lawyer fees nightmare- my lawyer indirectly threatened me !

[justalayman]

You might be right, Ohiogal, but I am wondering about a "flat fee agreement" that says something like $1500 now and $3500 later if the case cannot be terminated. I would be interested in reading the actual contract.

m316 said he has paid the attorney $1500 and the case was not terminated - but it appears to be the attorney's decision not to terminate the case.

I admit that I am as confused by what is going on here as I was last night - this even after sleep and coffee - but it is possible m316 has a legitimate concern.

Maybe not likely ... but possible.

It appears the case is not eligible to be terminated so it has been dealt with as strongly as possible. The remainder of the fee was for future efforts to terminate the case.


I can understand op wanted to severe the contract here nam
And not be obligated. It appears attorney may actually be trying to do that by (possibly) terminating the existing binder and replacing it with one that describes the work already completed and accounting for the $1500.

Op refuses to agree to that becasue he wanted the lawyer to terminate the asylum issue. (Which attorney says is not possible at this time)

op then goes on to complain, several times, he feels attorney did not do $1500 worth of work.


So, what op actuslly wants is unknown to me becasue it sounds like attorney is willing to sever the relationship and accept work done as paid in full. I suspect op wants a full refund. I can see no other reason to not accept the new Retainer agreement otherwise.


Quack quack


I think part of the confusion may be op is using terminate to refer to his asylum action and we are using it to refer to the attorney client relationship.

The attorney appears to be willing to terminate the A/C relationship. Op originally wanted attorney to work to terminate this asylum issue.

 

[justalayman]

Did you disclose the fact and get his agreement to record the calls? If not, not only would they be inadmissible, but also be evidence against you for a crime.

Oh, he's got the attorney by the balls now

there are both civil and criminal penalties for recording phone calls illegally. It is also a crime to disclose those calls to others. Evidence obtained by illegal recordings is not admissible (except as evidence against the op for his criminal and civil trials against him)

The penalty the op could be subject to in either the civil or the criminal prosecution is between $2500 and $5000 for each of the issues.

But oh well, op is thrilled has has such a strong grasp on the attorneys parts.

So, is this like having a tiger by the tail?

 

[quincy]

It appears the case is not eligible to be terminated so it has been dealt with as strongly as possible. The remainder of the fee was for future efforts to terminate the case.


I can understand op wanted to severe the contract here nam
And not be obligated. It appears attorney may actually be trying to do that by (possibly) terminating the existing binder and replacing it with one that describes the work already completed and accounting for the $1500.

Op refuses to agree to that becasue he wanted the lawyer to terminate the asylum issue. (Which attorney says is not possible at this time)

op then goes on to complain, several times, he feels attorney did not do $1500 worth of work.


So, what op actuslly wants is unknown to me becasue it sounds like attorney is willing to sever the relationship and accept work done as paid in full. I suspect op wants a full refund. I can see no other reason to not accept the new Retainer agreement otherwise.


Quack quack


I think part of the confusion may be op is using terminate to refer to his asylum action and we are using it to refer to the attorney client relationship.

The attorney appears to be willing to terminate the A/C relationship. Op originally wanted attorney to work to terminate this asylum issue.

There are still far too many blanks that need filling in with facts for me to make sense of what is going on.

It doesn't help that the flat fee agreements in California do not appear to be quite like the flat fee agreements in Michigan, either. I think reading the contract in its entirety could clarify matters a bit.

At any rate, it could be a duck. Not convinced of that yet ... but it could be.


Edit to add a link to the Digital Media Law Project's California Recording Laws: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law