Stephen B. Swaye - Lawyer gambles away client's money New Bedford Massachusetts

Listen man, sometimes in the real world things don't work out exactly like they should for whatever reason. Since you have known the guy for fifteen years maybe you should go see the guy and in the future don't make assumptions about people's personal lives and then go on the internet and blast them.


P.S. Bet you think your real smart by using standout words like taxes and gambling, get your facts in order before you make assumptions, ASSumption maker.

Thanks Tim,
I can understand the privelage aspect of it. Especially if litigation is anticipated.

Yes, I was particularly drawn to these reports when I saw the same person reporting 3 different lawyers.

Thanks

Darren,

I'm not 100% sure, maybe about 90%, but I think this is the answer to your question about "work product."

"Work prduct" is a legal term that refers to any documentia or other materials that are prepared or procured in preparation or anticipation of litigation. In other words, the stuff that the lawyer comes up with, through discovery, depositions, interviews etc. that pertain to your case. The term "work product" is usually invoked when there is an attorney-client privelage issue.

Just as you have a privelage of confidentiality with your physician, so do you with your lawyer. (But not with your carpenter). But unlike the patient-physician privelage, the attorney-client privelage is destroyed when an outside party is exposed to the materials, is party to the depositions, etc. The reasoning behind this is that when the client (or the attorney) exposes the work product to a third party, the expectation of privacy no longer exists and the work product itself is vulnerable to discovery by the opponent.

In other words, everything between you and your lawyer is supposed to be kept as secret as is humanly possible. When one of the parties decides that it doesn't have to be so secretive and exposes work product to a third party, the court will look at the work product as not-so-secret anymore, and you run risk the that the work you and your lawyer produced could end up in the hands of your opponent.

I know that was probably pretty hard to understand. I'm certainly no law professor, and even they have a hard time explaining this. Here's a little analogy: if you leave your windows shut and draped then you have an expectation of privacy regarding what you do in your home. If you and your spouse decide to get intimate on the couch, you can reasonably expect that nobody will be watching you. If, on the other hand, you leave your windows wide open and uncovered, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If you and your spouse decide to do your thing on the couch, you run the risk that someone might stop to watch. One of the duties owed to you by your attorney is to make sure that those drapes stay shut, even as far as to make sure that your friends don't peek in.

In the case at hand, the reporter claimed that he was asking for an itemization of fees. I fail to see how that qualifies as "work product." I must assume, then, that either we are not getting a true account of events, or that the lawyer (different report) was trying to pull a fast one. Our reporter seems to have enough experience with litigation to know whether he is actually getting ripped off time and time again, or if the particulars of his case have caused these problems.

Legal malpractice does happen, and serious cases do arise. When I see three consecutive accusations regarding three separate attorneys and the same client, however, I have to wonder what the other side of the story is. And I don't believe that there isn't one.

Darren,

I'm not 100% sure, maybe about 90%, but I think this is the answer to your question about "work product."

"Work prduct" is a legal term that refers to any documentia or other materials that are prepared or procured in preparation or anticipation of litigation. In other words, the stuff that the lawyer comes up with, through discovery, depositions, interviews etc. that pertain to your case. The term "work product" is usually invoked when there is an attorney-client privelage issue.

Just as you have a privelage of confidentiality with your physician, so do you with your lawyer. (But not with your carpenter). But unlike the patient-physician privelage, the attorney-client privelage is destroyed when an outside party is exposed to the materials, is party to the depositions, etc. The reasoning behind this is that when the client (or the attorney) exposes the work product to a third party, the expectation of privacy no longer exists and the work product itself is vulnerable to discovery by the opponent.

In other words, everything between you and your lawyer is supposed to be kept as secret as is humanly possible. When one of the parties decides that it doesn't have to be so secretive and exposes work product to a third party, the court will look at the work product as not-so-secret anymore, and you run risk the that the work you and your lawyer produced could end up in the hands of your opponent.

I know that was probably pretty hard to understand. I'm certainly no law professor, and even they have a hard time explaining this. Here's a little analogy: if you leave your windows shut and draped then you have an expectation of privacy regarding what you do in your home. If you and your spouse decide to get intimate on the couch, you can reasonably expect that nobody will be watching you. If, on the other hand, you leave your windows wide open and uncovered, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If you and your spouse decide to do your thing on the couch, you run the risk that someone might stop to watch. One of the duties owed to you by your attorney is to make sure that those drapes stay shut, even as far as to make sure that your friends don't peek in.

In the case at hand, the reporter claimed that he was asking for an itemization of fees. I fail to see how that qualifies as "work product." I must assume, then, that either we are not getting a true account of events, or that the lawyer (different report) was trying to pull a fast one. Our reporter seems to have enough experience with litigation to know whether he is actually getting ripped off time and time again, or if the particulars of his case have caused these problems.

Legal malpractice does happen, and serious cases do arise. When I see three consecutive accusations regarding three separate attorneys and the same client, however, I have to wonder what the other side of the story is. And I don't believe that there isn't one.

Darren,

I'm not 100% sure, maybe about 90%, but I think this is the answer to your question about "work product."

"Work prduct" is a legal term that refers to any documentia or other materials that are prepared or procured in preparation or anticipation of litigation. In other words, the stuff that the lawyer comes up with, through discovery, depositions, interviews etc. that pertain to your case. The term "work product" is usually invoked when there is an attorney-client privelage issue.

Just as you have a privelage of confidentiality with your physician, so do you with your lawyer. (But not with your carpenter). But unlike the patient-physician privelage, the attorney-client privelage is destroyed when an outside party is exposed to the materials, is party to the depositions, etc. The reasoning behind this is that when the client (or the attorney) exposes the work product to a third party, the expectation of privacy no longer exists and the work product itself is vulnerable to discovery by the opponent.

In other words, everything between you and your lawyer is supposed to be kept as secret as is humanly possible. When one of the parties decides that it doesn't have to be so secretive and exposes work product to a third party, the court will look at the work product as not-so-secret anymore, and you run risk the that the work you and your lawyer produced could end up in the hands of your opponent.

I know that was probably pretty hard to understand. I'm certainly no law professor, and even they have a hard time explaining this. Here's a little analogy: if you leave your windows shut and draped then you have an expectation of privacy regarding what you do in your home. If you and your spouse decide to get intimate on the couch, you can reasonably expect that nobody will be watching you. If, on the other hand, you leave your windows wide open and uncovered, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If you and your spouse decide to do your thing on the couch, you run the risk that someone might stop to watch. One of the duties owed to you by your attorney is to make sure that those drapes stay shut, even as far as to make sure that your friends don't peek in.

In the case at hand, the reporter claimed that he was asking for an itemization of fees. I fail to see how that qualifies as "work product." I must assume, then, that either we are not getting a true account of events, or that the lawyer (different report) was trying to pull a fast one. Our reporter seems to have enough experience with litigation to know whether he is actually getting ripped off time and time again, or if the particulars of his case have caused these problems.

Legal malpractice does happen, and serious cases do arise. When I see three consecutive accusations regarding three separate attorneys and the same client, however, I have to wonder what the other side of the story is. And I don't believe that there isn't one.

Darren,

I'm not 100% sure, maybe about 90%, but I think this is the answer to your question about "work product."

"Work prduct" is a legal term that refers to any documentia or other materials that are prepared or procured in preparation or anticipation of litigation. In other words, the stuff that the lawyer comes up with, through discovery, depositions, interviews etc. that pertain to your case. The term "work product" is usually invoked when there is an attorney-client privelage issue.

Just as you have a privelage of confidentiality with your physician, so do you with your lawyer. (But not with your carpenter). But unlike the patient-physician privelage, the attorney-client privelage is destroyed when an outside party is exposed to the materials, is party to the depositions, etc. The reasoning behind this is that when the client (or the attorney) exposes the work product to a third party, the expectation of privacy no longer exists and the work product itself is vulnerable to discovery by the opponent.

In other words, everything between you and your lawyer is supposed to be kept as secret as is humanly possible. When one of the parties decides that it doesn't have to be so secretive and exposes work product to a third party, the court will look at the work product as not-so-secret anymore, and you run risk the that the work you and your lawyer produced could end up in the hands of your opponent.

I know that was probably pretty hard to understand. I'm certainly no law professor, and even they have a hard time explaining this. Here's a little analogy: if you leave your windows shut and draped then you have an expectation of privacy regarding what you do in your home. If you and your spouse decide to get intimate on the couch, you can reasonably expect that nobody will be watching you. If, on the other hand, you leave your windows wide open and uncovered, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If you and your spouse decide to do your thing on the couch, you run the risk that someone might stop to watch. One of the duties owed to you by your attorney is to make sure that those drapes stay shut, even as far as to make sure that your friends don't peek in.

In the case at hand, the reporter claimed that he was asking for an itemization of fees. I fail to see how that qualifies as "work product." I must assume, then, that either we are not getting a true account of events, or that the lawyer (different report) was trying to pull a fast one. Our reporter seems to have enough experience with litigation to know whether he is actually getting ripped off time and time again, or if the particulars of his case have caused these problems.

Legal malpractice does happen, and serious cases do arise. When I see three consecutive accusations regarding three separate attorneys and the same client, however, I have to wonder what the other side of the story is. And I don't believe that there isn't one.

Tom,
You are right, I have been fortunate enough to have avioded most interaction with lawyers and courts.

I do know enough about life and human nature though to understand frustration and something overtaking a person's life. It is an old story that is well illustrated in Moby d**k... the following of a revenge or of justice to the point of letting it take over those things which are important. That is why I was wondering.

Since, in the beginning, we have to evaluate a post without the benefit of hearing the other person's side, the more information there is the better. Not that what you are saying isn't 100% accurate and fair, but only you know that at the time of posting.

Personally, I try to avoid support groups because I have found by my experience that I lose focus and perspective.

I was upset to see that a lawyer would consider work done for you as their own "work product." Maybe a lawyer here can explain how work done by a lawyer at the expense and direction of someone else remains the property of the lawyer?

If I hire someone to start building a porch and then hire someone else to finish it, the first carpenter isn't going to take down what he has done. The first carpenter, of course, is going to be paid for the work done though.

If a lawyer can explain how this is "different" than a porch analogy, then it will probably be more a matter of how they cover their own a*s, rather than a matter of logic. Mostly likey it is something in their contract with the client... which begs the question... does a person need a lawyer to sign a contract with a lawyer?

I would have to say that most people who come to this website are also like me and not at the hiring lawyer point yet.

Not to increase the load on your plate... but there are lawyers that specialize in malpractice of lawyers. Have you considered them?

Thanks,

darren,
please bear in mind that none of the lawyers are willingly giving back any money! also, 2 quit - the third (mis)represented on an unrelated case. i think 2 years is plenty of time (in one of the cases). the reason i entered data for 3 lawyers is because i just found this site. based upon my observation over the years, not all lawyers are bottom-feeders - just 90% of them are. out of the remaining 10%, only 10-20% of these have any brains and/or true desire to help their clients. that leaves about 1-2% of the lawyer population to positively help people while the remainder help negateively. i called swaye about 20 times without a single returned phone call (over the course of 3 months!!). the other 2 were called on a weekly basis at most. to answer your questions:
1 - no, they are not
2 - potentially, 6 (some courtesy of the "built-in domino effect" - a good money-maker for the system)
3 - answered above

CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.

i question whether you have been involded in any major legal battles based upon your comments, and think you may fail to see the gravity of the state of the system in our country. i recommend subscribing to at least one newsgroup, amatterofjustice.org. the founder is a phd, and is very intelligent. it will truly be an eye-opener for you. please feel post your comments below... thank you

Tom,
Believe me... I have just about as much contempt for lawyers as it seems you do... I really do believe that they are blood sucking leeches that work to make simple issues complicated so they can all make money.

However, I stopped counting at your third complaint on a lawyer. The one you wouldn't even use the proper pronoun of "her" and instead used "it."

There seems to be a pattern here. You hire them, they for some reason quit wanting to work for you.

For a money hungry blood sucking lawyer to want to give back any money and quit a case is rare. To have 3 do it is just about impossible statistically baring something that we aren't seeing.

Many issues take time to be resolved... are you giving them sufficient time? Are you constantly calling and taking their working on your case as their being paid to be your "emotional punching bag"?

If you want to give information about someone that did you wrong... it would help if you gave us particulars.

1) Are all these cases related?
2) If not, how many lawsuits are you involved in?
3) How many times (on average) did you call these lawyers per week?

I normally am sympathetic towards people posting here, but I don't feel that we are getting the whole story here.

Maybe you can give us particulars concerning why you were Ripped Off?