I am a family member of a client. The client was taken away by the county procuratorate on * * 2065438+2005 and detained in * county detention center. The case is under investigation. After searching Guiyang Yusi Law Firm on the Internet, I went to the firm for consultation on 2065 438+05-8-3. On the same day, Zou Rong, the chief lawyer of the firm, was entrusted as the client's defense lawyer. The total commission fee is RMB 30,000 (￥ 30,000), and no other fees are incurred, and it requires a one-time payment. Because of the online consultation before, the standard of attorney fees is generally charged in stages, so there is doubt about it. Because we were anxious about the case, and lawyer Zou Rong claimed that we could see the client the next day, we immediately handed it to the firm for 654.38+00000 yuan, and negotiated to pay the remaining 20000 yuan the next day. On August 3, 20 15, the entrustment agreement was signed, and only the receipt of10,000 yuan was received, but the entrustment contract was not obtained.
On August 4th, 20 15, lawyer Zou Rong and his party drove my mother and son to a county detention center to try to meet the client without going through any procuratorate formalities. The car arrived at the gate of the detention center and asked me to take the driver to the gas station. I filled the car with 200 yuan of oil. Later, I took my mother and son into the detention center and tried to meet the client with relevant certificates, but the client's name provided to the detention center was wrong, which led to the detention center staff unable to find the client's information and could not meet (lawyer Zou Rong was negligent here and made a low-level mistake in the lawyer's workflow).
After the correction, I asked the client, but I was later told by the detention center that I could not meet the client without the formalities of the local county procuratorate (here, lawyer Zou Rong was negligent and made a low-level mistake in the lawyer's workflow).
Afterwards, lawyer Zou Rong hurried back to the county people's procuratorate to go through the relevant formalities, and then rushed to the detention center again. After many twists and turns, he was finally able to meet. Meanwhile, Zou Rong's lawyer also showed obvious impatience and impatience, which caused psychological distress to the family members of the parties and gradually deepened her distrust. The whole process of her meeting with the client is less than 40 minutes. As a complicated criminal case, it is impossible to know the details of the case in such a short meeting (later, Zou Rong said that he spent half his time comforting the parties and recording the information he took home).
On that day, Zou Rong, a lawyer, showed sloppy handling of the case and went through the motions, and had no patience with the normal legal consultation of his family (saying to his family, "I am tired and hungry, please let me rest first, I want to eat first"). Naked pursuit of money, urging us to pay off the remaining 20,000 yuan several times, I had to give 20,000 yuan in cash to Zou Rong on the way to the detention center, and Zou Rong did not provide any receipts and payment vouchers at that time. When I asked for the receipt, all I got was a few words: "trust". In the meantime, I also asked my family members not to care about any extra expenses incurred by Zou Rong and his party, which made us feel unwilling to spend more money and they would not try their best to handle the case.
After the meeting, it was around noon that day 1, and lawyer Zou Rong asked to go somewhere for a meal (indicate the food he ate). Communication with the family members of the parties is impatient and there is no soothing communication. During the dinner, we urged Zou Rong to issue an official receipt, and Zou reluctantly wrote a white note that received 20,000 yuan. After dinner, we ordered some food to take away without the consent of our families, so that we could bear the cost. This meal cost more than 400 yuan.
Returning from the dining place, our mother and son got off at the high-speed toll station and went home. Zou Rong and his party returned to Guiyang. After careful consideration, I don't think it is necessary to entrust Mr. Zou Rong as an attorney through my contact with his specific working process and observation of his conduct. 2065438+On August 6, 2005, I telephoned Zou Rong to inform me of my intention and negotiated to return the prepaid agency fee (quota negotiation). I communicated with Zou many times by phone that day, and Zou hung up many times, which was really a prevarication.
In desperation, I personally met her in August 15, 20 10 at Yusi Law Firm to discuss the dissolution of the agency relationship and ask for a refund of the agency fee. In the meantime, she said arrogantly, "If your requirements are not met, you can sue!" I said, "My purpose is to solve it through consultation." Finally, she said, "both sides will think about it and talk about it in a few days, but don't come next week. I'm very busy!" " "The negotiation failed, and she was obviously stalling.
After that, I went to Guiyang Lawyers Association for oral consultation on how to solve this matter without submitting any written materials. When she found out, she said that we would "sue" her. At this point, I decided to revoke Zou Rong's client's attorney qualification and submitted written materials to the county procuratorate.
Lawyer Zou Rong doesn't have the basic quality and professional ethics of a lawyer in many aspects. The preparation for meeting the parties is not in place, the meeting process is not sufficient, and the communication with family members after the meeting is impatient and perfunctory. The specific performance is as follows (the rules of punishment for violations by all members of all china lawyers association are attached in brackets).
1. Exaggerate one's ability and the serious consequences of the case before signing the entrustment, and take advantage of the psychology of the parties who are eager to handle the entrustment. She said that she had taken several hundred million cases, and only she knew about it.
2. After signing the entrustment agreement and collecting the fees, they didn't give us the contract and invoice (Item (5) of Article 11 in Chapter II). Article 14 If a group member fails to sign a written entrustment contract with the client as required, the lawyers' associations of provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the Central Government and cities divided into districts shall reprimand him, informed criticism him and publicly condemn him: (6) Failing to issue a legal bill for the lawyer's service fee to the client, or failing to submit a valid certificate for the fee expenditure to the client; )
3. Go directly to the detention center and ask for a meeting without going through the relevant procedures of the procuratorate.
The wrong name of the party makes it impossible to ask about the meeting.
5. Asking for property outside the contract can be reflected in many places in the materials (Item (9) of Article 11 accepts entrustment privately, collects fees from the client privately, or collects fees or property outside the provisions and agreements; )
6. The staff of the procuratorate and detention center have negative comments on their work ability and attitude.
7. Negative communication with the family members of the parties has caused great trouble to the family members.
8. If the negotiation fails, send a text message saying that a copy of the transcript is required, but there is no such thing, which constitutes a crime of defamation (Article 11 (28) There are other acts that violate the law or violate the lawyer's professional ethics and civic ethics, seriously damaging the lawyer's professional image; )。
9. Disclosing confidential cases to people unrelated to the same industry (Article 12, paragraph 1, divulging state secrets, Article 14, paragraph 16, divulging business secrets or personal privacy of the parties; )。
10. During the period of bail pending trial, the client tried to communicate with Zou Rong's lawyer by telephone, but the answer was that he could not communicate and negotiate, and Zou Rong's lawyer also threatened the client's work unit to harass him (Article 17 (3) retaliates against the complainant, witnesses and relevant personnel; )
Description: On 20 15 10 8 (the client has been released on bail pending trial), the family members of the client went to Guiyang Lawyers Association for advice on how to solve this matter, and received a warm reply from the attorney: it is suggested that the client communicate with Zou Rong to solve it. Therefore, the client communicated with Zou Rong by telephone at about 0: 30 am on October 23rd, 20 165438. The first time I dialed Zou's phone, she didn't answer. After a few minutes, Zou called the customer back and said that she was right about this matter and there was no room for discussion. She hung up before the client could speak. Only a few minutes later, Zou called the client again and threatened: I will splash you at the Education Bureau (the client's work unit). Then hang up the phone, so arrogant threat tone, visible its despicable behavior.
Husband was released from prison on 20 19, and communication with Zou Rong failed in February 19.
Therefore, in the absence of normal communication and consultation with Zou Rong, we especially reflected our concern to Guiyang Lawyers Association, and demanded to intervene in the investigation, demanding that the defendant fully refund the lawyer's fee of 30,000 yuan received in advance, and deal with his behavior accordingly.
But today, the whole thing has not been properly handled!