- A victim of spousal assault contacts the accused's lawyer regarding assets to be divided since the accused is under a no-contact order and direct instructions from this lawyer not to contact her victim.
- No response is received so further communication is sent to this lawyer.
- Still no response received so the victim contacts police to assist him to safely recover one major asset (a vehicle).
- The accused informs police that any of the victim's assets are going to be abandoned and left for the landlord of the property.
- The victim contacts the accused's lawyer copying it to complaints at the Law Society.
- An immediate response is received from the accused's lawyer immediately stating that “I have not been retained by Ms. XXXXXX to assist her in property issues arsing out of you and her living together. I had forwarded to her your initial correspondance to me. I had "assumed" that she was dealing with this “ This despite the fact that as the accused's lawyer for the assault he was fully aware that the accused could not legally contact the victim and that he had issued specific instructions for her not to contact the victim. In addition the accused had stated previously that this lawyer had counselled her regarding on at least one major jointly owned asset, a car.
- The lawyer also states that “ She tells me that the only asset of value that she considers yours to be your motorcycle and that you took your assets when you separated.” This despite the fact that the police report indicates that the victim left with only a bag of clothes and that there was no “separation” only a victim of violence being removed from a volatile environment.
- The victim now has no legal method to contact the accused to discuss distribution of assets without either forcing the accused to violate her no-contact agreement and lawyers instructions, or revealing contact information that may put him at risk, or paying costly lawyers fees. Given the difference in statements to the police and from the lawyer, if the victim removes any asset from the house that the accused chooses to question he faces the possibility of being charged with theft. Even if legal actions were pursued the obfuscation by the lawyer and accused have delayed sufficiently that there is insufficient time to take actions.
Copy of Letter Sent To Complaints at the Law Society of Alberta
Further to the complaint submitted yesterday regarding xxlawyerxx's handling of Ms. xxxxxxxx's file, I must point out that the response received from xxlawyerxx can not be accurate.
First of all, xxlawyerxx is the legal counsel for Ms. xxxxxxxx in her assault charge and other charges is fully aware that Ms. xxxxxxxx is under a no-contact order with regards to me and has specifically instructed her to have no contact with me. Therefore his statement that “I had forwarded to her your initial correspondance to me. I had "assumed" that she was dealing with this “ can not be accurate as this would be encouraging her to violate her no-contact order and his specific advice.
In addition the statement that “I have not been retained by Ms. xxxxxx to assist her in property issues arsing out of you and her living together” is also misleading as Ms. xxxxxxxx specifically stated that Mr. xxlawyerxx counselled her to acquire the jointly owned car, which I was living in at the time, back (which she did).
In addition the statement that “ She tells me that the only asset of value that she considers yours to be your motorcycle and that you took your assets when you separated” is also misleading as Ms. xxxxxxxx made a different statement to the Police about assets to be picked up and Mr. xxlawyerxx is no doubt aware that when I was removed from the house it was with a few clothes only. The difference in the description of assets made to police and Mr. xxlawyerxx leaves me unable to remove any assets from the house other than the motorcycle as any item Ms. xxxxxxxx chooses to question can result in theft charges being pressed against me.
Further to this matter, Ms. xxxxxxxx has advised other individuals that Mr. xxlawyerxx has counselled Ms. xxxxxxxx to pursue a restraining order against me. If I attempt to contact Ms. xxxxxxxx regarding asset distribution or to acquire any asset Ms. xxxxxxxx chooses to question this may provide grounds for that legal action. These latter two situations have the distinct appearance of entrapment.
The process of delaying my knowledge of whom to contact regarding assets arriving out Ms. xxxxxxxx's and my living together until the items are “abandoned to the landlord”, and with the knowledge that as a result of the assault I have been left homeless and without sufficient resources to pay for legal counsel on this matter, is in fact assisting the accused spousal assaulter in continuing the abuse of their victim. These actions can not possibly fall within the code of conduct of the Law Society of Alberta