Facilitation of fraud by an Agency of the Virginia Supreme Court

The fraud lies in the claim that when one retains a certified member of the Bar this member will execute an effective strategy, that the member will zealously and diligently represent the client. What the Bar does to ensure this effective representation is address failed attendance, not turning in the appropriate papers and billing problems - basically it addresses issues that the Better Business Bureau could. The Bar dismisses Strategy by telling a party questioning their representation that they can hire another member to address the failed strategy of the first. The Bar expects a damaged client to take a risk, expend resources to provide oversight of its members. This is not functional, the client gives up and the member realizes that it is not necessary to expend their resources researching just one client when they can handle multiple clients with minimal investment of time, this is profitable. As a result there is no incentive for the member to "zealously" and "diligently" represent a client. The Bar has no knowledge of its members diligence or integrity because feedback from the one element that knows the situation, the client is not maintained. Referrals are made, members researched and performance information is missing, another desperate client is then processed and conned into believing that they were represented. According to the dictionary "fraud" is defined as "a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur". The Virginia State Bar claims that its members are diligent.

If this industry addressed "strategy" or "performance" it would risk the same issues that other professions have when services are provided to a population, the "complaints". Someone does not feel that they got value for the rendered services.

Maybe a client is unjustly upset and the professional performed the best that they could. This could fall under poor customer service, the professional did not communicate to the client why their case did not result in the outcome that the client expected. Communication is a professional responsibility in the service industry.
Maybe the individual had a problem that could not be resolved with the assets available. An example being financial, the ability to obtain investigators or items that never came to light during the case.
Maybe the professional made a mistake.
Maybe the professional realizes that they really do not have to execute diligent service because there is no oversight. As long as they turn in their homework, show up in class and act like they are participating they will pass. This does not work in school and it should not work in the professional environment.

What cannot be identified by this industry is which category their member falls into, the institution does not address "strategy" complaints so a "diligent", researched and supported metric of strategy successes, failures or a minimum of customer satisfaction is not maintained. I include customer satisfaction as part of this metric because when one hires counsel one should not be exposed to verbal abuse, such as calling the client "stupid", that is the reason that they were retained to represent the client. Based upon the omission of the performance/service metric claims of "diligent" members are without foundation. A niche is provided for predatory profiteering without consequences. The public is expected to "trust" that when they hire an attorney they will have competent representation, this is based upon Bar's unsupported claims of a "diligent" membership. In this manner the Virginia State Bar facilitates fraud.

If the Bar was concerned about the integrity of the profession they would accept "strategy" complaints and research the foundation of the complaints. Individuals that complain for the sake of complaining would be weeded out. Members that took the hard cases and the outcomes were not what the client believed would be identified - a good attorney that does not shirk a tough job. Members that make an occasional "mistake" would be added to their stats. A member that makes frequent mistakes such that this metric would identify a trend, a client would not want counsel that habitually makes mistakes. Lastly members that had developed a practice of processing their clients would be identified and could be sanctioned by the institution. This is not done by the Bar, by its implementation the Bar's sole goal is to enable a crony network of predators that prey upon wounded individuals. All cases can be questioned because of this lack of diligence by the institution, was an individual found guilty because their attorney did not bother to present material to the courts ? The courts do not know, the Bar does not know, only the client and the attorney know. If the client had an issue, could not afford to buy the law, but made a complaint and it was dismissed as strategy by the institution then the practice is facilitated.
-
This is based upon our experiences documented here Prolog to the Diligent Virginia Attorneys. Ours is not a case of "not winning", ours is a case of what was dismissed. We have had attorneys walk out of the meeting room as we discussed a date that occurred years prior, the date in question would have been past the statute of limitations, the prior attorney would have had records of our questioning the date. Included with the "mistakes" was overlooking access date of confidential records skipping the period relevant to the case, opposing counsel gained access to mental health counselor records a year after the case period, they knew the clients strategies as discussed with their counselors. Not only did these actions result in a suit and thousands of dollars but avoided a malpractice issue - which was based on the fact that the attorney never made note of our questioning it. We have had retained attorneys dismiss half a decade of mental health records, logs of events, abuse and attempts at escape as irrelevant. Witnesses, documents, video, billing and just dismissal have all been dismissed as strategy. We have walked into an attorneys office with a list of assets, notably the therapists and that were never contacted, documents such as police reports not obtained. Would you want an attorney that just does not bother to contact your assets such as social services, forget about those silly documents supporting your position, dates, video is irrelevant, deserters are attacked but the victims of the deserter are supposed to fend for themselves - damaged case anyone. In our letters to the Virginia State Bar they responded that our issues represent "strategy" complaints and the institution does not address "strategy" complaints. In 2000, when our attorney deserted we noticed that the Nine Canon's for the Virginia State Bar had been supplanted by "Professional Guidelines and Rules of Professional Conduct" which omits such things as "strategy", "integrity", "diligence" and "improving the profession".

There is no incentive for these professionals to represent their clients competently.

Wouldn't it be nice to know before hiring a professional to represent you that others were either satisfied or dissatisfied with the service ?
Whether someone else had problems getting the professional to review material presented to them ?
Whether the professional exhibited a trend of disenfranchising a demographic ?
Wouldn't it be nice if such complaints were "diligently" reviewed by a competent authority ?

The Virginia legal community allowed us to experience discrimination. My girlfriend suffers from abuse syndrome, bipolar disorder, depression, dyslexia and a tendency to say things backwards. Both the social service counselors and myself were trying to assist her in addressing her issues. I would provide documents identifying assets that could be used to support abuse, issues of medical incapacity and where documents could be found. I have watched my girlfriend hand documents that refuted the claims of opposition be dismissed, a memorable dismissal was with a pat on the hand and followed with a "professional courtesy" comment, at the time we assumed a "strategy". Later on when I attempted to address these "professionals" they would say that it was her case, even though I was footing the bills for their mistakes, bumbling, incompetence and avoidance. When these "professionals" tell me that it is the clients fault, I go back to when we asked the counselors whether they had been contacted by my girlfriends attorney and they said "no", they were expecting to be. One institution, the institution that handed out prescription medication without monitoring, that resulted in an event, were asked whether counsel contacted them, they said "no" - girlfriend was presumed guilty.

As a last attempt of addressing our issues I went to lawyers.com expecting to have a dialog that would provide an argument that I could accept. I will let the reader judge from the responses provided by these "professionals". Did learn about "cant", "clients fault" and "not fair". Imagine hiring an arbitrator to resolve an issue and then they start saying "I cant", "its your fault" or "it is not fair" - Golly Gee Whillikers.

How does one sue a State ?
Two decades of attorneys service...
Virginia State Bar - facilitates malpractice
Jowey's Blogs
Disposable people....
Where did the Nine Canon's of Professional Conduct go ?