Whenever you hear your lawyer say those words, you should:
- stand up,
- clear your throat and say in a clear, proud and noble voice
- (when he questions you why you are urinating in his ear):
- “Les Stewart told me to do this.”
His brain is on fire because of the bill collector: You’re doing him a great service.
What you are doing is technically illegal but is entirely justified. Chances are you’ll never be brought forward on account of the reporting policeman’s laughter.
If he sues you, God doesn’t have enough bandwidth to handle how quickly his Statement of Claim .pdf would be sent around the legal world’s community.
- Lawyers are the most incestuous, unhappy, vain, catty group of individuals on the face of the earth.
- The franchise bar? Same times gazillions.
Your advocate is a liar, a scoundrel, is counseling not a criminal act but is intentionally sabotaging your claim and has breached their fiduciary duty.
- Reporting his conduct to appropriate Law Society (in Ontario that would be the Law Society of Upper Canada: what they lack in ethics they make up in in officious naming exercises). It won’t make you any money but the resulting website’ll send a message will be reward enough.
- btw: This is the same union that maintains that sleeping with clients is not an ethical issue. The physical as opposed to the economic act being differentiated here, I suppose.
Pawn Store example: A little birdy told me about a group of pawn store franchisee that were spun this con by their “brand name” Toronto franchise lawyer. Because the franchisees didn’t bother to call me 1st, they followed his advice.
When entirely reasonable claim surfaced at Trial, the Ontario Justice just exploded: At the franchisees.
- The Justice did not look at the cause of breach (based in time, space: the relationship).
- He simply saw franchising as a spot-trade type contract (complete) and saw one side’s blatant breach (franchisees’ not paying) and that was enough to get the case off the docket.
Every sentient lawyer knows that franchisees have to vestal virgins (pay every cent, cross every “t”) as soon as a dispute become serious, even though the franchisor is the worst whore imaginable. Breach a technicality and your cheap knock-off Charles Manson franchisor is out on unsupervised day parole at Discovery Day.
This goes to the heart of the difference between:
- a Court of Justice (which most franchisees think they are in) and
- a Court of Laws (where the Justice can use any pretense to get clear the docket.)
I have a good deal of sympathy for judges: The law has never been appropriate for the sorting out of franchise disputes. It is only used as a mechanism for filtering out disputes (ie. franchisees “settle” because of their impending bankruptcy). I think a simple paper-rock-scissor contest, best out of three would be preferable. Instead of the unprofessional fees, hookers and Vegas. Marginally less demeaning then listening to your own lawyer threaten you for the next payment, but that is for another day.
If you know of any lawyer that’s running this con by saying: Pay me instead of your franchisor…
- let me know too.
- I collect these stories and I promise not to tell anyone.
Note: If you receive a set of ear muffs as an office gift…