I haven't lost the case and I haven't dropped the suit.
Time to formaly terminate lawyer #2 find lawyer #3 and file a formal complaint with the Bar Association.
addition: Just went through all the papers lawyer #2 sent me which he based his withdraw on which are dated 3 months after the accident and there is information in them stating the injury was already in existence caused by the original accident, the date it happened meaning it was not new that day of which he is using as his basis of withdraw which is 3 months after the original accident. The 2nd incident was a by product of the first accident. Looks like he only read the first page. My impression of what's happening including what he said that day is he thinks I am lying about the origin of accident and there is written evidence that supports the date of the original accident. I am not sure as to why he appears to be ignoring it.
Since his position changed that day and the defendant and defendant's Council were there before me, I can only wonder what took place. I haven't formally terminated him nor informed him he is incorrect. I did tell him he was not correct on the origin/date of the injury as his date was 3 months later. It felt like I was being confronted by the defendant's Council. I was going to present this evidence at the motion but now it has been moved to 1 month later and have no idea as to what might be going on. It does appear he has become buddy buddy with the defendant's Council.
Time to formaly terminate lawyer #2 find lawyer #3 and file a formal complaint with the Bar Association.
addition: Just went through all the papers lawyer #2 sent me which he based his withdraw on which are dated 3 months after the accident and there is information in them stating the injury was already in existence caused by the original accident, the date it happened meaning it was not new that day of which he is using as his basis of withdraw which is 3 months after the original accident. The 2nd incident was a by product of the first accident. Looks like he only read the first page. My impression of what's happening including what he said that day is he thinks I am lying about the origin of accident and there is written evidence that supports the date of the original accident. I am not sure as to why he appears to be ignoring it.
Since his position changed that day and the defendant and defendant's Council were there before me, I can only wonder what took place. I haven't formally terminated him nor informed him he is incorrect. I did tell him he was not correct on the origin/date of the injury as his date was 3 months later. It felt like I was being confronted by the defendant's Council. I was going to present this evidence at the motion but now it has been moved to 1 month later and have no idea as to what might be going on. It does appear he has become buddy buddy with the defendant's Council.
Last edited: