I need some advice please.

Oh please. Enough with the dramatics already. Giants eating people? The BAR association to which you tried to complain ASKED you if you understood the words "due diligence"---a reasonable question since that was your complaint. Yet you are a sacrificial lamb?? Please........don't discourage other posters from exercising their rights to file complaints against lawyers who they feel do not perform as they should.

Slaying giants? geez.........This isn't a cartoon. No one is going to slay him in his sleep. These are WORDS on a telephone---thats what you were given--WORDS on a telephone. That is hardly a threat of impending doom.

Don't be silly.

Gee, whiz, GentlePerson, I've read Illinois ARDC cases where there was an assigned course or two that the lawyer had to take... just to satisfy the ARDC that deemed him neglectful of his duties... but more likely to happen if they think the lawyer is just not very capable. Yes, it does happen.

On the contrary, GentlePerson, most folks in the bar association are quite protective of other lawyers. If they think it could have happened to themselves, or that your demands are too high, or that there were mitigating circumstances, they are likely to leave you holding the proverbial bag even though your suit has merit.

The courts are much the same in a different way. Judges protect lawyers they see everyday in court. They tend to have a political stance in doing so. An example of this is a recent Illinois decision where a person was accused of tampering with a website used by two lawyers. The judge heard in court under oath the employee of the lawyers whose website it depicted say he did the damage because he owned the site and the NAME they were using and that they had difficulties and he left their company, but the judge decided that the accused third person did it and fined that person and said he had to pay court costs.

So realize please that there are people who make arbitrary decisions just because they can.

I have no idea why you are revisiting a thread from AGES ago, but since you asserted you KNOW of a case where a licensed lawyer was "sent back to school", CITE it.

Name the case. I want to read it.

BELOW you asserted they had to retake LAW classes. NOW you reference a general "glass" for naughty neglectful uncapable lawyers. Prove it.

While you are looking for such a foolish thing, allow me to post from the ARDCS own web site where THEY explain what actions THEY take against "neglectful" lawyers THEY deem "not capable". Notice--not a single time do them remotely reference the guy GOING back to school to RETAKE a CLASS in LAW SCHOOL.
https://www.iardc.org/overview.html#6

God deliver me from lawyer haters. Amazing how people with authority issues actually spend TIME giving "legal" advice. And I find it distinctly distasteful that those who are UNDER the authority of organizations to which they could never attain always categorize EVERYONE who IS a part of it in undesirable terms. How prejudicial of you.

Very shameful.

ARE they unethical lawyers and judges? Sure. But to hear you as ANY of your names, they are ALL underhanded and "need to be taught" blah blah.

That is no more true of the legal profession than any other profession, such as the medical profession.

THE PURPOSE of the BAR association is to maintain the INTEGRITY of ALL lawyers. If ONE does poorly, it reflects on EVERYONE.

You missed this gentlemans posting. HIS complaint was he called them to complain about a lawyer HE felt was not exercising due diligence. They asked him how he defined due diligence----this was not a combative question. Many times people THINK they understand a phrase but really don't. So in an attempt at making sure they understood his complaint they asked him to articulate his complaint in terms of what he thought the phrase meant.

If they didn't CARE what he was trying to express, they would have said,
Ok, WHATEVER. And hung up. Giving him a chance to articulate his concern as he correlates it to HIS definition of the phrase seems very progressive and conscientious---not inflamatory and protective of any other lawyers.

AND I am STILL WAITING to read a single case where a lawyer in ILL got sent BACK to school for being negligent.

Please stop creating fictional passages that you WISH I'd said. If you haven't figured it out yet, to create what you just posted, you had to LIE. You LIE when you infer that I said something... you put quotes around... when it is something YOU MADE UP. Your actions are unethical and give rise to my opinion that you need to change your ways before you find yourself being sanctioned by some group of bar association fellows.

I've never said all lawyers were anything bad or good. But there are SOME who are unethical and who commit illegal acts. The difficulty with having lawyers like that is that it is very difficult to stop them from ... subborning perjury, embezzling funds, committing malpractice, stealing client funds, etc. and if you find yourself victim of one who is doing something unethical or illegal, you have to strike first and strike hard with a good malpractice lawyer AND the ear of a state bar association disciplinary committee. The idea that you can negotiate with that kind of lawyer in an attempt to recover what they stole is folly. They CAN and WILL embroil you in a legal quagmire that could easily lead to your bankruptcy. They are not just dangerous to the one they victimize, they are dangerous to their community because they subvert the law in their community to their own ends. White hat lawyers don't want to face them in court (so you can find yourself unable to find a lawyer to defend against them) because they tend to
1)subborn perjury and commit perjury themselves,
2)go into business with or without their clients after stealing the clients' business or ideas,
3)make agreements with people they fired from their lawfirm for threatening to inform a client he was being damaged by his attorney and got them to sign a departure agreement for SIGNIFICANT MONEY to NOT tell what they know to clients they have committed malpractice against,
4)sue their business partners after they have embezzled the firm's operating funds, refused to pay them for conducting the business and put them under injunction so they cannot work in their profession,
5)subpoena email accounts that include private interactions with their opponent's lawyer and then redact the contents that include descriptions of how they have done illegal acts against their client,
6)submit fake court orders signed by their paralegal to bankers so they can get your complete financial data and then freeze your accounts so you can't pay your attorney, and
7)seek access as a silent partner to an IT firm's remote maintenance login list for over 70 clients including other lawyers, doctors and their patient records, city businesses, etc so they can do DISCOVERY, like shooting fish in a pond, and then when prohibited by a white hat IT partner, try to force him into bankruptcy so they can force him out of the company,
8)threaten clients and partners and their wives and lawyers with unfounded legal action, ruination of their reputation AND their lives if the clients/partners don't do what they demand of them,
9)get their partners in legal practice suckered into a deal that ends in getting the entire partnership shut down and disbarred because of their greed,
9)unduly influence those with even MORE legal power that they have illicit and/or financial relationships with.

These people exist in Illinois. And they are still doing damage. Think PONZI, Think RICO. Then you get the picture of what needs to be fought.

But I only know of two that have affected me and mine. And there are thousands of lawyers in Illinois who are good hard-working people.

You asked me to prove that disciplinary committees sentence lawyers to education: From the IARDC website Hearing reports (public information):

M.R.17809 - In re: Philip Charles Horn. Disciplinary Commission.
From the iardc.org website involving reports produced after a hearing:
"The petition by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission to impose discipline on consent pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 762(b) is allowed. Respondent Philip Charles Horn is suspended from the practice of law for four (4) months and, within one (1) year of the entry of this order, respondent shall complete the program offered by the Illinois Professional Responsibility Institute and twelve (12) hours of continuing legal education in real estate and estate planning.

Respondent Philip Charles Horn shall reimburse the Disciplinary Fund for any Client Protection payments arising from his conduct prior to the termination of the period of suspension.

Order entered by the Court."

ALSO from a list of services provided by the IARDC:
"C. Education

Illinois Professional Responsibility Institute: Professionalism Seminar

Since November 1996, the Commission has sponsored a seminar on law office management issues and ethical obligations of lawyers. The seminar is held three times a year for lawyers who are required to attend as part of their disciplinary sanctions or who attend voluntarily. Over 100 lawyers have attended the seminar thus far.

The seminar was created in cooperation with members from the Chicago Bar Association, Illinois State Bar Association and Cook County Bar Association, to further the Commission’s efforts to develop preventive and remedial programs for attorneys on relevant ethics issues. The Professionalism Seminar is taught mostly by select, volunteer practicing Illinois attorneys. Any attorney interested in learning more about the Professionalism Seminar, may call Mary F. Andreoni, Administrative Counsel, ARDC, Chicago, or consult the ARDC web site at www.iardc.org."

There are more. YOU look them up in the same location.

I'm pretty sure that Illinois lawyers are up to the same standards of any state in the Union, so that simply says that if your state doesn't have educational requirements, that perhaps they just disbar lawyers who are incompetent. To my mind that would have been just as effective as attempting to retrain a lawyer who does not follow the legal ethics required of his profession.

Ah, the story changes.

And your beating the "unethical" drum under ANY of your names is really getting old. And, of course, is as irrelevant under this name as it is under ANY.

YOU don't like seeing what YOU wrote repeated because you are embarrassed at how foolish it really is.

Lets review what YOU said ( no wonder you don't like being quoted).

And I have asked you a half dozen times this week alone "WHERE IN THE WORLD DID I SAY THAT!??" and you NEVER reply.

I QUOTE YOU: Here ya go...word for word:

Sometimes lawyers are sent back to classes so they can become more familiar with deadlines and the law in cases where he has failed to perform on a timely basis.

Remember that? What YOU said was if a lawyer MISSES a DEADLINE, he has to go back to school to RELEARN how to MEET DEADLINES and "perform on a timely basis".

You went on to imply the guy gets sent BACK to law school.

NOW you give examples about if a guy acts UNETHICALLY, he has to take classes on ETHICS and UPDATE his knowledge in the area in which he apparently violated the ethics.

I don't see ANYTHING in there about a lawyer being FORCED to go to deadline school if he meets a deadline. And, I asked you to prove your assertion they have to go back to LAW SCHOOL and take classes. CEU is not going back to LAW school.

Now, with regard to my quoting things you NEVER said, here are a few BLANKET STATEMENTS you made regarding LAWYERS, JUDGES and the BAR ASSOCIATION, implying this is what is happening in THIS case---when the truth is you have no idea what is happening in THIS case.

most folks in the bar association are quite protective of other lawyers. If they think it could have happened to themselves, or that your demands are too high, or that there were mitigating circumstances, they are likely to leave you holding the proverbial bag even though your suit has merit.

TRANSLATION: UNETHICAL.

Judges protect lawyers they see everyday in court. They tend to have a political stance in doing so. So realize please that there are people who make arbitrary decisions just because they can.

Translation: UNETHICAL.

Your point honestly is SOME lawyers are not ethical? No, of course, that wouldn't be your point because everyone KNOWS that. The point is YOU have an axe to grind about the lawyers YOU think failed YOU, hence you speak in blanket terms about the entire PROFESSION.

And more importantly WHAT does all of that "unethical lawyer" posturing have to do with THIS MAN and HIS case?

You stating your unethical lawyer dialogue AGAIN in response to what HE said would imply you mean the lawyers in HIS case are unethical. You posted your unethical lawyer saga because you DONT think his lawyers are unethical? Huh?

FOLLOW: the BAR association ASKING him to clarify what he means by his use of a particular term is NOT the flaming bush he says that it is. It in NO way means they are , as he says, and as you hasten to affirm, unethical and prejudicial against him.

Your bias against lawyers isn't the point of this thread. The point is the posters comments that some great conspiracy is afoot to deny him the ability to file a legitimate complaint against a lawyer HE FEELS MAY be unethical.

But his refusal to define the term he is using to they are certain they understand the nature of his complaint is counterproductive.

THAT is the FOCUS of this thread----no idea why you are reverting to comments you made last YEAR to discuss them again.

No lawyer goes to school to 'relearn deadlines'. And CEU is NOT Law School, no matter HOW you cut it. People in virtually ANY profession take CEU---no big deal.

The story from me is NOT changing. I called you a liar because you wrote stuff in quotes that I did NOT say... so what did you do? You decided to ignore that you lied, that you are unethical. You began another RANT like your usual disconnected out of context rants and NOW you want to find something YOU CAN SAY I SAID that you CAN complain about without making it up.

I'm sure that I'm not perfect, but you don't even come close to ethical, and that is a requirement of the job, DEARIE. You don't measure up.

I could quote from other people on this forum who have written me to say they think you are an overblown personality with intent to damage other posters... but what is the point? Is would not be new news to anybody else out here. Sad, but we KNOW you.

OMG A Cartoon, Really???

Why Not???

The Theatrics Displayed In Courtrooms Throughout The World Beg To Differ In The Pleas, Payoffs, and Bargaining Behind The Scenes By Lawyers, Judges, Plaintiffs & Defendants.

FYI: Logic Will Always Prevail In A World Filled With Chaos & Corruption!!!

NAME calling is a terms of service BANNABLE offense--this is the second posting TODAY you have said, "I CALLED YOU A LIAR".

Are you TRYING to get BANNED???

ROFL! People WRITE to you and say things about ME? ROFLMAO! People I don't even KNOW take time from their day to DISCUSS ME.

I am FAR from offended.

I AM flattered.

And I AM SO using that on photobucket! ROFL!!