I know I’m going to sound like a prick for saying this, but it sounds to me like you’re saying the money would have been better spent on you…that’s kind of a selfish point of view. Either that or your suggesting the money is better spent on people who are defending themselves for the first time rather then the second time. Can I ask what you needed a lawyer for?
Joey - I stated what I thought pretty clearly:
Since I know I was unable to obtain legal counsel even though I qualified for legal aid, I assume others find themselves in the same situation. Note I didn’t say “those dollars would be better spent on me me me!”.
I believe that’s what’s done here–Legal Aid takes an interest in a property settlement.
No, it’s interesting. I’ve been doing more and more work for Legal Aid here (let’s face it, there is never a problem with payment), and it’s interesting to hear the experiences from other provinces. (And states too–thanks to Oakminster and Alan Smithee, for their comments on the system in the US.)
Maybe I should consider relocating to northern Ontario. 
If you are into legal aid funded family law, there is more than enough work available. I was speaking with a full time legal aid lawyer this afternoon who was trying to find a lawyer to take over a file. We were trying to think of who is actually taking new legal aid funded clients, and came up with a very short list.
The overall problem is three-fold. First, the hourly rate is absurdly low (under a hundred per hour) which makes it difficult to keep an office afloat on legal aid funded clients unless one gets into high volume. Second, the number of hours that one is permitted to put into any particular task is severely limited, so there is pressure to skim through rather than do solid work. Three, there is more paperwork involved when going through legal aid.
For myself, there is a fourth problem, in that I have found that there is a higher percentage of folks who are on legal aid who act unreasonably when it comes to compromising, since they figure that there is no cost to them once they are covered by legal aid, and there is a higher percentage of bat shit crazy types who don’t recognize just how poor their parenting skills are. I’m not into wasting my time working for people who are out for a pound of flesh, or who will only look at parenting issues through their own bent point of view.
I think it takes a special type of person to take on a legal aid practice and run it well. My hat goes off to them.
Hmmm. Maybe we should speak sometime.
Agree on all points. It’s the hourly limitation that is currently irritating me–I have a family file where the other side has a privately-retained lawyer. His client is determined to take this matter to trial, which (as you know) increases the hours one must put into a file. No complaints from the lawyer–he’s getting paid at his full rate by his client. But my client is a Legal Aid client, and the Legal Aid hours that I’ve put into the file have been maxed. I can request additional hours, and I will; but it would be nice if I didn’t have to go begging to Legal Aid.
I don’t think I’ve seen this quite as much as you have (you seem to do more family files than I do), but I have seen some of it certainly. Interestingly, most of my Legal Aid criminal clients are glad of any representation; but a few have been the “batshit crazy” types who figure it might be fun to ask me to try out all the things they’ve heard about from other inmates in the remand centre; or worse, seen on TV. No, you cannot “plead the Fifth” in a Canadian court. (Though you certainly have the same right under the Charter. :))
To bring this back on track, I will say that some of my jail clients ask for a lawyer simply to delay proceedings for a few days. When I arrive, they’re either not really interested in talking to me, or they’ve simply decided to Admit. It’s a short day for me, and I do bill Legal Aid for the brief time, but it does make me wonder.
For what it’s worth, the system Spoons describes is not universal. Inmates are not entitled to legal representation at disciplinary hearings in New York state where I worked. In fact, they were not allowed to have anyone represent them.
Spoons, we have 2 dopers in Thunder Bay, you would make a hat trick! 
Seeing as one of the TBay lawyers move out west following a toupee trick, that would only be fitting. (And no, I dare not speak about the toupee trick.)
Come on I’ve got to hair about that one.
Well, we’ll have to see. It is a part of Ontario that I rather like. Muffin, what’s involved in becoming a member of the LSUC?
I’ll admit that except for a train stop in the 60s (when it was Port Arthur/Fort William, before it was Thunder Bay), I’ve never actually been in the city. When driving to and from Alberta to Toronto, I’ve always taken the bypass. Maybe sometime, I should stop in for a Dopefest.
Hey, don’t wig out!
As with most things in life, do a bit of reading (bone up on the law), fill out some forms, and pay some money.
“Forms and fees,” then. Many forms, but none would be impossible to complete, nor would documents be impossible to get–I’d qualify. Hmmm…
I am sure it is a bit more complex than a nursing license registration, but I have been an RN in three provinces now, (once even under a different surname!) and while it is a bit of a pain, its usually fill out the forms, play with the pencils, get copies of documents sent, notarized (probably easier your you than it was for me)…pay money here there and everywhere et voila… !
I once threatened to “Collect all 12”(then 13) licenses but the whole being a mom and a homeowner made me stop my nomadic lifestyle.
Since I’m presently reading Krieger v Law Society of Alberta for my crim law class midterm, along with a few articles we touched on, here’s a neophyte question:
Do you have any (anonymous, obviously) anecdotes of instances where you thought the crown lawyer in one of your cases acted heavy handedly, or maliciously, or otherwise just in a jerkish way? If that gets too personal I apologize!
I ask because our readings and the articles my collegues post on the Facebook make prosecutors out to be deeply flawed, morally ambivalent characters, and it’s well, kind of disheartening if this is common place. My theory is that 95% of them are outstanding people, but we only read about the silver tongued vigilantes looking to get a 99% conviction rate and get that big silver office. Just wondering on your take!
Not at all. IME, the Crowns have always been professional. They are not out to secure a prosecution, “just because.” They are more interested in seeing justice done, even if they lose. Remember, in Canada, our Crowns are not elected, as the DAs are in some of the US–so there is no incentive to stay in good with the voters. In fact, without me asking first, I’ve had Crowns ask me if my client would be open to the idea of alternative measures. In other words, they’re not looking to “screw, blue, and tattoo” accuseds, as we sometimes say. They just want to make sure all the principles that they must follow are in order.
Well, I’ve seen the Crown’s offices locally; and frankly, mine is nicer. At any rate, the Crowns whom I’ve had dealings with have been fine people–yes, we are on opposite sides of the file, but they never struck me as malicious, flawed, or otherwise evil. They have a job to do, and if in the course of doing what they do, it appears that my client is blameless, they will back right off. They are reasonable at other times, willing to negotiate in a number of ways, all within the established principles of such things as sentencing. “Doing the right thing” is key at all times.
Ditto what Spoons says.
Well, I’m pleased to hear that! It helps to confirm my underlying suspicions throughout that course. Much obliged!!
You’re quite welcome! How is law school going, by the way? (You can PM me if you don’t wish to reply here.)
It’s going well, thanks (Didn’t see your last response, sorry for my delayed reply)! It’s a different challenge than musicology was, but I feel like (touch wood) I’m thriving in it. Ask me again in January when Mid-term exam marks are in. 
For the most part, it’s quite intellectually stimulating, and I haven’t gotten into the same mental traps as my colleagues who spend 16 hours in the library each and every weekend working themselves into a frenzy. I thought this was just some joke that law students bandied about to tell outsiders, but there are LOTS of these people.
Myself, I play all my sports, I keep up with my music, and I think I participate very frequently in class and am willing to make mistakes in an attempt to learn the essence of the law. I’m not as nervous as I was in August, for sure, but I have a new found appreciation for my family’s support!
I get worried when I hear these horror stories from ex-litigator profs, and kids whose parents are lawyers, telling me that I’ve signed myself up for an 80 hour work week for life, and that I will never see my kids (should I have any) because I will always be at the office late. That is not what I’m all about. I’m a dilettante, a dabbler, a humanist…the idea of any one facet of my existence completely dominating my life is frankly more scary than any of my course work. It’s making me critically analyze what I want to do when the ink is dry on my JD. I figure something will speak to me between now and graduation!
I suppose that’s another question for you, lol! Do you work 80 hour work weeks and never see your family? If not, do you know colleagues of yours that do?