all put on salary. That would be even worse. Even Soviet Union did not do that, but some public control should be in order. Government is not helping by paying millions of dollars in Legal Aid to rich terrorists bombing airplanes and not providing legal help to poor refugees.

It was good for Rafe to write an article about a laywer who did his best for the poorer folk. Good for you Rafe.
But I do have a question for the legal folks reading this line of information. Any ides when the Basi case will get to court?Been a long time since all those police NCO's raided the Legislature building.

Last time I was in Sureme Court the judge spent alomost two hours trying to get both sides lawyers available at the same time. She was almost a year down the road. Justice served? I'm not too sure. Between divorce cases and some guy in chains nothing much got done. The guy in chains went back into the can and the now unwed folks went their seperate ways. The case we were involved in showed up at a different court house, a year and a half later
There has to be a better way.

rkewen
been ages since I've seen you here. any news on the basi file?

Everyone above seems to agree that currently the legal profession is largely about making money rather than making a difference. The blacks are already freed and the women folk are liberated leaving us without any popular victims for idealistic lawyers to champion. The present climate is too fearful for promoting wide spread public sympathy for victims of injustice. The legal system is therefore currently preoccupied with getting us compensation for leaky condos and past injustices. The lawyers will free up some time when the public decides to care again about the injustices of our society. Mandates for justice can only proceed from the citizens to the politicians / lawyers and never the reverse.

Since we're onto lawyers here, for anyone who hasn't been following, a certain Eric Bornman has been in the news of late.

Here's a little excerpt from BC Mary's blog that some of you may be interested in:

Not much more information than that, but, if you're interested in refreshing your memory concerning Basi/Virk/and the BC Liberals there's no better place to do that than:
http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/

One only wishes a lawyer of Dugald Christie's character were on the case.

Woody. Thanks for the sisis link. A chilling article that could have been taken from the pages of A. Solzhenitsyn's, "Cancer Ward."

A lot of the problem is with the clients themselves, in my opinion. A few years ago, one of my clients ( a West Van type, always the most difficult) wanted to completely change the swimming pool I was pouring in her her yard 50% into the job. I told here that was basically impossible without large cost over-runs. Her huband wisely convinced her to finish it.

Well, about six months later, the phone calls started. "This Mr Gillian-Smyth-Smith LLB and Ms. Jones hereby demands her money back the the pool remade to the origally agreed specs."

Well, I replied to the honourable-hyphenated he could go to the property registry office and find my Jones' pool was exactly as she had ordered a year before, right down to the bunnies embossed in the bottom.

To make a very long story short, this dragged a for over a year. There was never a case but the ambulance chaser had used very careful language to lead her to believe she might get something. Every time I talked to Honorable-Hyphenated he intimated that "an out of court settlement would be in every one's benefit" Settle for what? I did exactly what the lady ordered and the building inspectors certfied it as first class work. All I asked for was a court date.

When that court date finally came, I should up with my contract, plans, inspection reports, photos and payment records. The ambulance chaser went into his abusrd diatribe about his I had "irreparriably damaged Ms Jones' reputation in the community, caused her great emotional damage etc........."

This went on for an hour. The Judge clearly wanted me to have a lawyer, you know, supporting his own I supposes. He examined my evidence and five minutes later announced "Case Dismissed for lack of evidence. All contractual obgligations and specifications have been met or exceeded.

This cost me about two afternoons. For Ms Jones, I am sure it was in the six figure range. Now she's having that pool torn out and I am sure I'll get a bill for it and more lawyer fun.

Grumpy:

That's why so many of them become politicians.....

Working man.
Good for you. Must have been small claims court - you'd have had a harder time if the claim were for more money - the essential, and very good point Rafe made in his essay. Keep your records and don't be seduced into thinking you have to have a lawyer - very good advice for anyone offering contractual services in this day and age. And make sure your work is done well.

Alas, I doubt you've gotten much more work from the matron in question's friends.

Good luck.

Actually, it was Supreme Court. The fact was the woman did not have case, other than a case load of cash to pay the shyster. The job was $200k+. It was a big pool in a difficult location.

Ulp!....Then you may not have heard the end of it.

Increasing the dollar range for small claims court would go a long way to making this situation better for litigants and, believe it or not, probably most ethical lawyers too.

Good luck - keep your eye on the statute barred dates before you rest easy. I hope you're done with it though and, still, as I say, well done.

Walking into Supreme Court on your own is not for the faint of heart.

I believe that Small Claims is now $25k.

It was indeed intimidating but I am not one to be intimidated!

You're right!

It should go higher still.

As I said, well done and keep your fingers crossed.

Working Man:

Great story!!!!!..

I think I will print it off and frame it.

OWN EXPERIENCE :

A family member had a house built..and then various problems occurred... The usual story of a builder that enters the business...then eventaually fades away. Regardless.... problems resulted via contractual obligations.

Anyway...claims and counterclaims ensued....and the builder sequestered a Lawyer as did our family member who I will call "X" . However, after $ 6,000 in legal fees...late 1980's ....and not much to show for it... "X" fired the lawyer...and had the legal bill "taxed " another "fox guarding the chicken coop" scam.

"X" , both frustrated with lawyers and with an approaching court date,did the so-called deadly... "Represented themselves in Court" Now this "They that act as their own Lawyer have a Fool for a Client" is now in effect...right ??

No, I think that saying is PR...self serving bullshit, intimidates and fools the general public, and feeds the industry when getting a Lawyer , in many(but not all) cases, can often be a hindrance.

In FACT, "X" acting as their own Lawyer had THEIR Lawyer over a barrel. (I watched the 2 day trial )"X" had all the documents and evidence and not the least bit nervous ...and laid out the case on par with a "profesional" Lawyer.

One could see the "other" Lawyers' frustration...non more evident than them digging into the "old dirty tricks bag" of attempting to call the other side "X" a liar...credibility...cast them in a bad light personally etc..

In fact a realtor really stuck their neck out as a witness,especially as they had done much business with the lawyers client. The only "nasty" thing the realtor could say about "X" under cross examination by the Lawyer was that they, ie "X" was a very strong-willed person...

The case was settled with a fair judgement, but the Lawyer was seriously embarrased.

Years later, only recently the realtor stopped by to visit "X" chatted on good terms, but revealed how blackballed they had become for years for traitoring the builder .

I also know a high- end landscaper that got into a serious pissing match with a well -off client, who had her company's lawyer "on retainer" make a sport of it...but the landscaper was clever enough to put a lien on the other parties house,...which prevented them from selling it in a sellers market........and with this ace up his sleeve..was able to negotiate better out of court...

However..both parties lawyers often chatted over drinks....so I was told.....thus the $$$ meter also runs..

PS I agree... the more well off an powerful they are..they are thus "experts" on everything ie pools ... and also gullible to Pro-active = costly "legal advice" ..To some of them..it beats chasing foxes while riding horses eh??

Congrats Working Man !!!

Other advice:

Some parties , before signing contracts, enter into pre- agreements that are specifically designed to avoid costly Formal Law Court proceedings

ie Either enter into "shotgun clause" agreements to keep them both honest...
OR...Also some can pre-agree, prior to signing any contracts , to enter into (Binding) arbitration with a 3rd party to settle any issues that may come up and thus also avoid going to Court.

There are other solutions to avoid High Legal fees and the Courts...its not a total monopoly.