Asked 10 months ago - Van Nuys, CA
FlagI have a legitimate legal mal practice case for my grandfather's wrongful death lawsuit. There was millions of dollars paid for the settlement after the lawsuit was filed but I was never paid any money or knew about the case because I was a minor. The documentation proved the Attorney conspired with my grandmother to get all the settlement money, and the Attorney never bothered to contact anyone else, and knew legally my grandmother was not my Guardian, my mom's name was on the case. Based upon how negligent the case was handled, my father's death was never brought up because the plaintiff that was paid was no longer an heir to my father and purposely left his death condition out on the affidavit approved by the attorney. Now my statue of limitations are over.
I think the Honorable Judge Sutherland covered this matter better than I ever could in the Opinion rendered in Powell v. Alabama, 1932. He stated the following:
The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with a crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence. If that be true of men of intelligence, how much more true is it of the ignorant and illiterate, or those of feeble intellect. If in any case, civil or criminal, a state or federal court were arbitrarily to refuse to hear a party by counsel, employed by and appearing for him, it reasonably may not be doubted that such a refusal would be a denial of a hearing, and, therefore, of due process in the constitutional sense.
Don't speak legalese? We define thousands of terms in plain English.
Browse our legal dictionary
