LancsLad said:I'd be worried if I had to hire a lawyer that was still practicing. I'd want one that knew how to do it .
You have to wear legal briefs for 5 years before you are considered experienced. That's why lawyers walk funny.
Judicial questions
- Thread starter Fabulous
- Start date
You have to wear legal briefs for 5 years before you are considered experienced. That's why lawyers walk funny.
Aardvark154 said:It's a racket Danmand just like accountants and physicians and dentists.
I'm not so sure about the physicans and dentists but i know that us accountants are very quiet.
That's because there was a conflict of interest. He had previously represented your ex, who you were now suing in a continuing legal action. However, in the case of Fabulous unless she was a party there doesn't seem to be a conflict.KWI said:
Once again if she had retained Council. . .
I tried years back to get my ex's divorce attorneys to represent me in a dispute with her. She had not used them in years and they were not representing her in this case. They declined my request on the basis that it could be seen as a conflict.
Yes and no, as mentioned above, although in your eyes you view it as a new court action, it was part of a continuing series of interrelated actions - hence conflict of interest.KWI said:
It wasn't that it he was lazy. It was that legally he couldn't and didn't want to risk disbarment for something he knew was a conflict.
Aardvark154 said:
Yes I was party to the relatives case. This lawyer is still in possession of some documents that I and my relative are trying to retrieve, big circle > all relates to my case.
I am a little bit shy of retaining council at this time as another lawyer just ripped me off thousands and another reason is the experience with my relatives lawyer has been bizarre to say the least.
That lawyer told me in court that they can not talk to me but sat in on the pre-trial anyway, well until I slipped them a note requesting return of those documents signed by my relative of course. All of the sudden they excused them selves and left the court room, leaving the other crown in awe.
Yes I know I need a lawyer, however I am in financial difficulty, been turned down for legal aid and student lawyers. So I am doing what I can and am trying to learn and study for myself. That's the best I can do for me at this time. I am innocent and the case is completely based on circumstantial evidence with a lying witness.
I did manage to confirm though the Upper Canada Law Society that the lawyer [now crown] is currently registered as a private practice lawyer. However they could not answer my questions in regards to the conflict of interest as they claimed they did not know the answer at their resource center.
To me it's quite obvious that there is a conflict of interest and the minute that lawyer saw my name, recognized and acknowledged me they should have left then. I was completely caught off guard and finding out that they were on the other side.
Anyway ok, that kinda leads me to another question if anyone cares to answer [please no smart ass remarks if you don't know the answer]
Can this lawyer now crown share the information they have with the crown who is prosecuting me?
Fabulous said:
I agree that should have happen but it didn't.
I would guess they should not share information-in the USA its not allowed-even if you tell your lawyer you did do it-but what goes on behind close doors, who knows?
Good luck to you, sounds like you got a poor lawyer to start off with. Here in the USA theres many not so great lawyers too.
Wish I could be of more help to you, maybe hopefully a good honest lawyer in Toronto will see this post and try to help you out.
Fabulous said:
I once had a few very serious charges falsely filed against me... If I had not got myself a lawyer, I would probably still be sitting in a jail cell.
Your comment about a lawyer in private practice being the Crown is not uncommon in a number of areas. About 20 years ago, one lawyer I knew was both the crown and the defense on the same case. In the remote North, often RCMP officers act as a Crown.
Fabulous said:
Well, any lawyer (who you retained as council) cannot divulge any information you gave them without your expressed permission. Even if your defence attorny in a case suddenly switched sides and became the prosecutor, they cannot use the information you gave them against you.
Now I am wondering, is this "information" they have about you pertain directly to the case pending before the courts? Or are you referring to information they have about you from the previous case? (and if this information was made public in court, anyone can use it....)
Not to be mean about this, but what do you and your family do? Walk around with a bullseye on your back? It's like every month you're in here with more and more legal troubles....
http://www.lsuc.on.ca/regulation/a/profconduct/rule2/
Acting Against Client
2.04 (4) A lawyer who has acted for a client in a matter shall not thereafter act against the client or against persons who were involved in or associated with the client in that matter
(a) in the same matter,
(b) in any related matter, or
(c) save as provided by subrule (5), in any new matter, if the lawyer has obtained from the other retainer relevant confidential information
unless the client and those involved in or associated with the client consent.
Ok I just found this. So now I am wondering could both of those crowns be so stupid to not know this rule?
Is this grounds to submitt for a dismissal of the case based that I now can not get a fair trial?
Acting Against Client
2.04 (4) A lawyer who has acted for a client in a matter shall not thereafter act against the client or against persons who were involved in or associated with the client in that matter
(a) in the same matter,
(b) in any related matter, or
(c) save as provided by subrule (5), in any new matter, if the lawyer has obtained from the other retainer relevant confidential information
unless the client and those involved in or associated with the client consent.
Ok I just found this. So now I am wondering could both of those crowns be so stupid to not know this rule?
Is this grounds to submitt for a dismissal of the case based that I now can not get a fair trial?
Side question:
If this lawyer is taken off the case, does it make your defense stronger/their case weaker? If not, focus on the case and ignore the fact that this guy is working it.
As for dismissing the charges, the best you would get is a new trial (if one's started).
If this lawyer is taken off the case, does it make your defense stronger/their case weaker? If not, focus on the case and ignore the fact that this guy is working it.
As for dismissing the charges, the best you would get is a new trial (if one's started).
basketcase said:
Actually I was expecting another snide remark from you too and well to my surprise you posted a good question. I'll have to think about it for a minute but it makes the second crown my alibi as to where my whereabouts during the commission of the alleged crime.
I am thinking the fat lady is singing, these two clowns are going to the laughing stock of the court house very soon and I got a few words for the judge too.
I told the court the sitting crown was the defense attorney for my relative in this related case.
Fabulous said:
Final suggestion:
As much as it will make you feel good for a minute or two, you should think very carefully before saying something that will piss off the judge before you have his / her verdict. Once you are done with the whole process and moved on to the next drama in your life if you feel that you have grounds for a complaint about the judge's professional conduct and the handling of your case then you should file the proper complaint with the overseer of judges.
To Summarize:
Pissing off the judge is the epitome of stupidity...even if you are correct.
Similar threads
