Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

    Well, since I've had both good and bad luck using myself, and nothing
    but bad luck using an attorney, I'll come up on the "pro" side overall.
    
    Pros =	It's a lot cheaper.
    		Many judges are sympathetic.
    		I'm not apt to bargain myself down the river 'cause
    		I'm chummy with the other attorney.
    		I'm apt to try for the longshot, that attorneys might
    		not feel is worth the waste of their time.
    		I KNOW I have MY best interests at heart.
    		Mine is the only case I care about.  I've heard from
    		at least one attorney the quote "Look, you may have
    		to live and breath this, but I don't!" which tells me
    		right off the bat how important I am to that guy.
    
    Cons =	Lots of library time reading the laws.
    		Need to make several trips to courthouses to check and
    		make sure you're following proper procedure.
    		Getting out-conned by a swift talking shyster.  I don't
    		care what anyone says, going into a courtroom is going
    		to give you the jitters unless you've had YEARS of
    		experience.
    		Looking like a fool if you quote some precedent out
    		of context.
    		Losing because of inexperience.
    
    	Those are the major ones I can think of off the top of my head,
    from my own recent experiences.  Feel free to add or comment.
    
    	McQ
    

    re .1
    
    I read your response Friday and am still intrigued by your interpreting
    your attorney's statement that "You may have to live and breathe
    this..." as meaning that you weren't important to him.  To me, a
    cardinal rule of practicing domestic relations law is remembering that
    you aren't just dealing with property and money, you're dealing, on a
    very fundamental level, with people's lives.  Sometimes what may look
    like a very reasonable compormise to me, may not be something that the
    client can live with and, in these cases, they will literally have to
    live with it.  Therefore, when discussing a potential compromise with
    a client, I will often give them my take on it and then ask them to
    make sure that whatever the decision they are comfortable with it 
    (And not agreeing just to get things over with) because they have to 
    live with it I don't.
    
    Not knowing the context in which your attorney made the remark, I can 
    only assume that he was trying to impart the same sort of message.  I
    hope so..... I also have to wonder if any of my clients have
    misinterpreted what I've said to mean that I don't care.
    
    Polly  
    

    Re: .2
    
    Oh, I'm sure that's not what this guy meant at the time.  I was
    not pleased with the amount of effort he was putting into the case,
    and I let him know it in no uncertain terms.  The "...but I don't!"
    was his response to my complaints.  I dismissed him shortly thereafter.
    
    McQ
    

    RE:. 3
    
    And well you should have!

    I have to agree with what McQ said in .1.  I started being my own
    attorney ( a fool for a client ) after I had one lawyer violate
    privileged information and give another attorney information that
    other the knew the other attorney was intending to use in another
    case, and another attorney was just plain incompetent (he's now
    a judge--I dearly hope he's a better judge than he was a lawyer).
    
    The biggest pitfall is being able to keep your cool and think on
    your feet.  In Colorado anyway, the Judge is bound by the Rules of 
    Civil Procedure or the Code of Judicial Conduct (I don't remember
    which) to "cut you some slack" when being your own attorney.  In
    other words, you shouldn't loose because you "didn't do it right".
    
    The biggest plus is that you *know* you have your best interests
    at heart.  I don't care what you see on Perry Mason, an attorney
    is not likely to do anything that will get the Judge that he will
    have to plead other cases in front of, or the lawyer that he may
    have to ask a favor from or get to cooperate on another matter
    p.o.ed at him.  His main concern is likely going to be his own
    career and colecting his fee.  
    
    The Bar Association in most states subscribe to the Code of 
    Professional Responsibility.  You can find it in most libraries.
    The Colorado Revised Statutes contains a copy.  I'd advise 
    anyone who is doing or going to do any heavy duty dealing with
    attorneys to get a copy of these and a copy of the Code of
    Judicial Conduct and read through them.  It's pretty dry reading,
    but very eye-opening information.
    
    If you're having a problem with a lawyer, call the local Bar 
    Association.  They will probably not give you any advise on
    what to do, but can tell you how to file a complaint with the
    proper authorities.
    fred();
    

    Actually Fred, Bar Associations  are merely  professional
    organizations that attorneys belong to -- some choose not to.
    
    The code of professional ethics is something that attorneys throughout
    the country are required to adhere to.  In fact, there is a muti-state
    professional responsibility exam that you have to pass before you
    can take the bar exam.  (This requirement is only 5-10 years old so
    some of the attorneys who've been practicing awhile wouldn't have had
    to pass it.)  States have licensing/policing bodies -- in Ma. it's the
    Board of Bar Overseers -- who are charged with ensuring that attorneys
    are meting the code.  If they find behavior that is unprofessional/
    unethical they bring an action before the court that admits attorneys
    to the "Bar" in that state.  They also recommend the penalty which
    can be anything from a private reprimand, public censure, practice
    only under supervision etc. to  suspension from the Bar or -- worst
    case -- disbarrment.
    
    If you have a real complaint about an attorney -- i.e. (s)he divulged
    confidential information -- you really should file a complaint.
    

    re -1
    
    I did file a complaint-complete with COURT TRANSCRIPTS where the 
    other lawyer said that he got this informtion from my *former*
    lawyer.  
    
    The investigating committee's response:
    
    	"We find that the incident stated in the complaint did not
    	 happen".
    
    fred();

    re -1
    
    Can be tough to prove some of these things.  And, quite frankly,
    attorneys are very reluctant to testify against another attorney. I am
    surprized that, with court transcripts in hand, the committee could
    come up with tht response. Unless, of course, the other attorney
    explained that that wasn't really what he meant.......
    
    Doesn't make me very proud of my profession..........