As I end the year I was planning my end of year rituals to both cleanse and prepare for a New Year. I have nothing good to say about 2016 other than getting out of Seattle. That was the priority and inevitability and I am thankful that I am no longer in such a place of darkness. Is Nashville lightness? I don't know but is not Seattle and that is a start.
My greatest fear is having the last conversation with my former Attorney regarding my case and its inevitable loss. I tried and I lost in every case. I am yet to know why. The civil case was technical losses and none on substance of the issue and that I did on my own so to lose on that was expected but I know the truth and the Attorneys did as well. One now has an office under the monorail a great step down from the tower office he once occupied. So there is some satisfaction there and why he left that firm much like the truth in law I will never know.
My other case, criminal was finally put to death. I lost. I knew I would when I realized the Attorney's focus on the initial brief and their inability to focus on case law. Once they tried to keep me in the middle and not about the law that was violated and my rights denied we would lose. I was right. And in true Kevin Trombold fashion he failed to tell me the Judge's decision made over 10 days ago. If I wanted to appeal further he certainly pushed that envelope, but then again I expect nothing less from a man whose level of engagement and honesty with regards to my case was near to non-existent. I had fired two Lawyers before and then I realized they are all like him and I stayed with the one I brought to the dance and that dance was hell in every sense of the word; I can assure you that once you enter Court, regardless, you are guilty and they will go out of their way to ensure that.
I found this today:
A few additional legal suggestions from a burned out public
1. Don't try to talk your way out of a situation with
police. Time and time again I have had clients who thought
if they just explained the situation that the police would
let them go. It's ironic that the Supreme Court is deciding
whether or not to ditch Miranda when so many people, even
after being read their rights and hearing it constantly on
TV, don't exercise their right to remain silent. "I don't
know anything" is about all you want to say.
2. Don't consent to a search. If the police ask you, "Is
it alright if we search you/your car/your luggage"? Say no.
Tell them you're too busy now for a search.This makes
it almost impossible for your lawyer to challenge the search
later. Particularly don't consent if you have something to
hide. They may well go ahead and search you illegally, but
at least you didn't consent.
3. If your paid lawyer isn't doing a good job, Fire him as
soon as possible.Similarly with a public defender, take
steps earlier on to get rid of one who's not doing his job.
Don't wait till the day of trial! Also have some specific
complaints against a public defender, not just vague
dissatisfaction. Finally, about 90% of clients who think
they want a new public defender wimp out and back down when
he sweet talks them or they actually get to complain to the
judge. Don't back down, it's your liberty on the line.
4. Don't expect justice. This is probably impossible to
explain to anyone who hasn't actually been through the court
system. Everybody complains about the courts, but inside,
in their heart of hearts, they expect that they will be
treated fairly. In addition, most people think that justice
is what they want and that the judge is a sort of Father
figure who will understand and be sympathetic to them. Not
only will you not get what you want, but you probably won't
even be treated fairly on an objective standard.
My best advice is do everything you can to stay out of
court, but if you do get arrested get the absolute best
lawyer you can and spend whatever is necessary, unless you
value your money more than your liberty.
© 1999 Christopher Warnock, Esq. (email@example.com)
Not that money matters but it does. But frankly in my case I could have spent a lot more and the outcome would have been the same, I felt it then I feel certain of it now. It is an utter crap shoot and in reality you have what left? No money but a sense of freedom? Unless it is a massive felony you need to do an analysis and decide what matters. I spent on both cases over 30K and frankly that is a lot of money and what is necessary is debatable to only one - the Lawyer. They have set this system up and in turn have vested interest in retaining it as such for their own fiduciary gain, it is not about liberty or the truth it is about money - theirs.
And so when I read this article I thought well maybe this is some improvement as this is business and industry that needs some "disruption."
Again, regardless of the type or nature of your legal needs, do not expect understanding, compassion, intelligence or belief. Expect derision, disregard and poverty. The ends justify the means and without means you may not get Justice you just have a better chance of buying it.
When Finding the Right Lawyer Seems Daunting, Crowdsource One
By ELIZABETH OLSON
THE NEW YORK TIMES
DEC. 28, 2016
To resolve a legal dispute, the first thing many do is try to hire a lawyer. Too often, that is easier said than done.
Now, an online service offers crowdsourcing to hire a lawyer, an effort that if broadly adopted could make it easier for people trying to cope with turmoil like divorce and personal injury.
Matt Panzino started looking for a lawyer when his former employer accused him of violating a noncompete provision in his employment contract.
Mr. Panzino, 41, had moved to Phoenix earlier this year with a new job selling medical devices. When his former employer threatened legal action in Chicago, he quickly realized that he needed an advocate to defend him.
Friends told him about Legal Services Link, an online service that connects those needing legal services with lawyers willing to render them. He signed up online, then posted an anonymous summary of his legal dispute.
“Within a matter of a day or two,” Mr. Panzino said, “I had four or five different attorneys who responded, describing their professional qualifications and background.” He ultimately settled his case with the help of one of the lawyers who replied.
Others like Mr. Panzino want to circumvent the conventional and often inefficient routes of checking lawyer directories, searching online for legal specialists or asking friends or family for referrals.
State bar associations have so many requests for lawyer aid that some are seeking to move beyond offering lawyer referral lists and considering online platforms.
The State Bar of Arizona, for example, is exploring such technology, citing a huge demand for lawyers in situations like closing the sale of a house, fighting for child custody or pursuing redress for an injury.
“There is a huge gap between those who need legal services and those who can get them,” said John F. Phelps, the chief executive of the State Bar of Arizona, the nonprofit group that regulates lawyers. “We have an online directory, but we get thousands of calls.”
To hasten delivery of legal services, the bar association is taking several measures, including partnering with Legal Services Link to better help those who either represent themselves or go without legal advice.
Legal Services Link was founded by Matthew W. Horn, a lawyer at the Chicago firm SmithAmundsen, who got the idea for a platform while searching for a practitioner to help him with estate planning after he and his wife had a child.
“I asked friends, made calls and sent out emails,” he said. “But I couldn’t tell whether the attorneys were interested. It seemed like a lot of wasted time on both sides.”
He decided to see if crowdsourcing could apply to legal services, using a method similar to Uber’s ride-hailing service, which connects a consumer to a crowd of suppliers.
Other online legal services, like Avvo, provide directories of lawyers who are rated by consumers, on-demand legal advice and fixed-price legal services.
Legal Services Link, which began in May 2015, creates a marketplace where a person can list a legal need to available lawyers.
The site has 700 lawyers, many in the Chicago area — but not all — who pay $250 a year to be listed with their areas of expertise.
Clients post summaries of legal disputes, list their geographic location and select a payment preference. The choices are hourly, a fixed fee or contingency, which is a portion of whatever is recovered in a successful lawsuit. There is no cost for posting.
Lawyers can then respond, providing their name, practice specialties, experience and a cost or a range of prices for the legal service being sought. The lawyer also states what a problem of that type can cost. The client can compare the responses and decide whether to contact any of the lawyers for more specifics — and, possibly, to hire one.
Mr. Horn, together with his partner, Ryan Caltagirone, operates and monitors the platform to make sure only licensed lawyers use the site and handle complaints that arise.
There is no guarantee that a client will find an affordable lawyer — a consumer may find that a legal service is too costly — but the online platform helps pinpoint possible lawyers and allows the consumer to compare prices.
So far, the online service has had 600 clients and 500 legal needs posted. There have been about 300 matches where clients found a lawyer — usually one who practices individually or in a small or medium-size firm.
While state bar associations offer lawyer referral lists, a recent study, “Report on the Future of Legal Services in the United States,” found they were not working well. Most poor people and a majority of moderate-income individuals lack “basic civil legal assistance,” including help on “evictions, mortgage foreclosures, child custody disputes, child support proceedings and debt collection cases,” the American Bar Association report said.
State bar associations, according to the report, need to expand their online offerings and marketplaces “for the public to find needed legal help.” There are a number of suggested improvements, among them panels where needy individuals are matched with lawyers to help them with essential legal matters.
Another way to connect clients with appropriate legal assistance is online crowdsource matching. Legal Services Link, Mr. Horn said, already draws “a lot of clients of modest means who may qualify for pro bono services but do not want to go through the process necessary to receive them.”
Those with a low income must prove they qualify for free civil legal services, but it is time consuming to gather all the forms and other information. Mr. Horn says he is working to help Arizona offer an online option to streamline the verification process there.
One way Arizona hopes to make people more aware of their rights to counsel and to encourage greater use of lawyers in vital civil disputes is through mobile technology, Mr. Phelps of the state bar said.
“About 80 percent or so of the state’s population has smartphones with access to the internet and mobile applications,” he noted.
That can help bridge the lack of connectivity between clients and lawyers who rely on existing methods of referrals, he noted. The partnership with Legal Services Link also could help expand the number of lawyers willing to take on specific cases pro bono.
Mr. Horn said he hoped that the result would be “to help all clients, even those of no means, connect with the perfect service provider for them — be it an attorney in private practice or a pro bono organization.”