NSW Searching for a lawyer that cares

[Wok]

I've been watching the TV series "Suits" and I'm wondering if there really are lawyers out there that want to fight tooth and nail for justice. If so, I would like to speak to you.

I was imprisoned on remand for 19 months before being told it was a mistake after my accuser admitted they lied and wilfully deleted evidence. This, my barrister tells me, was because the DPP realised too late they had an unwinnable case but didn't want the problem falling in their lap so potentially did a deal with my accuser. It's possible that if they admitted the lies they in turn wouldn't press charges.

If this is sounding like an unbelievable movie script it is just the end of a sordid ideal. I would like to challenge NSW Police for a raft of incompetencies.

If this sounds like something someone would like to fight for, I'm looking for a wolf combined with an alligator grip and would love to speak to you

 

[Hellomyonlyfriend]

Torts of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment may be available but are unlikely.

However, finding a solicitor that will take them on is like finding a needle in a haystack.

 

[Wok]

Torts of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment may be available but are unlikely.

However, finding a solicitor that will take them on is like finding a needle in a haystack.

I like your analogy. Needle in a haystack, indeed. When the haystack also comprises of a plethora of unscrupulous vultures it makes that needle even more elusive. Thank you for your feedback. Unfortunately the DPP threw the Police under the bus and basically said, "the Police were incompetent but we were just doing our job based on their charges and COVID unfortunately delayed your chance to respond." False imprisonment will be a hard fight but the judge's words verbatim were "I can't imagine the traumatic effect this has had on your life..." ... The DPP and the judge have pried the door open for a compassionate and dogged lawyer at the top of their game. My experience thus far is that these traits are not mutually applicable and hence my last ditch plea on a public forum.

Thanks again.

 

[Tim W]

... finding a solicitor that will take them on is like finding a needle in a haystack.

We are allowed to refuse to take on a client
where we do not believe that client has the capacity to give realistic instructions; and/or
does not have the capacity and/or the willingness to take advice we offer them.

Further, we are pretty much duty bound
not to even start a matter where in our view there is no merit in it*, and/or
where there is no reasonable prospect of success.

Further....

• Sometimes what a client "wants" isn't achievable - often because there is no evidence,
  and/or no grounds upon which to base an application.
• Sometimes, what they "want" isn't even available at law.
• A lawyer is not obliged to be (and, indeed is not allowed to be) the mere mouthpiece of the client.
  Rather, their job is to apply skills and knowledge to the client's facts and circumstances.
  Sometimes, the end result of doing that means saying "Sorry, I can't help you"

--------------------------------
* This is why so many of us reach for the oxygen
when the would-be client uses the phrase
"...it's the principle of the thing"

 

[Wok]

Thanks for your comments, Tim. I would assume that the "client" in most of your scenarios isn't a client but a potential one. In my case, I've had a number of learned individuals (not least court manuscript rather than me paraphrasing the judge here) including a very well-respected and well-known barrister tell me they had never in their 35 years of practice witnessed a bigger and more obvious injustice and incompetence on the part of the police. However, after helping fight for my acquittal was promoted to the bench thus twarting my next steps and hence my search once again for a very competent advising solicitor and barrister team. Since then, refusal isn't my personal experience but timely communication and maybe even dogged hard work. Someone to back up the tough talk with tough action.

I'd say what a client wants isn't an opportunity for quotation marks, as you've conveyed it but rather an opportunity to stand out in a crowd. Particularly when evidence, precedent, facts and affidavit statements line up to support the fight.

There are numerous recent examples of hard work being rewarded in this arena. I'm sure you're aware of them but just one highlight can be found here:

Murphy v The State of New South Wales - NSW Caselaw

www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au

I do appreciate your insight and generalised comments though. Thank you.

 

[Hellomyonlyfriend]

We are allowed to refuse to take on a client
where we do not believe that client has the capacity to give realistic instructions; and/or
does not have the capacity and/or the willingness to take advice we offer them.

Further, we are pretty much duty bound
not to even start a matter where in our view there is no merit in it*, and/or
where there is no reasonable prospect of success.

Further....

• Sometimes what a client "wants" isn't achievable - often because there is no evidence,
  and/or no grounds upon which to base an application.
• Sometimes, what they "want" isn't even available at law.
• A lawyer is not obliged to be (and, indeed is not allowed to be) the mere mouthpiece of the client.
  Rather, their job is to apply skills and knowledge to the client's facts and circumstances.
  Sometimes, the end result of doing that means saying "Sorry, I can't help you"

--------------------------------
* This is why so many of us reach for the oxygen
when the would-be client uses the phrase
"...it's the principle of the thing"

No offence but solicitors, DPP, NSW Police are wings of the same bird imo. Agency theory is real and the interrelationship is incestous and nepotistic.

 

[Tim W]

You say that out loud, and yet still expect
the actual lawyers here to help you any further?
Most optimistic of you.

 

[Wok]

You say that out loud, and yet still expect
the actual lawyers here to help you any further?
Most optimistic of you.

What did I say that was confrontational or offensive in any way Tim? Say what out loud specifically?

 

[Hellomyonlyfriend]

What did I say that was confrontational or offensive in any way Tim? Say what out loud specifically?

He was referring to me wok. I went fishing.

 

[Wok]

He was referring to me wok. I went fishing.

Haha.. I'd say you found a bite and lost your sinker as well. However, given his accusation that I had somehow affected my chance of finding that needle in a haystack, he has mistaken the fisherman! I thought attention to detail was an essential part of a lawyer's quiver?