Attorney Agreement Entered into While Hospital Confined, Medicated

[LtTragg]

Contracts are presumed valid. You will have to prove in a court of law you were so intoxicated that you did not know the meaning of your acts. That is a high hurdle which you may or may not overcome. Second, you will have to show how come you did not disafirm the contract when you became not intoxicated. It seemed like you had knowledge of the contract and what it meant and intentionally took benefit from it and only now you want it to be invalid. You are a long way and years of hard work from there.


If you could be clear and explicit, why didn't you disafirm the contract then? You will need to choose one strategy or the other. Lessen damages argument or increase chance of liability, not both.

Good luck, let us know when problems develop.

I knew nothing of the contract until after I dismissed him, and he referred to it in a letter. Then I found it amongst hospital discharge records.

I would not, won't, nor will I ever pay someone hundred of dollars, to do something I can do myself, ESPECIALLY when I've done it successfully before. Needless to say, there's less a chance this will happen when dollar amounts are in the thousands.

 

[tranquility]

You have nothing until you go to court, win and get a judgment reforming or invalidating the contract. What you suppose is the answer or the end result is irrelevant.

I knew nothing of the contract until after I dismissed him, and he referred to it in a letter.

The retainer letter is standard in all attorney/client relationships. You gained benefit from his services and knew you were gaining benefit and should have known there was a legal agreement between the two of you. You can make all the arguments of stupidity or ignorance or whatever, but you have many problems to getting what you want. I suggest a professional to assist you as you will not be successful on your own. None of your arguments are focused enough to prove the elements you need to prove (the burden will be on you) and each attempt to state your case brings up other issues you will then need to surmount.

As I asked previously, are you still on narcotics? Are you under the care of a mental health professional for anything? It seems as though you are unrealistic in your view of the situation. Delusional, almost.

 

[LtTragg]

Delusional?

In which argument? The first - that an agreement signed while confined to a hospital bed, and under the influence of narcotics, is a valid contract? I see no argument there; that seems to be the consensus of most with whom I've spoken... As I said before, a few attempted to address that, asking if I had any friend or family present.

Or the second - that I've been damaged?

 

[tranquility]

Both. The consensus is something which must be proved in court to be of any use to you. You have real problems proving you had no idea what was happening and that you did not knowingly gain value from the contract (aka affirm), once you got out. You are a long way from proving either of those to your benefit and both have the burden on you as contracts are presumed to be valid.

The second, you haven't been damaged in the way damages are measured in a legal sense as you have not successfully done the above as yet. If you do the above and win, THEN, IF the money is not returned quickly you may have damages. If we pretend a bunch of facts regarding the lawyer's knowledge and intent and assume some things which you have not stated on how he came to your room that day, we might extend the damage portion some, but that is a lot of assumptions.

You have nothing right now. You will continue to have nothing until you sue the attorney to void the contract. I think that suit is immensely harder than you think it will be. While it is entirely possible you didn't have capacity to contract while in the hospital, I don't think you can prove you timely disaffirmed the contract once you gained capacity back. (Absent the narcotic or delusional questions I keep asking and you don't answer.) Once you go through the years of the lawsuit, then you have the right to your money if you win. No counterclaim for additional damages absent substantive additional facts we can only guess at.

 

[LtTragg]

The retainer letter is standard in all attorney/client relationships.

It is? Hmm... I've had an attorney for 2 traffic offenses in my lifetime, and NEITHER relationship involved a 'retainer letter' [agreement/contract]. Additionally, I had an attorney represent me in a civil issue OUTSIDE of a court of law, and NO retainer letter [agreement/contract] was involved. So in 100% of all attorney relationships I've had, there was NO paper.

You ... and should have known there was a legal agreement between the two of you.

Yes; I should have known there WAS paper this time, huh? Ugh.

In the other 3 cases, the outcome was UNcertain, and there was NO paper. This time, the outcome WAS certain, and no paper was [should have been] necessary. Hmm... Ugh.

But yes, I SHOULD have known so, because he SHOULD have reviewed with me ALL details, including the existence of the 'agreement', in (specific) accordance with bar ethics guidelines. He did NOT. But he did do what I commanded him to NOT do. Hmm...

Your argument was ok, but ...

(I did make note of the review failure issue in bar grievance letter)

But keep bringing arguments; this is good!

 

[Ohiogal]

Delusional?

In which argument? The first - that an agreement signed while confined to a hospital bed, and under the influence of narcotics, is a valid contract? I see no argument there; that seems to be the consensus of most with whom I've spoken... As I said before, a few attempted to address that, asking if I had any friend or family present.

Or the second - that I've been damaged?

So you never hired him but you knew he was working for you so you dismissed him after you allowed him to do work for you and get you money.

 

[Ohiogal]

It is? Hmm... I've had an attorney for 2 traffic offenses in my lifetime, and NEITHER relationship involved a 'retainer letter' [agreement/contract]. Additionally, I had an attorney represent me in a civil issue OUTSIDE of a court of law, and NO retainer letter [agreement/contract] was involved. So in 100% of all attorney relationships I've had, there was NO paper. Yes; I should have known there WAS paper this time, huh? Ugh.

In the other 3 cases, the outcome was UNcertain, and there was NO paper. This time, the outcome WAS certain, and no paper was [should have been] necessary. Hmm... Ugh.

But yes, I SHOULD have known so, because he SHOULD have reviewed with me ALL details, including the existence of the 'agreement', in (specific) accordance with bar ethics guidelines. He did NOT. But he did do what I commanded him to NOT do. Hmm...

Your argument was ok, but ...

(I did make note of the review failure issue in bar grievance letter)

But keep bringing arguments; this is good!

Retainer agreements are standard and you signed it. A retainer agreement has become -- quite frankly -- required.

 

[tranquility]

But keep bringing arguments; this is good!

Actually, it's not as you don't seem to be understanding the point or the process. From your responses, it appears you may not understand what is happening. In my posts, I've listed the issues you have. Those are not arguable, they are the things which you will need to bring in facts to argue why they do or do not apply.

Frankly, you are not doing a good job at that as I have not really been disecting your facts and have just been accepting them. While you clearly have intelligence, it seems you are not processing things properly. Again, not as an insult, but are you taking narcotics now? Are you under the care of a mental health professional? Should you be?

You need an attorney, now. Or, you can kiss the money goodbye. EVEN WITH AN ATTORNEY, you may have severe problems. But without, you are just going to become frustrated and risk sanctions from the court.

 

[LtTragg]

Retainer agreements are standard and you signed it. A retainer agreement has become -- quite frankly -- required.

'Quite frankly'?

You don't be 'quite frank', when it comes to law and contracts. You spell EVERYTHING out, ESPECIALLY when you are the professional (at law), and the other party is not, AND, when you have your clients' medical records, indicating physical and cognitive impairment.

You then review [with client] at every step along the way - as spelled out in this state's ethical conduct rules. He NEVER did.

As noted before, a superior court judge has already presumed invalidation of this 'contract', and negotiation in my favor, after seeing some particulars. He expressed NO doubts. Only the merits and degree of a malpractice counterclaim remain in question...

 

[LtTragg]

Thanks mods/admins.

You cut off the new developments from the new thread, and didn't add them to this thread, which was a year old. Great work...

You should have read the new info, instead of listening to the whiners who were getting a modest schooling in that thread (and lots of critical reading tips). You then would have seen that what has developed has changed the circumstances substantially.

One always hopes to find a gem in the rough, but sometimes one only finds more fertilizer, and gets what's paid for (see website title).

This gem must vacate this 'rough'. Have a good day.

 

[tranquility]

There's been a year and no new *actual* facts or legal theories developed. A couple of changed arguments--which are still lacking.

A YEAR over the fact of an attorney who did work and who the OP does not want to compensate as he feels he could have done that work just as well. Sure, there was a signed contract, but the OP was in the hospital and under narcotics for pain.

The hurdles are the same.

-Prove you were too high to make a contract.
-Prove you disaffirmed the contract you were too high to make within a reasonable time once you regained your capacity.
-Once you do those things, prove the attorney did not earn any money for the work he did.