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.