I was in a motor vehicle accident, which has changed my way of life for the worse. I have found strong hard evidence to believe that my case was sabotaged by my lawyer, in a conspiracy amongst himself and my doctors. As a result, I lost my case and compensation - the accident was not my fault.

Could anyone give me advice on what I should do from here?

It wouldnt' surprise me if there was a conspiracy. I had a Solicitor act on my behalf in a different type of matter, but I dont really think it makes a difference what type of matter it is, and I too was convinced that they had come to an agreement between them that didn't include doing the right thing by my family. It seems like the Legal profession is in bed with those that do wrong.

Even when I wrote to a complaint to the Legal Services Commissioner, they said that they couldn't do anything because they don't consider anything a Solicitor does as gross enough to be the type of misconduct that they investigate.

http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/2007/05/solicitors_will.html

My children have continued to be targeted and victimsed year after year because the Solicitors didnt' act on written and agreed instructions, we are out of pocket $25,000 in solicitors fees, thousands of dollars in school fees, we have been through hell but the fact that it has had a gross impact on our lives and family is irrelevant. They system doesn't believe that Solicitors failing in their duty of care and breaching their own agreements and contracts is misconduct that is gross enough to count, it appears that somebody has to die for it to count.

I dont like your chances of getting justice in this system but certainly it doesn't hurt to try to make them answer. The biggest problem is that they have worked it out so that no matter what, they will destroy you financially. They shouldn't be allowed to treat people like this and not have to answer to anyone.

More then 20 years ago I was involved in a car accident, where I was stationary behind other cars when two vehicles run in the back of me.
In the end the lawyer advised me I would be maximum get $2,000.00 compensation (for injuries) and this would have to cover also all medical expenses incurred and I would therefore still be out of pocket to pay his legal bills. He advised me the case would go to court and a barrister would attend and deal with the case to get the $2,000.00 and at least I would get something. He made clear, when I offered to go, I was not required to attend.
I didn’t trust them and so attended. The case was called up and I advised the Court that I was unable to locate the barrister. I requested the case to be adjourned for hearing later that day as at least to try to get the barrister.
I finally found the barrister in his office. Because I was there he had little choice to go to Court and I made clear that I demanded $30,000.00 plus cost medical paid as well all legal cost. He argued I was crazy! When we arrived at Court he had a brief discussion with the lawyers of the other party and then returned that I better accept $2,000.00 or they would withdraw it all together. I made clear that I would accept no less then $25,000.00 plus them paying medical cost and legal cost and that was my final decision and if they didn’t agree then I would take over the case myself and argue my own case in Court and more then likely would pursue perhaps double the amount. The lawyer then hastily went back to the other lawyers and having a marathon discussion of “less then one minute” returned to announce the other party had accepted to settle.
In my view, my lawyers had been trying to con me, but I was lucky enough to stand up for my rights and succeeded.

Perhaps tape conversations with lawyers, just in case.

LT278. I was thinking about this and I remembered what happened to my mum. I was young. We were in a car accident where a drunk driver crossed over to the wrong side of the road and hit us head on. We were all injured and went to hospital. I lacerated my forehead requiring 10 stitches. My mother badly injured her neck and back. She had to even undergo a spinal fusion and traction and all sorts of things. The Police were surpised that we were all alive and intact.

The matter went to Court and my mother got next to nothing for her injuries, medical bills or for her pain and suffering. My mother and father believe that she was ripped off and that something wasn't right.

When there is no process or avenue to make people accountable then there exists an environment open to abuse.

Why arent people seeking second opinions? You would with a doctor if you didnt agree with a diagnosis, or felt you werent given enough consideration. Number one rule in engaging professionals is to seek additional opinions until you find someone that sees your point, or at least explains why your point is not valid, to your satisfaction. Ask people around you if they have found someone that they like - word of mouth is usually the safest advertising to believe.

Country Girl it isn't that easy. Usually Solicitors are referred. When your Solicitor has already billed you for large amounts of money and is waiting for finalisation of the matter to be paid you cannot just change. You would have to organise for the Solicitor to provide you with a bill and you would need to get the money to pay the Solicitor out in order to get your papers and transfer everything. Then the new Solicitor would pretty much have to start again. It costs an arm and a leg. The vast majority of the people do no have the money so they feel trapped.

Since you cant get out you hold the belief that if the matter is going to a Court of Law that there you will be treated fairly. It is not until after it happens that you become aware and then it is too late and you are financially, emotionally, socially and psychologically battered and you do not have the money to do anything about it. Its like it is happening all again.

The system is set up so that financially if you question them you are ruined.

Jolanda, I am talking about simply getting a second opinion, not getting a new solicitor to act for you. Yes, it might come to the stage when you need to switch if you think you are not getting good treatment to start with. But I'd be getting a few different opinions based on the basic facts before I got in too deep. I guess I see it this way because I work in a profession and think people should get a second opinion more often. Yes, you have to pay for it, but a 1/2 hour consult at 3 different firms is a lot cheaper than being left high and dry by one. You then pick the one that YOU feel is going to work best with you. Yes barristers services are by referral, but thats where you need to pick a solicitor that you feel comfortable with. I know I always recommend my solicitor to people as a first point of call, because he's a human being first and a lawyer second.

I like to think I am a realist, some say I am a cynic, but do not look for justice in our courts.
Magistrates and judges are paid not to be from, or in contact with the community.
Lawyers are paid to debate and win not tell the truth.
No reason for surprise here, only that country girl is right, answer that come from strangers are unlikely to be better than your own inner thoughts.

Sadly, there is unlikely to be anything here except cynicism about the legal profession and the administration of "justice", because the concepts of integrity and fairness have long since disappeared from our society.

We the people have simply become revenue-fodder for the legal "profession". They charge by the hour, charge for the phone calls that they make and the ones they listen to, charge for the use of their fax machine, charge for the coffee they give you when you meet them...

Why do they need to concern themselves with the outcome, when the process is so lucrative?

My own experience was not quite so personally dramatic, but illustrative nevertheless.

The case had ground on for a year, with the two sets of solicitors making hay. When they ran out of ideas how to prolong it, they set up a "mediation".

The outside mediator turned out to be quite a famous fellow, more recently notorious for motoring offences, who spent the whole time trying to bully our side into a settlement. We resisted, because we had done nothing wrong, and were harangued for our troubles - almost as if simply by being there we must have been guilty of something.

It occurred to me then, and many times since, that the system works only for one constituency, the legal profession. They had absolutely no interest in truth, or facts, or innocence or guilt.

To them we were simply a meal ticket.

I wish LT278 all the very best of luck in pursuing what is right. But you need to find a competent and ethical lawyer who cares, and that ain't easy.

There is a problem in the system depending on who is responsible for the accident. It may not be your fault, but if there is no one found to take responsibility, insurance will not touch it and therefore neither will lawyers. In this case, there could be little you can do.

If, however, you seriously think there is a conspiracy between lawyers, doctors, and lawyers on the other side, that could be seen as corrupt, and this could be perverting the course of justice. I wonder if authorities like ICAC in NSW or the CRC in QLD, depending on which state you are in, can investigate further for you? If the lawyers are found to be corrupt, I think they can be disbarred.

They have rules to follow too. They get overpaid, but they are not God.

Saintfletcher, you are correct. Those of the legal profession can be struck off if they do not act ethically. The problem being is that the behaviour needs to be pretty outlandish to attract the attention of the regulators. But that doesnt mean that a client can not "dob in" their lawyer. Have your evidence ready and then call the Law Society of the state that you live in. Like most professions, they take proper complaints seriously.

There will always be an issue with anyone in the service industry, as they almost inherently need to charge by the hour. I'm an accountant, so am faced with a similar dilemma - people often dont see value in what I need to do, but I need to do it to do my job properly and I need to make money from it, or I'll be out of a job (Either because I dont make enough money or because I get the answer wrong and I get sued). The legal profession is similar. I would rather pay by the hour than pay by result - it would be akin to me charging a fee based on how large a tax refund I got someone - fraught with incentive to rort the system.

Its not that I dont have sympathy for your situation, because I well and truly do. But I come back to the need for a second opinion. You need to make sure that you are comfortable with the approach of the person that you are dealing with before you jump in feet first.

The rules and laws are set up so that those that are involved in corruption are protected by the fact that ICAC and the Ombudsman are purposely underfunded and under-rescourced and as a result they have discretion to choose what to invesitgate and what to ignore. Discretion that cannot be independantly questioned or challenged. When the Law Society, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal etc., do not have the power to enforce their own orders then those corrupt people pretty much can play god because they know that they have power and protection.

The only avenue that would be available is a civil action to sue the Solicitors for negligence, but you need alot of money to sue a Solicitor, and like Doctors, you will struggle to find one that will go up against another so they will destroy you anyway.

The system is run and set up by crooks and they are playing god. Of course it isn't the same god that I believe in. A good God wouldn't do that.

Jolanda, dont go to the Ombudsman, or try to take on a civil case (although that will be the only way that you'll get any money back in the form of damages). As I said the best bet is to go to the Law Society. They have their own discplinary action which includes fines, suspension and disbarring. Most people probably are unaware of this (or their might be a few more complaints being made!). Most true professions (subject to self regulations) have such disciplinary action from their governing body. Likewise, if you have a problem with your accountant (or someone elses), go either to CPA Australia or the Institute of Chartered Accountants, whichever they are a member of. Having a complaint made to a governing body can be quite effective, as most of these bodies publish their disciplinary action in internal newsletters/magazines - and few would want their name to show up in there (its the first page read by many accounants!).

Country Girl. I have tried the law Society. Go up to 7 May 2007 post and I have a link there that shows what happened in my families complaint against the Solicitor.

The law society is there for show, just like the Ombudsman and ICAC and even the ADT, they don't have any powers or resources and/or even jurisdiction to deal with matters of misconduct. The power is with the accused.

These Investigatory bodies are just levels of cover up because people believe that if you did have a case they would do something about it. They are a joke. They work to further discredit and defame the victim.

The only avenue you have is civil action, even if all you are trying to do is to get protection and wanting for what is happening to stop. They force you to go for compensation so that it can further discredit you and people can think you are just after money. It has been designed to discredit the victim/complainant.

The only persons who have protection and rights are the criminals/pedophiles/bullies.

Part 1
I am not a lawyer but a “constitutionalist” and have many a time assisted people in Court as an Attorney. A lawyer can charges for services in legal proceedings and an Attorney cannot.
I have also at times sit in conversations between a lawyer and his/her client and then exposed to both that they were just making an agreement where both had a different perception of what they agreed upon. So, I would then explain what each actually held having agreed upon, being totally different then the other was agreeing upon.
This also causes rise of complaints against lawyers, where they talk in a legal term that has a certain meaning, whereas the client perceives the statement to have a totally different meaning. I have also often had people presenting me with tape recordings (issued by the Court) making claims against the Court proceedings, etc, only to explain to the person that what actually was stated and this person complained about were two different things. For example, an expert witness gives an opinion but the person complaining argues the expert witness lied. I then explain that the expert witness merely gives an opinion based upon his/her involvement in the case and that the Court may or may not accept it, pending what other evidence may be presented.
However, many a lawyer has threatened to sue me for libel, etc, because I exposed what they did wrong, but as soon as I provide them with a copy of the Court transcript they quickly shut up, so to say, knowing I have the evidence to prove my allegations. Likewise so with judges at times.
Currently cases are being conducted in various Melbourne Courts where I have basically the conduct of the cases, assist in preparing all material, such as an ADDRESS TO THE COURT (at times its volume being hundreds of pages of legal arguments), but just that I do not appear in Court at all, as I do it all by typing the material.
One judge is very frustrated by this in that I work from behind the scene.

Part 2.
I view, no good wasting my time waiting in corridors, where by putting it all in typing is the better way.
One particular (unrepresented) Defendant, files my books in Court as evidence in the proceedings (a police case against her) and the Court decided it has no power at the moment to hear the case pending another case that also is dealing with issues raised in my books. That case, now is awaiting the Courts decision if all cases pending should be thrown out by lack of jurisdiction.
Even so the ADDRESS TO THE COURT never was a formal legal document in any of the Courts, since I created it in 1985 (and have published a book about it also) it is used in all levels of Court, including the High Court of Australia, in civil and/or criminal cases! It is a way of getting a “level playing field” in the Courts for unrepresented Defendants!

At times judges and even opponent lawyers of an unrepresented party request me to assist the unrepresented party, as they are aware I do so FREE OF CHARGE and can by this, so to say, take the heat out of it and stop or prevent frustration with an unrepresented party.

Sure, there are undoubtly many crooks who practice law, but there are also many who are decent hardworking lawyers who do honestly like the other party to have a fair hearing. Lawyers know I refuse to accept any payments and always make clear I can switch sides if I hold that they are seeking to do the dirty on another party. And, I have done so at times, where I ended up assisting the opponent party, and at times I would assist both parties, regardless if either had lawyers involved.
By not being a lawyer, I can do so and pursue JUSTICE and no one can by this misuse my assistance or prevent me to speak out and expose the truth.

Part 3
While of late, I am concentrating more on writing books and specialising in constitutional issues, still my desire to expose lawyers who are crooks have not waned. This week I am publishing a book about WorkChoices and how the High Court of Australia basically swindled the people out of their constitutional rights.
Since 16 April 2007, when I provided them with a DRAFT of what I had stated against their judgments, they have taken no action to correct matters and so now it is time to expose it all.
As for the Ombudsman, I find that is generally a sheer waste of time.
In one incident the Ombudsman refused to deal with a complaint citing a 12 month limit , in claiming that the complaint was lodged more then 12 months after the incident had occurred. I then responded pointing out that the original complaint to his office was in fact filed within one month of the incident. The Ombudsman then simply responded that nevertheless he was not going to alter his decision regarding the 12-month rule refusal. Simply, the Ombudsman had no intention to deal with the, so to say, “hot potato” issue and so used any excuse, even so not applicable, to railroad the complaint.
When I complained regarding ASIO legislation, it being unconstitutional, etc, I received a letter making clear I was prohibited to publish my material. Yes well, no one is going to tell me I cannot publish my own writings, and so I published anyhow, in my books! It does however question what kind of democratic system we have in place, where many people suffering an injustice are denied JUSTICE, but when it comes to politicians then there is always ample of money for them!

Many a person who had no confidence in themselves nevertheless ended up SUCCESSFULLY conducting their own cases by using the ADDRESS TO THE COURT system, as it takes away the utter and sheer frustration and avoid the Court to prevent you to present your case appropriately