Is it legal malpractice?

This first one
1: Did not represent my husband interest but his sister's
2: He later gave legal advice to the sister that was against his old former client.
3: Was it right to force my husband into agreeing to a living arrangement of living with his sister as fill in in wife/mother of his children with her still being in control of the boy‘s money and him paying her child support that he had no say so on?
4: What would you think if he sister later retained a lawyer who was still part of this firm at the time she filed the motion for guardianship?

The 2nd lawyer we hired to modify the court order was just shocking.

1: My husband kept telling him that his sister refused to let him have any alone time with son’s in the home.
2: He never returned phone calls.
3: He mailed to him two different times with someone else’s contents inside. (still have one of the letters).
4: He did not inform him of the deposition but found by pure luck
5: The deposition could have been better planned out if he had consulted with him.
6: He took two years from the time being hired to have this case heard that the living situation had changed.
7: This lawyer at a court hearing recommended counseling with the attorney supposedly setting it up but never did.
8: This lawyer sent over some questions to be filled out by his sister that acted like she was his wife.
9: The evidence was with held- had a letter from therapist stating the caregiver who was the sitster was not doing her job that the child in question had regressed & should have been further along.
10: We had a witness to state the children were being better provided for when he was caring solely for them that noticed a big improvement with the kids at school.

This lawyer in the biggest reason why I feel that the out come could have been differently if this lawyer did his job properly to begin with.

The third lawyer I am not sure if it's worth mentioning was we had hired this law office to appeal the decision but didn’t appeal. As to why we don’t know why the law office didn’t pursue it other then being part of the ‘Good ole Boys’. The this law office also sat on it to point that the visits and any sessions became not productive in a manner that made my husband believed he would get custody back unless we wanted to shell out a few more thousands for experts that we didn‘t have.

Greed can be in so many forms that even the law system misses half of it when sometimes it can be abundantly clear.
Some people of this nation have forgotten sometimes why our for fathers came here and made the constitution to begin with.

I really cannot take the time to wade through and address this posting paragraph by paragraph. However, I will only point out that in court cases/lawsuits, there is usually one party who leaves the courthouse dissatisfied. Most people equate their position not 'winning' with inadequate representation. The two are not the same.

Attorney sanctions are based on misconduct that specifically violates a constitutional legal right, or ethical or moral mandate. (in general terms). Aside from that, there really aren't grounds for action---not winning or a lawyer making different choices than you think he should is not the same as misconduct.

Many times I come across people who think, as in your case, things should be a certain way and because that is their perspective, anyone who doesn't fall into line with or support that premise is to blame.

NOT the same as misconduct. I am not saying misconduct didn't or couldn't have taken place in this case. But three lawyers back to back? I doubt it. Again, the futility of my saying this does not escape me since it has been obvious from your other postings you are not seeking legal information, but rather, affirmation. However, perhaps my reply can benefit someone else who is here to be informed.

Good luck in whatever you choose to do in this situation.

I live in a small rural area that is real bad for the 'Good Old Boys' here so for you to make a comment here to say I am just upset about not winning is not right.

First lawyer
1: Was it ok to give advice to the opposition?
2: Was it ok to retain a Lawyer from same firm that has represent him in his divorce?
3: Was it ok to force your client to a living arrangement that was against your wishes?

Second Lawyer
1: Was it ok to not ever return phone calls?
2: Was it to not inform your client of his own deposition?
3: Was it ok to mail someone else's contents to your home?
4 Was it ok sit on this motion for over two years?
5: Was it ok to ask the court for counseling but not inform the client of how it would be set up?
6: Was it ok to not do anything your client asked of you?
7: Was it ok to withhold evidence and not have any witness there that could of helped his case?

Third Lawyer
1: We Hired with the intent to appeal but didn't ok?
2: Was it ok to not do anything your client asked of you ok?


There is some things that are so primitives here, but so far advance in the bigger cities.

Can you read? Seriously, can you? Apparently contextual statements are beyond the scope of your rendering.

In a court case or any legal battle, there are at least TWO PARTIES who are opposing. At the end of the day, one side "wins" and one side "loses". So when two people come out of a court room, they both are not generally HAPPY with the outcome of the case. THAT is the context of "winning".

YOUR position is this woman is benefitting, she isn't a good person because she is fat and because she hires a maid, she cannot be a good parent (paraphrased). You list a million reasons why THREE attorney's should be sued for malpractice. THREE!!! The ONLY common thread in all of this is that in this court action YOU did not "WIN" meaning what YOU Thought should happen did NOT HAPPEN. Understand the context of "winning"?

You keep asking questions and whehn they are answered, you restated the same position and expect the reply to be different. You are going to ask repeatedly until someone--anyone tells you yes, you are right. ALL the attorney's are wrong, you have grounds for THREE malpractice suits and this other woman is a horrible person and God's wrath and hellfire should fall down upon her for this evil she is doing.

Unfortunately, no one has told you that. So you want to take issue with everything you are being told. Why? Because you do NOT LIKE what you are being told. You aren't here for legal advice. You've been given legal advice. You are here continuing to ask the same thing over and over until someone---anyone tells you that you are right., even taking words out of context ("winning") to make a point where there is none.

Bottom line--if you think you can parent these kids better, go for it. Hire a lawyer and head to court. But as you do so, keep in mind there is a REASON The courts chose HER OVER YOU. I don't know what that is-----but that reason is there. No way around it. No one to blame for it. No one to sue for it. It just IS.

I am curious did you read anything I said of what the lawyers did or didn't do?

You didn't answer them but made a assumption based from another post that is related. I can't seem to stress to you that because of how the second lawyer handle the case to begin with that it would not have turned out the way it did. The first one and the third one are somewhat minor but only thought to ask and you didn't answer weather it was but said that it can't be possible three lawyers back to back so I must be out of mind. umm okay

For the record the third lawyer, when we mention that the opposition's attorney was still part of same firm at time of being hired was a conflict but do you know what he said? Would you want her to get better lawyer? so you can take that and run with it.

Also I am not asking to sue all these lawyers anyways. I was asking weather it was malpractice or not but your saying no matter what the outcome was the father deserved it apparently. The way I'm taking your response that thier is no point in even reporting?

......(keep in mind there is a REASON The courts chose HER OVER YOU. I don't know what that is-----but that reason is there. No way around it. No one to blame for it. No one to sue for it. It just IS.)

Reason this court chose her over over us was because she is a mental and lied to get kids. The rest was based on assumptions base on her fears and no one else's and the fact is we never had chance to present our case because of the second lawyer not doing his job. That is the truth and sorry to offend you in some way but I don't believe it right to lie to get someone else's kids.

What you BELIEVE is immaterial. I BELIEVE I should be taller and thinner and younger too, for that matter---Hey naturally blonde and beautiful would be nice, too. But, it isn't happening.

This is not Make A Wish forum. It is not a religious forum. It is not a blog or a chat room. It is a legal forum and your question has been answered.

Rewording your postings isn't going to yield any more answers. Asking over and over until you get someone to tell you that you are right isn't doing anything either.

Your questions are not legal and asking what anyone "thinks" makes no difference whatsoever.

I , like the other poster, Semblance, am abandoning attemptiong to help you further, so I can to assist other people who really are here to learn about the law and not complain about how they perceive they have been wronged by countless lawyers, judges, and a judicial system ---none of which would have gotten involved in the first place, without a very good reason.

You, Madam, are transparent.

'none of which would have gotten involved in the first place,' ( if my husband sister wasn't a mental to begin with')

And this statement is the only thing you have been right on so far.


I had two questions and with me not asking in the right manner on the first one when it's title should of been (Is it ok to lie so a guardian can live free off the nephews income when their was a willing parent? and of the second post the answer you gave is 'I really cannot take the time to wade through' and 'three lawyers back to back? I doubt it.'

If I am being transparent on this post it is because your answer has been 'I doubt it' base on another thread I made. So that you could of waded through it I made it more simpler to do, but you won't do that.

I can say speaking to 'the people of this nation' that their was some wrong doing on the first lawyer and the second one he did not present our case in a timely manner and withheld evidence that my husband fired because of it. As for the third lawyer I do believe that it was partly our fault because we didn't push it with this lawyer about the appeal when that was our intent to begin with.

I am sorry to have taken up any of your time in this matter and know the world is full of people who think they are the rightist to judge no matter what the outcome is even if it goes against what the bible teaches us. Peace

In the interest of accuracy, let me point out that the quote you attribute to me in your sorry attempt at copying and pasting is NOT a posting that I said. Please remove it from your posting, or remove my name saying "Originally posted by". I did not say that and it is categorically incorrect for you to attribute such nonsense to me.

Asking "Is it right" or "Is this ok" is NOT a legal question. You are trolling for someone to agree with you. I do not know why the courts ruled as they did. I never said that the attorneys involved did everything right. But the odor or rancid jealously and self centered greed oozes from every digit of your font. It is shocking, really.

You come here asking for answers to questions that have no legal answers and when you get a reply you do not like you call it "rightist outcomes against the Bible"---whatever that is supposed to mean. If someone doesn't agree with you, you feel comfortable bring God's judgment into it? Perhaps along with your greed and jealousy you can add a few heaping scoops of arrogance. I happen to know God on a first name basis, by the way......... and come to think of it, he hasn't mentioned you....... No, not once. I am sure of it.


The more you speak, the easier it is for everyone following this beleaguered thread to understand exactly why the courts intervened in the lives of these children which was, without a doubt, to spare them from what this rather disturbed glimpse inside your heart and mind has revealed.

If I can kneel before God, I can stand before anyone. Yourself included.

'What we have here folks is...a failure to communicate'

With all your nastiness makes me see what a disturbed glimpse inside your heart and mind has revealed. You read something and take it to be what it is for granted but then later the person tried to restated it in a different manner for I honestly believed that was what it was but realized later it wasn’t just that, is was more of how it came to be that. I do understand the question I asked wasn’t a legal question in regards to the other post. It was why I came to this actual thread to ask for this was how it came to be………………….

I did put way more info then needed to try to see it was malpractice for it did seem unbelievable that many attorneys are crooked.