I got the impression the "list" is a list of preferable law firms to work with.
That is what I interpreted it as too - when someone was telling everyone *not* to deal with a firm who "wasn't on the official list" it seemed like a simple and reasonable question to ask where people could find that official list.
Apparently not.
Now people are trying to twist it into "demanding proof" of something. It obviously wasn't. I simply asked for clarification. Again, what I sad was "Can you maybe explain that / refer us to some official notice?". Hardly demanding private information that umbertoecho is claiming.
For some reason, some people feel they can tell others not only what to do and what not to do but also what questions they are allowed to ask.
There sure is a lot of miscommunication on this thread. And misunderstandings. Stealth, you have not read the OP correctly or followed the thread.
Actually, I think it's umbertoecho that doesn't seem to have read things properly and is the only one having trouble understanding what has been said and asked.
On this thread, we have had the information from someone involved in giving testimony to the RC that there is still two more years of testimony, etc. to collect.
No, we have someone who is claiming to have given testimony who is now telling other people what they can and cannot do and who they can and cannot deal with, Anyone can make a claim or could be mistaken in something they say, I don't think blind belief in what someone says does anyone any good when we're dealing with such important issues. People would be better referring to what the RC says - guess what, just like I suggested !
Instead of flying off the handle and start demanding "proof" of an "official list of legal representatives" and all those things that confrontational people like to demand, why not use your head?
No one has done that. The only person flying off the handle was umbertoecho who said people were only allowed to deal with representatives on some official list - isn't it a reasonable question to ask where they can find such a list if they should stick to it? Really, a list of apparently authorized legal firms is *not* personal information.
If the RC, which has done such an excellent job so far, is still involved in the collection of personal information from victims, and is also giving assistance to those victims in their pursuit of civil litigation...what is a private firm doing soliciting for business at this stage in the game? The RC is not even finished and yet a law firm, without access to the private information that the RC has, is going to be the solution that everybody jumps on?
No, but any legal firm is free to offer to represent anyone for any reason whatsoever. Everyone has the right to decide what is in their own best interests. Aren't you saying the exact thing that you accuse others of - that people have to jump on the RC as the one and only solution?
I have no doubt that the RC has and is doing a fine job but that is orthogonal to someone dealing with any law firm they may decide to.
There also seems to be an assumption that the only people who may have a complaint will be dealing with the RC and anyone who isn't can't possibly have a valid interest in seeking justice for themselves through whatever means they decide to follow.
I am not advocating for any option, just stating what the facts are. No doubt this will also be misinterpreted and blown up into something it isn't.