Access Pro Bono

«Beggars can’t be choosers», as Leonard (last reviewer) quotes in his review of Access Pro Bono, exactly the line that came to mind upon leaving their office this afternoon.
I tried to «re-​book» an appointment with Access Pro Bono to seek advice from a lawyer regarding my upcoming trial. I did go to my previous appointment, but, went to the wrong room in the wrong building. I went to the room in the building I’d been to many times previously. I didn’t realize they used both law court buildings and consequently missed my appointment; rookie mistake.
A sky train and two bus rides (each way; there and home again) AND of course something had gone wrong with the sky train (again!) so I even had to run from Chinatown to the Law Courts carrying a bag filled with binders to make this appointment on time; I was in tears, when I thought the lawyer was a «no show» (as Lenord also points out, it wouldn’t have been the first time the appointed lawyer just didn’t show up). In this case, it was my fault, I went to the wrong room in the wrong building.
I phoned the APB office the very next day to report what I thought to be a «no show» and re-​book a new appointment (I had waited almost a month already for this appointment). I was told on «no uncertain terms» that it was in fact «I» who would go down in their records as the «no show».
This morning they returned my last msg. and I tried to explain the mix up. The line was garbled and breaking up (I’m pretty sure that was coming from their line) so I took the skytrain and two buses to their office downtown and showed up in person to make the appointment. I was sent home and told that they do not «encourage» people to come to their office in person; I tried to explain about the phone line situation but was absolutely rebuffed and shown the door.
Someone from the office phoned me when I got home. The person, coldly, roboticly, repeatedly, emphasized that I was a «no show», and said I should have known better where to go. As a «punitive measure» for my «no show» (they insist is not punitive but rather «policy»), I am not allowed to even book an appointment for 30 days at which point it will take aprox. another 30 days to get in to see someone (who may or may not show up).
Even the opposing lawyer went there in person to ask them to reconsider, but the person he spoke to was unmoved. Because of this I had to request a postponement of the trial.
Another appointment I had thru APB was with a lawyer based out in Coquitlam. I made the two hour by transit trek there (and two hours back again) just to have the appointed lawyer sit there with arms and legs crossed and coldly reply to each and every question «you should look it up on line»; despite my having gone so far as to write out my questions, and send them in advance (as requested) of the appointment. His entire demeanor implied disdain.
Many of my visits with these lawyers and dealings with APB staff have seemed oddly aloof at
best. Considering the noble implications of this being a volunteer organization I have often wondered and have even inquired, as to what the angle is on this «volunteer» part of the service. I can’t help but feel there is something amiss here, and more to the story than what is told.
The staff at APB are, in my recent experience, remarkably «unsympathetic» and «rigid» (to say the very least) and come across as anything but «noble» in their endevours, and given that, I find it really hard to buy that this is an entirely philanthropic venture.

The Access Pro Bono Society of British Columbia (APB) is an advocacy non-​profit in downtown Vancouver that no doubt opened with the best of intentions but unfortunately falls far short of the practice standards set by the lawyers’ professional governing body, the Law Society of British Columbia. Most grievously, it is the poorest of the poor, APB’s clientele, who suffer.
APB creates an illusion that legal representation in the way the law society defines it is available when it is not. It’s a convenient fiction that allows the legal establishment to assume wrongly that poor litigants are being properly advised. In many cases, nothing could be further from the truth. The law society should investigate ASAP.
Despite an overabundance of law graduates desperately seeking articles there seems to be a chronic shortage at APB of both qualified students and advising lawyers, those who do not have a conflict of interest, particularly in the area of bankruptcy and foreclosure law, surely the cornerstone of poverty law.
In addition, APB advocates frequently miss appointments, including actual court dates. Emails and calls go unacknowledged, unanswered and unreturned. There seems to be no rule or procedure regarding communication. In many cases, client has no idea the night before his hearing whether mouthpiece will turn up. If s/​he does, in many cases s/​he does so without having properly researched the law to come up with a defence such that trier of fact may assume there is no defence. As a result, many litigants lose not only their opportunity to raise a defence, they may also lose the right to appeal.
Several APB advisers seemed to have no idea how to help a client apply for public benefits either emergency funding or disability benefits, again, the cornerstones of poverty law.
It’s very troubling when a legal adviser admits that s/​he lacks expertise and yet makes no effort to obtain it either at the law library or from an advising lawyer. There seems to be no effort to test the facts with a practitioner, one who might be willing to provide representation on contingency. No such list of experts seems to exist at APB. Why not?
Because beggars cannot be choosers, few litigants will risk a complaint to the law society about the service they received at APB. Many may not know they have the right to complain. I would urge everyone who has obtained questionable representation by this organization to review the experience with the law society.
APB is not alone in its dubious commitment to service, either. There are a number of these organizations purporting to provide legal services to the poor. Too often actual representation never quite materializes. Too many of these advocates seem to feel that they have discharged their professional obligations by sending client an email with links to suggested legal websites and citations only another lawyer would understand.
What’s needed is problem-​solving — the application of relevant law to a client’s problem/​s. That surely is what is expected when one seeks legal advice!
Again, the law society should investigate ALL of Vancouver’s poverty law clinics immediately and come up with proposals to address an access to justice crisis in B.C. that is getting worse not better.
If the law society is unable or unwilling to discharge its obligation to protect the public interest by ensuring sufficient access to quality legal representation perhaps it’s time to compel the province to end the lawyers’ monopoly and allow consumers to choose our own advisers. Law, after all, is not rocket science. Anyone can learn to read and interpret law. There is no special magic to it.
A few words about the not pro bono fees and disbursements APB advocates are entitled to bill:
’… APB will dispense up to $ 300 to the Roster Lawyer on a pre-​authorized basis, such that the Roster Lawyer need not itemize the particular disbursements. If the case is settled, abandoned or otherwise closed prior to filing court or tribunal documents, APB reserves the right to request an itemized description of disbursements from the Roster Lawyer and to recover any and all unused amounts from the $ 300 paid out. Subsequent to the initial disbursement coverage of up to $ 300, Roster Lawyers may request further disbursement coverage of up to $ 2200 ($ 2500 including the initial $ 300) by submitting the Disbursements Billing Form to APB along with receipts for all itemized disbursements. APB authorizes disbursements according to the criteria set out below. APB also maintains the discretion to provide disbursement coverage in excess of $ 2500 to single cases showing exceptional merit or substantial impact on social justice issues. …‘
Unlike their U.S. counterparts, the University of B.C. (UBC) law faculty has few, if any, community law clinics that partner students with local practitioners/​law profs. Why not hire profs able to set up and manage such a clinic? There is surely a glut of qualified candidates.