I am writing up the Affidavit in Opposition and have been thinking. The "Agreement of Retainer" does state that all fee's. services etc will come from the settlement. It does not have statements stating client is liable for reimbursements separatly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand and agree the attorney's fees shall be 33-1/3% of any sums recovered.
I further understand that such attorneys's fees shall be computed on the net sum recovered after deducting from the amount recovered any expenses, filing fees, and disbursements for expert testimony and investigative and other services properly chargeable to the enforcement of the claim or prosecution of the action. In computing the fee, the costs as taxed, including interest upon a judgement shall be deemed part of the amount recovered. For the following or similar items, there shall be no deduction in computing such percentages: liens, assignments or claims in favor of hospitals, for medical care and treatment by doctors and nurses, or of self-insures or insurance carriers.
Indebtedness of client if any, relating to the accident or injuries, may be discharged before distribution of funds to client, and said attorney is authorized, as my agent, to disburse accordingly from my account from funds received.
The attorney reserves the right to withdraw from the case at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what is there.
Unless I am missing something here or there is a loophole. He shouldn't be entitled to any money. He withdrew using "conflict has arisen". He wasn't teminated.
Well that is putting it mildly. I can think of at least 3 major issues of conflict.
1) When he told me "you can't say I recommended that doctor" I looked at him and said I am NOT going to lie!
2) Not preparing for the case. Not being familiar with the case enough to know the time line and the documentation supporting the time line and because of that he got the time line wrong. He should have the same documentation I have acquired from the 2 doctors I had seen about the 1st /original accident. Those documents document the injury prior to the 2nd accident as well as the documentation of the 2nd accident stating no injury occurred in the 2nd accident and refers to the original injury as the source of the pain.
I am willing to bet the defendants attorney showed him the 2nd accident papers and scared the crap out of him. The evidence that exists that he didn't prepare is he had the documentation from 2 doctors pre dating the 2nd accident and could have leveled the field right there had he read the documentation or at least read the 2nd accident documentation. Instead he chose to hit me with it, having not seen or read all the documentation at that time (such as him) I didn't have much of a defense other than knowing which doctors were aware of the injury prior to the 2nd accident and stating that to him which was evident he didn't believe me. Hell if I could predict something 3 months in advance I wouldn't be here, I'd be buying stocks. I find it rather strange a lawyer would put a client in defense mode without the client being able to refresh their memory by reading the documentation on an accident 3 years old. I thought it was his job to represent his client.
3) I guess asking him if he had checked to see if this happened to anybody before at the same location, which I feel is related to the preparation of the case and him responding No must have irritated him as I'm a client and a layman, why would I think of those things and not him? Since there was allot of traffic that day there is very high chance someone saw what happened. Would running an ad for a few months to locate someone who saw what happenned as a witness be wrong? Am I not suppose to show any intelligence?
I also consider that when he stated "If you want to drop this, I won't charge you anything" while on the break of the deposition rather surprising and odd. When I said no, he then rebuted with "you will need to find another attorney". That in itself ended the deposition that day to me as I wouldn't have had any represention, which I had already felt about 5-10 min into the deposition and my personal reason for a break. Last I knew he was doing this for 33 1/3 %. It is very strange he bailed out so quickly on that day.
I personally think it hinges back to Items 1 & 2 above.