Just what happens when an attorney does not represent their client competently ?

The client is "presumed guilty", they are punished. The client knows what their attorney had, what was used and what was not.

The first impact is that the client goes out to the community and tells their story, valid or not if there is a hint of impropriety the accusation stands within the community, that the system cannot be trusted, that hiring an attorney does not constitute competent representation. The professional community responds with the statement that there are some "bad apples", shysters out there but that the majority are diligent. This has no foundation because the grievance metric is not maintained by the industry so no one knows who, what or if discrimination is occurring. Does the attorney have a gender economic, gender, religious or personal bias ? Do they do the minimum to collect from the client, not be actionable and fall within the "strategy" loophole ?

When one approaches an attorney that is supposed to address "legal malpractice" the clients issues are dismissed as "strategy", of course it is a "strategy" failure, "strategy" is the major portion of the case. It is suggested that the damaged client drop the issue, that the economic drain is not worth following through with the action, the offending attorney can go on to "process" other clients with the same diligence.

The second impact is the courts will never hear the material provided by the client, material that the attorney did not bother researching. The courts make a judgment based upon one side of the argument, never hearing the clients side. A judge punishes the innocent and the guilty go free. The system is perceived as corrupt, all because an attorney did not show due diligence and research their case.

What we found interesting is that the year that my girlfriends attorney deserted the Virginia State Bar changed its policies (http://www.vsb.org/site/regulation/code-of-professi onal-responsibility/) from addressing "strategy" (http://www.vsb.org/profguides/1999/codeprof.html) to avoiding "strategy", allowing their members free reign without oversight. Just what was the expected outcome of this change in policy ? From the details and the responses from the Bar the damaged client is expected to address the issue of a corrupt attorney. The only incentive an attorney has to represent a client is the clients bank account. This change effectively removed the protections of the citizens by the Judicial Branch, there is no incentive for an attorney to fight an issue, they can drop it and claim "strategy" with no consequences.

What can be made of these policy changes ? There are problems with collecting the grievance metric, notably the individual that uses it because they have time but repeated complaints against an attorney define a trend that can be documented and identified as such, so why is the complaint dismissed ? What is the intent ? Is there a larger agenda, implementing a policy that would weaken the process against other branches of government or corporate initiatives ? Poor legislation overlooked, executive branch indiscretions dismissed, all because an attorney takes the easy way out, it is convenient, the damaged client has choices only if they have resources.

Just how deep does this go ?

Is the corrupt attorney the exception or are they the rule ? What institution can identify which is correct ?

References:
Pre 1999 Virginia State Bar standards (http://www.vsb.org/profguides/1999/codeprof.html)
Our experiences (http://home.comcast.net/~styx.cml-lsm/01/Cases/prol og.htm)

Learn more about this author, Average Jowey.
Click here to send author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about Evaluating the current reputation of lawyers?
We want to hear your view. Write now!