This book is a synopsis of the legal industry a basic qhow toq for the individual that canat afford an attorney. The qhow toq advice is directed to the more mundane everyday type litigation w/c might confront a person on a daily basis. Forms a advice might vary a little with the specific jurisdiction a timely publishing of this manual but the premise a foundation remain the same. As a whole, attorneys, lawyers, or judges are known by the connotation of LEGAL WHORES in this book. It is a deservedly appropriate title for this vocation. Before proceeding, please be advised that these are real, non-fiction accounts of what the legal fraternity does to extract money from the public. There literally are no limits/bounds as to what the judicial fraternity will do to acquire wealth in whatever form. Two of the main attributes used to extract money from his clients are the client's greed/emotions. The lawyer tells his client that they will win the case a the client will probably get a zillion dollars. The typical person in these United States, salivates at the prospect of getting unearned moneys from the sweat of someone else. This is easy prey for the attorney. Then there is the emotional scenario where the client is involved in a situation that incurs his emotional wrath/confrontational issues involving neighbors, family, business. The attorney convinces his client that he can get the best of the opposition in court, therefore, let's get 'em! Whether the merits of the case warrant litigation/not is purely incidental to the attorney's desire to line his pockets with the client's cash. Most litigation requires little cost to the litigant for resolution via mediation, arbitration/limited litigation. However, this sort of resolution puts little money in the pockets of the legal fraternity. Use psychology a prey on the client's greed a/or emotional behavioral attributes to extract the maximum amount of fees from the clients for the attorney's efforts-as defined by the attorneyI have seen too many similar happenings where the judge overlooked discrepancies in documentsprepared by attorneys while denying Pro Se ... She executed this document, had it notarized and mailed it back to her husband, the Petitioner.
|Author||:||Thomas A. Binford|
|Publisher||:||Trafford Publishing - 2002|