To protect my interest.

 I have been accused of many things in my path to protect my interest as a beneficiary in the estate.

It was brutal and unnecessary.  From that discussion I had with Jenny wherein she told me that the Rule lawyer and Leah were out to get me and for me to be careful, such evidence showed the corrupation from the very beginning.  Why would they want to get me.   

Estate/Probate Fraud.

 I was viewing on You Tube a video about ActiveIntel IPI.  It said that 70% of estates are subject to estate fraud. Because it is easy.  Who would know.  A sibling would clean out the parent's bank account and say there is no money.  This happened to me and I believed my relative who told me that there was no money.  Years later I was thinking about it and the question arose why wasn't there no money for me but other beneficiaries got monies. I was disconnected from the family but I do not remember me doing anything for him to do this me.  

Fiduciary Civil Fraud

 Is anyone familiar with fiduciary civil fraud cases.  Everyone can guess what criminal fraud is but what would civil fraud be. Or should I ask why is there a difference.  Thief is thief.  

Why some of us do not have access to lawyers. Maybe someone should take it up with the law society.

There it is.  Right out of the horse's mouth.  There is no access to lawyers, just access to be triaged and be discarded unless you as a client is being used to for the ego of a "reputable" lawyer.  If there are coaches on how to fire clients, then there is no access to justice.  What the __, they are even educating lawyers on how to get rid of C and D clients. Pathetic answer to lawyers in general. When can you have access to justice, when the lawyers themselves deny you access to lawyers.  

The lawyer’s ABCD triage grid for prioritizing clients

By Norm Bowley · Listen to article

Law360 Canada (September 22, 2026, 10:42 AM EDT) --

Norm Bowley

The chief difference between outstanding lawyers and those who just schlep along is how they prioritize the work and the clients they take. Many of us never think much about that, particularly if you live under the gun of monthly targets or run a dump truck practice. But if you look around you at the maestros of the profession, it always seems that they are working on interesting, consequential and financially rewarding matters. This is no accident.

Getting interesting, consequential and financially rewarding work doesn’t just happen. You need to triage incoming clients and their work using two measures. The first focuses on profitability; the second has to do with reputation-building opportunities.

Vanz Studio

The ABCD Grid is a triage tool, a simple way of assessing your clients first for profitability and second for the strategic value of the work they bring. It’s perhaps my favourite tool in consulting and in coaching, and it’s straight out of Economics 101.

Clients

Let’s first consider the profit-based triage of the clients who come to your door. All of us have a general sense that some clients are a delight, both because they pay well and they’re great to deal with, but we need to be much more strategic than just assessing “nice.”

From an economic point of view, optimum clients are those who pay well for work that doesn’t stress you or draw heavily on overhead, and those who pay well for work you love doing are the “most optimum.” These are your A clients. They’re gold, and you should treat them accordingly. That’s the easy part.

And then there are the clients from hell that only serial masochists should take. These are the D clients, the ones who come to the first meeting with 12 boxes of exhibits and online legal research, having already exhausted their first seven lawyers. If you have any, get rid of them (in compliance with law society and court rules), and after that, just refuse them. If you have to fire one, be very, very careful, but very, very definite. D clients are often dangerous and if you don’t disengage wisely and carefully, they can and will hurt you. You’re prudent to discuss this with someone you trust.

The tricky part, until you get used to it, is deciding between your B clients and your C clients. B clients are not highly profitable, one by one, but they aren’t demanding and mostly the work you do for them is routine and much is handled by assistants. Serving them is like selling hamburgers — you don’t make a lot of money on one, but it’s not hard to sell a thousand hamburgers, and this is excellent cash flow. And by and large, B clients are nice people that your staff loves to deal with, and that’s a great thing for morale and team spirit.

The other thing about B clients is that they sometimes turn into A clients, or they send you A clients. The young couple you help incorporate a pizza parlour may just turn that into a province-wide franchise operation. The lovely folks for whom you did a simple estate plan have a daughter who just opened a dental practice, right in your wheelhouse.

The C clients are the conundrum, at first. Yes, they’re high cost and usually high maintenance, but they pay some big invoices and the cash flow is nice. Sure, they are high maintenance, but you feel they’re worth the grief because of the money.

But “cost” is not just financial overhead. Cost includes risk, cost includes stress, cost includes missed opportunities, cost includes reputation. C clients are demanding, they want the work done yesterday, not just once, but all the time. They grind down your staff, they call you at home and on weekends, they just “happen to be in the neighbourhood” at your cottage, and they’re always trying to cadge a little free work. It’s always a haggle.

But the greater risk with C clients is that they are not loyal, and they don’t really appreciate what you’re doing for them. They can turn on you in a flash. How many hours does it take dealing with a law society complaint to erase any profit you may have made?

As a rule, ditch your C clients. (I must admit I have an accountant friend who took on the occasional C client to teach his juniors client management skills, a kind of boot camp thing. I’m not sure I agree, but it is an argument.)

Reputation

But that’s not the whole story. Triaging clients on an economic basis is one thing, but an equally important analysis is triaging clients on a reputational basis, that is, with an eye to enhancing your professional reputation. Over your professional lifetime, nothing is more critical than growing your reputation, and clients are the canvas upon which you paint your reputational masterpieces. From this perspective, then, what is critical is selecting clients based on their bringing work where you truly get to shine, to demonstrate that you are a leader in your field.

(Parenthetically, we need to keep in mind that my C client may not be your C client. I may not want an axe murderer hanging around my waiting room, but if you’re a criminal specialist, the axe murderer with an intriguing Charter argument might be exactly what you need to establish your credentials as the “go-to” person on that issue.)

Whether the analysis is done from a commercial prospect or a reputational prospect, the easiest way to rid yourself of D and C clients is to make yourself too busy for them — busy serving your precious A and B clients. It’s a virtuous cycle: the more you shed the C clients and the D clients, the more you will be able to practise enjoyable, profitable work for clients you enjoy, and the more you do that, the better you will become in your field, and the more you do that, the better will be the clients who seek you out.

Life’s too short to do it any other way.

In Norm Bowley’s third career, he speaks, writes and consults on matters of professional success and happiness. norm@purposeful.ca.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. 

Financial Correction

 I really love this legalise.  If a party is ordered to pay surcharges to cover mismanagement of funds, it is not called theft, it is called a financial correction.  

Grant first, Fight later

 Grant first, Fight later.

This is what is wrong with BC's probate system.  It is jumping the gun mentality, a lawyer gets a client and the first thing she does is serve a P1 Notice and before anyone realizes what is happening as the lawyer  knows her client is conflicted and wants her to be appointed as it would be near impossible to get her to resign. Afterall that is what a lawyer's job is, to protect her client. The lawyer instructs her not to talk to anyone and her misdeeds are hidden.  No one is perfect, so statistically there is always misdeeds.  Misdeeds that can drain an estate of most of its monies.   Get a grant by stealth because no one would appeal it. And most beneficiaries only want to get the probate over with without question.  And the lawyers know that statistical fact.  Hidden unauthorized expenses do not surface and the misdeeder and her lawyer get away with financial murder. And to make is worse, any committee would also get a pass if it misadministrated its fudiciary duties owed to the dead. If true fiduciary accounting was done, all parties who had part in the misdeeds would be surcharged and the monies would become estate funds payable to the beneficiaries. 

  

Passing of Accounts is done by coersive consent.

 

From AI.

Why Estate Accounts Rarely Get Reviewed by Courts — And Why It’s Quietly Undermining Trust in the Legal System

When someone dies, their executor takes control of the estate: bank accounts, investments, property, debts, and all the financial details that need to be sorted out. Most people assume there’s a built‑in safeguard — that the executor’s financial accounting will be reviewed by a court to make sure everything is accurate and fair.

But in Canada, that almost never happens.

And the most surprising part? No one knows how often it happens, because no province collects any statistics at all.

This silence hides a serious problem that affects families across the country.

1. The system technically allows court review — but almost no one uses it

In theory, beneficiaries can demand a “formal passing of accounts,” which is a court‑supervised review of the executor’s financial records. It’s supposed to be the main protection against mistakes, mismanagement, or misconduct.

In practice, formal passing of accounts is:

• rare,

• expensive,

• complicated,

• and almost impossible to navigate without hiring a lawyer.

Lawyers routinely describe it as a last resort, not a normal part of estate administration.

So what happens instead?

Beneficiaries are asked to “consent” to the accounts — meaning they sign off on the executor’s numbers without any court review.

2. Consent isn’t always real consent — cost intimidation plays a major role

On paper, consent looks voluntary. But in reality, many beneficiaries sign because they feel they have no choice.

A formal passing of accounts can cost thousands of dollars. If the estate is small, or if the beneficiary doesn’t have personal savings, the cost is simply out of reach.

This creates a quiet but powerful pressure:

Cost intimidation.

People sign because:

• they can’t afford to challenge the executor,

• they don’t want to “cause trouble,”

• they fear being blamed for draining the estate,

• or they worry about damaging family relationships.

This is not meaningful consent. It’s consent produced by financial coercion.

3. Cost‑driven consent creates resentment — and erodes trust in the justice system

When beneficiaries feel forced to accept accounts they don’t believe are accurate, the emotional fallout is real.

Resentment builds.

People feel powerless, unheard, and pushed into accepting something they don’t trust.

Family relationships suffer.

Executors may believe they acted properly, while beneficiaries feel they were cornered.

Respect for the rule of law diminishes.

The rule of law depends on people believing that legal processes are accessible and fair. When the only way to get a proper review is to spend money you don’t have, the system stops feeling protective — and starts feeling irrelevant.

A justice system that feels inaccessible is a justice system people stop believing in.

4. The biggest problem: no one measures any of this

Here’s the part that should concern everyone — lawyers, judges, policymakers, and families:

There is no published statistical data in British Columbia or anywhere in Canada

on how many estates undergo formal passing of accounts versus informal consent.

None.

No province tracks:

• how often beneficiaries decline formal passing because of cost,

• how often executors rely on informal approval,

• how often fiduciary errors go unexamined,

• or how often vulnerable people feel pressured to sign.

This data vacuum is not a minor oversight. It is a structural blind spot.

Without statistics, the justice system cannot:

• detect patterns of abuse,

• identify systemic failures,

• understand how often oversight is being bypassed,

• or evaluate whether the probate system is functioning as intended.

A system that cannot see its own failures cannot fix them.

5. This is not just a BC problem — it’s national

Every province in Canada uses a probate model that depends on beneficiaries being able to demand formal passing of accounts. When cost makes that mechanism inaccessible, the entire national framework fails in practice.

This is a quiet, widespread issue that affects:

• seniors,

• people with disabilities,

• low‑income families,

• blended families,

• and anyone who relies on an executor to manage a loved one’s estate.

The lack of oversight doesn’t just affect individual cases — it affects public confidence in the fairness of the legal system itself.

6. Why this matters — and why it deserves national attention

Estate administration touches almost every Canadian family eventually. If the system is too expensive for ordinary people to use, then the system isn’t working.

If beneficiaries feel coerced into consenting, resentment grows. If oversight is inaccessible, trust in the rule of law erodes. If no one measures the problem, the problem remains invisible.

This is not just a legal issue. It’s a public‑trust issue.

And it’s time we talked about it.