IS YOUR CASE THE WORST, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE AN ATTORNEY TO WIN IT??

SCROLL DOWN IF YOU HAVE ISSUES IN COURT BUT NEED HELP
WITH PAPERWORK, FOR EXAMPLE; OUR MAVERICK PARALEGAL SERVICES
CAN PROVIDE HELP ON ISSUES WITH FAMILY LAW+CIVIL, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE+MORE.
For example---

Clients never making it clear to Judge, the actual facts?

Clients ignoring good advice, and instead, listening to friends who know nothing?

Clients who post photos of themselves drunk?

Clients who put their dirty laundry out there on "FACEBOOK" ?? (Really, really DUMB!!...,.)
\
Clients who have domestic violence (by spouse or partner) but ignore it,
and think it will GO AWAY????

..........Get Help Now!!  Call 530-497-0777

THE PGE MINDSET FOR WILDFIREZ, YES, FIREZ!

..PGE SAYS SHUTOFFS ONLY IN SELECT AREAS ???

Is Limited Scope Right for Your Case?

Limited scope representation helps self-represented litigants in California

What this basically means, is that an attorney can, in Family law, handle only certain aspects of a case, such as, for example---- JUST domestic violence, but NOT the divorce, or the child support, or the mediation recommendation......OR, for example, JUST the adoption of the mediation recommendation [which is typically done at the law and motion hearing], OR, just the issue of whether or not supervised visits are warranted temporarily, etc.

How this helps litigants who do not have a full time attorney--it can enable clients to:

• Prepare their documents legibly, completely, and accurately; · 
• Prepare their cases based on a better understanding of the law and court procedures than they would have if left on their own; 
• Obtain representation for portions of their cases, such as court hearings, even if they cannot afford full representation; and
• Obtain assistance in preparing, understanding, and enforcing court orders.

 This assistance can reduce the number of errors in documents; limit the time wasted by the court, litigants, and opposing attorneys because of the procedural difficulties and mistakes of self-represented litigants; and decrease docket congestion and demands on court personnel.

In focus groups on this topic, judges indicated a strong interest in having self-represented litigants obtain as much information and assistance from attorneys as possible. 

They pointed to the California courts’ positive experience with self-help programs such as the family law facilitator program, which educates litigants and assists them with paperwork. These programs, however, cannot meet the needs of all self-represented litigants and, because of existing regulations, must limit the services they can offer.

               If you need some targeted legal help, call us today!  (530) 359-8810

Down to Earth..or, Talked Down to???...Average attorney or Better?..............

The one thing that many clients do not really like, is when attorneys talk down to clients...that kind of means, the attorney will be acting like a know it all, and let's face it, some attorneys ARE know it alls, right?  But do clients really enjoy that attitude?  Hmmmm....well...........maybe not so much in reality?  We aren't dealing with quantum physics or the IRS tax code in bankruptcy (unless you are dealing with that, then excuse me!)  For the majority of cases, we are not representing rock stars or the actresses/actors of Hollywood.  Trust me, those cases are in the National Enquirer.

And that is why sites like the Huffington Post are popular--they just spell out the laws in plain English so everyone pretty much can understand it?  What's wrong with that? In reality, there is nothing wrong with it at all.  Some of the best attorneys can simplify almost any of the statutory law so that nearly all clients will understand what they are working with?  Sometimes having a teaching background is helpful because most teachers will have a good deal of patience and will work hard to ensure clients understand the issues.  NOT understanding the issues is not a good position for the client.  Clients are entitled to be able to know and understand issues, especially if they are directly going to be affected adversely.

One of the worst things that an attorney can do is to not make the issues understandable--the client should know what he/she may be facing, even if the news is not so great. We all know that family law issues can be not-so-great!!! Seriously--some of the most difficult cases are the custody cases that seem to be endless-- right?  You really haven't lived until you have to tell your client that his or her kids are being taken from him or her.  It is not only devastating, it's also very hard on the kids to say the least.  Sometimes at the end of the day, you may just want to cry.  Seriously.

..So...What About that Trial???

For some Reason, this post is very popular?
In family law, most cases will not require a trial. In some cases, certain issues may require a trial due to the inability to settle the issue.

The big questions usually are, will the trial actually gain you anything, and if so, for how long and would it be worth it if you don't win?  Depending on the circumstances of the case/issues, and how difficult the opposing party/or the attorney defending, will make an obvious difference.

There are calculated risks in any trial, even if you know you will win. If there is a bankruptcy involved, you should make sure to consult an attorney that knows bankruptcy ahead of time, not the week before the trial?

If there is a legal issue that is definitely on your side, great. Then why are you needing the trial-- is it because of a difficult attorney?  Is it because of a difficult client that doesn't care what it costs to go to trial?  Is it because the other side wants gratification to make you pay?  None of these things are unheard of, by any stretch. 

While an issue involving a legal aspect of ongoing spousal is usually a bona fide issue, some issues should likely be worked out without need for judge to tell you what to do. A move away issue is more likely to require judge's experience than other issues.

Attorney has seen counsel drag in unknown witnesses from other states that no one even knows, and the client himself or herself is not even present? Further, attorney has seen judges ignore the statutory law and just make decisions based on
almost nothing (meaning, there is no real evidence) and judge just makes the call--for example, almost no judge is going to award custody to a perpetrator of domestic violence where a criminal protective order is in place, and where that criminal protective order has been broken many times? But we have seen this happen not once, twice, or more times........when it should realistically almost never happen.

We have seen valid restraining orders get dropped due to other reasons (meaning--the domestic or TRO is and was valid, but judge decided that some other issues were more important and that to get the other issues finalized, dropping the TRO was apparently easier or faster or both--??)

We have seen judge ignore valid testimony and only focus on certain witnesses. One must remember that attorneys sometimes inherit cases that have been done by pro per clients, so sometimes the record of the case has not been done properly; key facts may have been left out or ignored; judge may have ignored key issues like protective orders and violation of such orders; the prosecuting criminal court may have allowed a criminal to go free (even with very high bail), even with overwhelming proof of crimes?  When these types of cases get to trial, it's a crap shoot.   That means you may not win no matter how good your case actually is?  If you do not believe that, then you have not seen what actually transpires in other cases, since you would not be there to witness it?    It is attorney's opinion, that just  having a trial does not necessarily mean you will get what you want or deserve.  In a  number of cases you will not prevail, even if you are sure your evidence is the winning evidence.

Having a trial is not necessarily the destination you may really need or want, since there is a lot more to consider when deciding your options. Trials are often over rated for family law, as many family law litigants are not happy with their trial results. That is fairly typical in family law, when compared to criminal or civil cases which have much more stringent rules in general.