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 fuck, they are even educating lawyers on how to get rid of C and D clients.  

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.

Money, money, money

 I was going over the estate file.  There it was screaming at me.  Jenny, in 2022, purchased a van with a customized electric wheelchair lift.  With taxes and everything it was $100,000.  Why was that necessary when my brother was mobile.  But then it is easier for a caregiver to restrain him in a wheelchair than to deal with someone who is stubborn.  Chain him into a wheelchair and off you go. I understand that.

But what I do not understand is why the PGT allowed this $100,000 asset to depreciate over 2.5 years to $40,000.  The PGT should have arranged to sell the van immediately upon death of my brother.  When I researched in 2023 the van and the wheelchair lift, I was told that a customized van does not depreciate.  They are in high demand, so how was it being sold for $40,000 to someone in Alberta.  

The point is that asset should have been sold in 2022 by the PGT as she was the person in charge of the estate, therefore the PGT owes the estate $60,000 for not selling the van in a timely matter with the estate incurring a $60,000 loss. The question also is who was using the van after my brother died.  I can't ask my sister because her lawyer won't let her talk to me. Apparently her adult daughter was using it in 2025 as she had it tuned up prior to its sale.  It really does not matter who used what or when, the PGT owes the estate $60,000.

Then we got Candace the lawyer for my sister, the administrator of the estate.  Why didn't Candace go after the $60,000. It was a recoverable debt to the estate. It was her job to get the money from the PGT. And it was also Candace's job to make sure that the PGT collected the occupation rent that the administrator owes to the Estate plus interest.  How many other transactions were also not documented.  

In fact Candace told my sister to take no issue to the debt (see passing of accounts application).  In other words the Estate gifted the PGT $60,000. Remember the money belongs to the beneficiaries. And Candace and Heather are best besties.  They both agreed that beneficiaries have no rights.  

I did a court application asking for standing to participate in the PGT's passing of accounts application and the lawyers opposed it and the Court agreed. They with their half truths convinced the judge at the hearing that I had no rights.   The litigators said that the PPA, the Patients Property Act,  had jurisdiction.  Not true.  After death the property has to be passed by probate which guarantees beneficiaries rights to question all transaction pre and post death of the Person and expect reimbursement of monies to the estate if an expense was not reasonable, necessary or for the direct benefit of the Person. 

The Court made a mistake. There is no such thing as the administrator should get additional compensation because of her "kindness of living on the property ... no doubt she enjoyed living on the rural property and had some benefit from it."   That means to me any caregiver can drain an estate because she is kind.  It is there in black and white Reasons November 7 2025.  And then the court goes on to say that beneficiaries are not entitled to test the expenses because it might be a long drawn-out process. Well, then what is the point of the passing of the accounts.  To me the court is saying its role is to "rubber stamp" 597 pages of transactions without independent scrutiny.  

The Estate is owned by four beneficiaries, and Candace cannot gift anything on behalf of the administrator or anyone else.  And Heather cannot produce a lawful application without disclosing debts owed by the PGT to the Estate. But she did.  The PGT produced a spreadsheet with $8 million of transactions saying to the Court trust me.

This Estate reminds of a shell game.  No one knows or sees where the 'pea' lands.   

Definition from the internet. A police state usually depends on a combination of concentrated state power, weak independent oversight, limited ability to challenge officials, surveillance or intimidation, and secrecy about how decisions are made. When only authorities know the evidence, criteria, internal communications, or reasons for action, it becomes much harder for ordinary people to test whether power is being exercised lawfully. Mirrors the PGT.  Coersive consent.  PGT overreach. 

Half Truths or Narrative Enrichment

 I am extremely upset over the fact that the courts allow half truths in proceedings.  It is nauseating.  When a judge asks a lawyer what is the "silver bullet" to understand a statute, the lawyer in this case Heather shows him the statute that says that the accounts have to be delivered to the administrator.  She just neglects to show him the part that says if the administrator is in conflict then the accounts have to be delivered to the beneficiaries.  Half truths are permitted to my nauseatation.  I always believed that such juvenile behavior did not belong in the courts.  

Another illustration I asked Candace about the occupation rent that the administrator owes to the estate and she said that will not be discussed until the final disposition.  I have been asking her for this for over a year.  My research has been that such disclosure should have been made even before Jenny became the administrator.  But Candace just ignores the law.  Why because she can.  If a lawyer waits to the last minute, the beneficiaries are fed up and they will just agree to any compromise that is unjust just to get the probate over with.  In this case we are talking about 2.5 years of occupation rent at a market rate of $5,000 a month.  The rent covers a rural property with a 4,000 square foot home fully air conditioned in Kamloops, with a swimming pool, and 20 acres of property sloping gently down to a creek.  The property was purchased from monies from the estate so that the administrator had a place to board her four horses for free. This was one of the half truths  (omissions) Heather/Candace did not tell the Justice on November 7.  A passing of accounts has to tell exactly how money was spent (who was being enriched). Such evidence was totally absent at the hearing and also in the 597 pages of transactions submitted to the court. This was fucking outrageous.  I do not have time to go into detail but I will when I have additional time. There is something terribly wrong with our judicial system that allows this.  No wonder it is so expensive when the lawyers spend hours extracting how to present their half-lies.  They are not called lies, they are called omissions.  What I do not understand is why my sister is allowing her lawyer to do it.  And I also want to know why the PGT is allowing its lawyer to do it as well.  That is not a fair playing field.  It is a waste of time and such omisisons do influence court decisions.  I did not know this but judges are not expected to know the law; it is legal for them to defer to the truth of the lawyers for the interpretation of laws. No independent analysis.  And the lawyers rely on this ignorance and they exploit it.  

An example of a half truth.  The swimming pool.  It was purchased for my brother for therapy.  But Jenny decided she needed a fenced area for her "animals" so she had the estate spent $4,000 to have it filled in and have 2,000 square feet fenced in so her animals had a place to play.  And she had more than one animal. The house was like a zoo. 

The narrative enrichment was when Candace/Heather were going on and on about Jenny deserving additional compensation.  Compensation to drain the estate for her own use or maybe the animals were only for the benefit of my brother.  Take that to the fiduciary court.

Now I see what the problem is.  It is Dana Kingsbury, who is the PGT.  She is a dictator.  She does not even have a board of directors to account to.  Horror upon horror.  You can compare her office as that of a police state.  No wonder lawyers are afraid of her.  I have been also been told by others who were badly treated by the PGT to also be afraid. I just checked on the internet; it does not take a rocket scientist to know that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What has happened is administrative law has overtaken commonsense. 

A paragraph from my affidavit of January 10 2025.

36. I told the beneficiaries that if they wanted to gift Jenny the rents due and owing they could 

do it independently from their share of their inheritances. Again, I was ghosted. For me this isn't 

only about the money, it is about the unethical stealth way the probate was being done. I expected 

honesty from the beneficiaries and due process from the lawyers. What I got was uncertainty, 

stress, and betrayal, distrust of the legal process, and the lost of all hope of any meaningful 

reunion with family members going forward.

A Billion Dollar Blind Spot

 Why I am doing this.

Canada's fiduciary landscape is vast:

- public guardians manage the property of tens of thousands of adults without receipts

- private attorneys and committees oversee the finances of aging parents and incapacited relations

- trustees administrer esates worth billions annually.

If 1% of fiduciary managed assets leak through unnecessay fees, undocumented disbursements, or administrative overreach, the annual loss could reach hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

And my experience has been that lawyers direct administrators to fully take advantage of their positions enforcing the justification that they are entitled. The entitled part comes from admistrators enriching themselves by self dealing.  

Fiduciary systems operate behind closed doors, with limited transparecny, inconsistent oversight, and procedural shortcuts that would be untinkable in any other financial sector.  Money drifts away through fees, administrative decisions, undocumented expenditures, and structural blind sports.