Let me correct a misconception that only years of wisdom and working as a consultant to more than a dozen lawfirms has become etched in stone...lawfirms are not non-profits, nor are they social workers and they will usually sell the client on what they want the client to do, regardless of the clients best interest, but definitely to the benefit of the lawfirms bottom line.
Any Attorney will usually include a second opinion clause in their contracts or at the very least suggest that a client have another attorney look at the contract or settlement offer before they sign it. This is designed as a disarming tactic to make the client believe they do have the clients best interest at heart, when in reality the firm's cash-flow and time clock are the primary considerations...as a rule, the faster you achieve a settlement the more money per hour the firm makes.
Want to see a lawfirm go ballistic???...Take the firm up on the second opinion option and tell them they want a second opinion before they sign any agreement...most lawyers will be sweating bullets and praying the client does not upset the apple cart with a second opinion. I have even seen lawyers through the client under the bus and set themselves up for malpractice claims the minute they realize their own credibility is at stake. On just recently went to malpractice counsel because the Closing atty forgot to include the past due taxes on a settlement statement and the client signed a waiver to FNMA, the foreclosed property owner. This resulted in a second opinion that noticed the atty, who represented the bank, had included a fee of $500 to represent the buyer and included buyers title coverage. A review of the line of title opened up another can of worms when it was clear that the party that actually owned the loan was not the party that foreclosed, meaning she did not have a clear title. The $2,700 in past due taxes became a secondary issue...I can assure you, the closing attorney wishes he had been bright enough to simply pay for the error (had a $5,000 deductible on his errors and omissions coverage) and save himself loads of problems from a suite for unfair and deceptive, breach of fiduciary duty, defective title and a host of additional charges to deal with, not to mention a bar complaint for conflict of interest undisclosed to the client.
So, Adam, don't count on that capability because it is based upon the purity of "clients best interest" and the soundness of the advise given...one is left to carefully weigh the issues, including the ramifications of settling way too early and playing enabler for a miscreant pedophile!!!
Then also, we must consider that we all must ultimately be accountable to our creator, regardless of the legal advise!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
As I stated they are very capable of making their own decisions! I am sure their attorney's will advise them in what is in the best interest for them.
As for the statue of limitations- has no one thought maybe such an agreement was extended? This talk of the statue having ran out is just stupid.
Author
Topic: Law suit is Imminent (Read 129688 times)
