The Dublin Convention

[mh1]

I don't suppose you have any proof that P.M. Toft presented himself as 'lawyer' or 'attorney' to you or to other people, and if you don't there is nothing you can do except what you did here: warn others not to believe that he is a lawyer or knowledgable about law.

I am sorry for your bad experience, and I hope your real attorney will be able to sort things out for you.

[xixioge]

Hmm...Mh, the fact is when I asked my socialrådiger I needed a lawyer on immigration and family matters, he was the one they sent me to and has been having meetings with me since then. I've actually been having meetings with him since around jan. 2011 and he never for once told me I would need a lawyer to better answer my queries as he is just an adviser. He always put himself forward as the person that would help with my case. And the first thing he did when I started the process of renewing my papers was I had to sign an undertaking to give him 'fultmagt'!
I have had several emails and face to face interactions with him (sometimes when I needed him to contact one public institution or another regarding a problem and in the process, I always introduced him as 'my lawyer would like to ask certain questions etc on my behalf and then hand him the phone) yet he never for one second corrected me on any of these instances he isn't a lawyer.
See, I have loads of evidences with the way he has misrepresented himself as a lawyer and what with his taking on a case that was beyond his expertise and mis-advising me in the process i.e. why would someone that knows the law as he claims have told me to submit as many applications as possible at the same time to increase my chances of getting at least one permit!. He knew money lots of money was involved in the submission of these applications as well, but he told me I shouldn't worry about the money as he would see to it I got some of my money back from US. Now he avoids the money topic as much as possible each I remind him of the need to get some of my money back!
Lastly the email exchanges between us are enough evidences he misrepresented himself as a lawyer to me anyway.

[mh1]

The thing is:

the only thing you can do is to sue him, and that would most likely be at your own expense.

I cannot really see what a law suit against him could be based on. P.M. Toft has not defrauded you in the sense of the Criminal Code, therefore it is a Civil Law suit.

Since he is not working in a commercial company he is most likely not responsible according to the Law on Legal Advice.

He also does not seem to have gotten any personal payment from you, he has 'only' cost you to make unnecessary expenses and cost you time.

In the Danish legal system there is in my opinion zero chance that you will get any significant compensation, as your loss - except for the unnecessary costs for the applications - is not a monetary loss.

You MAY win a case against him and if so you MAY be awarded the costs of the court case (lawyer's fee + court fees), but you may also loose the case, if it is you who have called him 'my lawyer' and not he who has called himself a lawyer/attorney.

If you loose you may have to pay not only your own costs, but his as well.

The way you represent the case to me I do not think you have any chance of getting anything out of a court case except trouble, stress and expense.

If you want to pursue the matter, ask your attorney whether you in his/her opinion have a case for which you may be entitled to 'fri proces'. Show him your e-mail correspondence. In the Danish system you may under certain circumstances be entitled to having your lawyer's fee and court fees paid by the state. If your attorney thinks you have a case, you may apply for this 'fri proces' and if the authority thinks you have a winner's case they will grant you 'fri proces'.

If your attorney advices you against suing, or the authorities refuse your application, it means your chances of winning are more than slim.

[fundiver199]

I agree with mh. Just forget him and move on with your life. It is highly unlikely, that a case of bad councelling, for which you have paid nothing, is worth taking to the court.

[xixioge]

Thanks again Mh! And no, I ain't planning to sue him as I have more troubles than that to worry about right now.
Let's face it, I'm not as danish as him and so don't really know more than himself when it comes to danish law/rules e.g who is a lawyer and who is just a counsellor. The fact still stands that I requested to talk to a lawyer and he was brought forward to me as the supposed lawyer. And he has since that time always represented himself as a lawyer to me without ever telling me otherwise (even asked for 'fultmagt to handle the case!!). And however way we view this, I still feel it was wrong of him not to have told me that he wasn't really competent enough to handle such a case. I wasted my time, money and efforts following his advise hook and sinker thinking he was versed enough in that area, knew what he was doing and everything was in control as he always reassured me only to discover I went through the trouble and emotional trauma just for nothing at the end of the day .

Thanks also to fundiver199 by the way! Yeah, looking for a solution to my problem is my priority right now.

[xixioge]

I'm really getting confused right now. I just googled Peter Michael Toft and he is introduced as 'jurist' on the LOKK link - 'Jurist Peter Michael'. Jurist means lawyer in english, isn't it? Is he then a lawyer? Why then did he ask for 'fultmagt' in my case if he is indeed a lawyer as I was later told lawyers don't need that signatory before they can represent a client.

[mh1]

Did you read my explanation earlier?

I am 'jurist', as I have an LL.B + an LL.M, but I am NOT an attorney. Only attorneys can represent others without a specific 'fuldmagt' = power of attorney. Only attorneys can represent you in court cases.

Every mature (= 18 years of age or older) person with full capacity can represent another person, if (s)he has a power of attorney, written or oral.

When I googled P.M. Toft, he was represented as 'konsulent' at LOKK, and on LOKK's homepage a 'Peter Michael' is presented as 'jurist' (lawyer NOT attorney).

As I wrote earlier, if you have a Bachelor (LL.B) in law, you are entitled to call yourself 'lawyer'. If P.M. Toft does indeed have at least an LL.B, then he has not misrepresented himself, and your case would be even weaker.

If you want to let off some steam at least, you can write a formal letter of complaint to LOKK, but in your place I would get someone else to look through your correspondence and help you draft a letter, which is strictly factual.

[xixioge]

Thanks Mh! I'm still a bit confused. Do you mean Peter Michael Toft is different from Peter Michael even though they work for the same organisation? I have Peter Michael Toft's business card and what is written on it is - 'Legal Counsellor'. Based on this, does it mean he is a lawyer, just not an attorney?

[mh1]

As I also wrote earlier, anyone may call themselves 'Legal counsellor', but only those with legal education may call themselves 'lawyer'.

Not every lawyer is an attorney, but all attorneys are lawyers.

I am pretty sure P.M. Toft is NOT an attorney, because then why would he not write that on his card? My husband is both an academic with a phd and a docent title, but he is very happy to be able to add 'attorney' to those titles (and no, he is a Turkish lawyer and unfortunately cannot help you out).

I searched a bit more and it seems P.M. Toft is 'cand.jur.', that is: he has an LL.B and an LL.M, and has been working for LOKK for at least 8 years, so it baffles me that he should have handled your case so poorly.

[xixioge]

"I searched a bit more and it seems P.M. Toft is 'cand.jur.', that is: he has an LL.B and an LL.M, and has been working for LOKK for at least 8 years, so it baffles me that he should have handled your case so poorly."

Maybe he is a secret govt lawyer that hates foreigners?

[fundiver199]

Conspiracy theorys can for sure be very entertaining, but they are rarely worth wasting your time on. Like I said already, forget him and move on with your life. Maybe the two of you just had bad carma together or whatever. We will never know, and to be honest we have also only heard the story from your side.

That being said a degree in law does not ensure, that a person have a deep understanding of immigration law, since this is only a small corner of the education, and maybe he have not worked with it after his graduation.

I am an engineer myself, but that does not mean, I know how to build a bridge or a nuclear plant, even though some other engineers do.......

[mh1]

@ fundiver, Immigration Law is not one of the compulsory subjects, thus one may be a lawyer without ever having had a course on it. I haven't, all that I know about Immigration Law I have learned later.

PMT should, however, be familiar with it, since he has given talks and written papers on aspects of this part of the law. Also it is part of what LOKK advertises that they can give legal advice on.

[xixioge]

@ fundiver, Immigration Law is not one of the compulsory subjects, thus one may be a lawyer without ever having had a course on it. I haven't, all that I know about Immigration Law I have learned later.

PMT should, however, be familiar with it, since he has given talks and written papers on aspects of this part of the law. Also it is part of what LOKK advertises that they can give legal advice on.

Thanks so much for the bolded Mh!! The only explanation for a lawyer to have committed such blunders is that he is a pro-government lawyer who is bent on setting traps for applicants like myself. I still can't believe this man told me to push in 4 applications at the same time i.e. the more applications, the better my chances! Unfortunately US held on to the application I least had a chance while refusing to treat the others.

[fundiver199]

I still think, incompetence is a more likely explanation than conspiracy. But whatever. The important is, you have found someone else to help you now.