Attorney refuses to submit evidence

[Jason.j]

What is the name of your state? California

As the title says, during pretrial phase, attorney refuses to supply evidence, not even my statement or pictures of my wound which he put in writing that he was doing but now has changed his mind and refuses to explain why as I've asked multiple times politely and waited patiently between emails. Won't even tell me what his strategy is.

 

[adjusterjack]

Would help if you provided details. Who are you suing and why? What is the purpose of the evidence?

 

[Jason.j]

Would help if you provided details. Who are you suing and why? What is the purpose of the evidence?

I posted under this section because I thought my attorney's actions constituted ethical violations and malpractice. I asked about specific case law and he lied and said it only applies to trial phase and not pretrial phase. Are these all not valid concerns?

 

[stealth2]

I posted under this section because I thought my attorney's actions constituted ethical violations and malpractice. I asked about specific case law and he lied and said it only applies to trial phase and not pretrial phase. Are these all not valid concerns?

Please answer jack’s questions. Without those answers, no one can begin to know if your concerns are valid. Thank you.

 

[Just Blue]

External camera violation of peace bond? | Forum.FreeAdvice.com

 

[AlmostThere]

External camera violation of peace bond? | Forum.FreeAdvice.com

Wow. Jason, I suggest that you work with your attorney and heed his advice. He knows more about the law than you do, and more about the case than any volunteer here.

 

[adjusterjack]

Get your dental aprons on, folks, it's going to be like pulling teeth to get the details.

 

[zddoodah]

As the title says, during pretrial phase, attorney refuses to supply evidence

Refused to submit/supply evidence to whom? Is this a civil case or a criminal case? In what procedural context do you think the evidence ought to have been submitted?

not even my statement

Statement about what?

now has changed his mind and refuses to explain why as I've asked multiple times politely and waited patiently between emails.

So...there's an email from you to your lawyer that requested an explanation why he changed his mind, and he responded, in substance, with, "I refuse to explain my decision"? Have you considered picking up the phone and calling him? Or making an appointment to meet in his office?

I asked about specific case law and he lied

What exactly did you ask? Why do you think he lied?

and said it only applies to trial phase and not pretrial phase.

Ok...and? Do you disagree?

Are these all not valid concerns?

I have no idea because you provided no coherent detail. I could easily fill in the blanks with details that make your concerns valid, but I could just as easily come up with facts that make your concerns entirely frivolous.

 

[Jason.j]

I asked a simple question about an attorney honouring his promise that he made in writing to submit evidence/statement on my behalf. I'm not sure why anything else is relevant, it should be simple black and white laws. Everyone is entitled to provide a statement, pretty sure there's a civil law about that.

I was under the impression attorneys had professional and ethical obligations to abide by and if the evidence, in this case my statement, was unwise, it should be easy enough to correct it. Duty of competence, diligence, honesty and candor mean nothing then? Are you suggesting a person has no rights in certain situations? Is that the country this is?

This has nothing to do with the link above and despite the fact I am innocent, last I checked, a person was innocent until proven guilty.

 

[stealth2]

I asked a simple question about an attorney honouring his promise that he made in writing to submit evidence/statement on my behalf. I'm not sure why anything else is relevant, it should be simple black and white laws. Everyone is entitled to provide a statement, pretty sure there's a civil law about that.

I was under the impression attorneys had professional and ethical obligations to abide by and if the evidence, in this case my statement, was unwise, it should be easy enough to correct it. Duty of competence, diligence, honesty and candor mean nothing then? Are you suggesting a person has no rights in certain situations? Is that the country this is?

This has nothing to do with the link above and despite the fact I am innocent, last I checked, a person was innocent until proven guilty.

Then perhaps you should consult with a different local lawyer for advice regarding this situation. Make it a great day.

 

[Zigner]

I asked a simple question about an attorney honouring his promise that he made in writing to submit evidence/statement on my behalf.

No, you didn't.

I'm not sure why anything else is relevant, it should be simple black and white laws.

It is seldom "black and white." Given more information about your case and about the nature of the "evidence" you had hoped to introduce might give folks here a better chance at giving you accurate advice.

Everyone is entitled to provide a statement, pretty sure there's a civil law about that.

Cite the law.

I was under the impression attorneys had professional and ethical obligations to abide by and if the evidence, in this case my statement, was unwise, it should be easy enough to correct it.

Your lack of understanding of what those obligations may entail do not mean the attorney did anything wrong.

Duty of competence, diligence, honesty and candor mean nothing then?

Who said they didn't (insofar as they exist)?

Are you suggesting a person has no rights in certain situations? Is that the country this is?

Everybody has rights. Understanding which rights apply is sometimes not as easy.

This has nothing to do with the link above

No, but the link above provides insight.

and despite the fact I am innocent, last I checked, a person was innocent until proven guilty.

Not quite. They are generally considered innocent until adjudicated guilty in a court of law. That may be what you meant, but it's tough to tell.

 

[cbg]

The possibility exists that the attorney understands the rules of evidence better than you do and that what he is "refusing" to submit is either not admissible or would not work the way you think it would.

 

[LdiJ]

The possibility exists that the attorney understands the rules of evidence better than you do and that what he is "refusing" to submit is either not admissible or would not work the way you think it would.

Or shouldn't be submitted at the pretrial phase of the proceedings. We don't know because the OP refuses to give enough information to make any kind of a determination.

 

[zddoodah]

I'm not sure why anything else is relevant

Obviously.

it should be simple black and white laws.

It might be, but law is all about context. Not only did you not provide any, but you appear to be militantly refusing to do so.

Everyone is entitled to provide a statement, pretty sure there's a civil law about that.

Provide what sort of statement? Who whom? In what context? Depending on the context and the relevant facts, you might be right, or you might be wrong.

I was under the impression attorneys had professional and ethical obligations to abide by and if the evidence

They do. Here they are. Do you think one was violated? If so, which one, and what are the relevant facts?

Duty of competence, diligence, honesty and candor mean nothing then?

They mean lots of things. Once again, context and facts matter.

Are you suggesting a person has no rights in certain situations?

I don't know to whom you're directing this statement, but there is no situation in which a person has no rights.

last I checked, a person was innocent until proven guilty.

That's a statement relating to the prosecution's burden of proof in a criminal trial. It applies in no other context, and concepts like "guilt" and "innocence" are meaningless in the context of a civil suit.

If you want to provide relevant facts, I'll be happy to respond further. If you want to engage in pointless bickering, I'm done.