previous attorney put lien, new one dropped case

[justalayman]

I get that, but I don't have the money to pay him and won't until my case is settled. Which can't happen unless I get another attorney. If I don't have the means to fight the trustee, this lien won't get him his money anyway because the trustee will make sure of that. He's already broken many laws. He will just continue to.

Thats why you’re going to court; to put s stop to the trustees illegal activities, right?

 

[CharlieS15]

It's unfortunate that you fired him.

I had no option. He didn't even know what he was doing. He filed things incorrectly, didn't review critical evidence I sent him yet claimed he reviewed everything. He lied, he overcharged. It's too much to type. He did everything all wrong.

 

[CharlieS15]

You don’t get to stand on the contract regarding paying him because you have terminated the contract He is due his pay.

That doesn't make sense. If that's the case, than why does HE get to stand on it? He did not honor our agreement or what he told me in the consultation. This is what eventually led to me firing him. Most of these charges are a result of his incompetence and lack of experience in this area of law. He was referred to me by an friend who told him of my situation and he said he would be able to help a lot.

Then in the consultation, he mislead me as to his expertise. He has apparently never even handled a case like this. That became pretty obvious. So much of the work he did was done for no valid reason and he should have known better or not agreed to represent me in the first place. He has undoubtedly damaged my case and lost more assets as a result.

I don't think I owe him half of what he charged. But again, that's beside the point because he knew I didn't have the funds to pay him yet.

 

[CharlieS15]

Thats why you’re going to court; to put s stop to the trustees illegal activities, right?

Yes, and to get justice and my inheritance.

 

[justalayman]

That doesn't make sense. If that's the case, than why does HE get to stand on it? He did not honor our agreement or what he told me in the consultation. This is what eventually led to me firing him. Most of these charges are a result of his incompetence and lack of experience in this area of law. He was referred to me by an friend who told him of my situation and he said he would be able to help a lot.

Then in the consultation, he mislead me as to his expertise. He has apparently never even handled a case like this. That became pretty obvious. So much of the work he did was done for no valid reason and he should have known better or not agreed to represent me in the first place. He has undoubtedly damaged my case and lost more assets as a result.

I don't think I owe him half of what he charged. But again, that's beside the point because he knew I didn't have the funds to pay him yet.

He is not standing on the contract. He wants what he is due since you terminated the contract.

If you want to sue that attorney for a breach of contract or any other action, have at it but until a court says otherwise, you owe what you owe.

 

[justalayman]

Yes, and to get justice and my inheritance.

You don’t inherit through a trust. You are named beneficiary (if that is what the trustor intends) and receive money if the trust says you get money. The trustee is obligated to act as the trust documents direct.

A lot of trusts are not created to simply pay out the assets upon the trustor death. Some trusts never pay out the corpus of the trust. To know what you are due from the trust, the creating documents would have to be studied.

 

[Shadowbunny]

.... I wanted to file suit immediately and he suggested we start with a demand letter. Which I told him was a waste of time. I was right. I just don't understand why he dropped my case. ......

I had no option. He didn't even know what he was doing. He filed things incorrectly, didn't review critical evidence I sent him yet claimed he reviewed everything. He lied, he overcharged. It's too much to type. He did everything all wrong.

Just from those two items above I have a feeling that the attorneys (rightfully) felt that you were trying to tell them how to run the case. Between that and not paying, I suspect you'll have a hard time finding anyone to represent you.

 

[CharlieS15]

He is not standing on the contract. He wants what he is due since you terminated the contract.

If you want to sue that attorney for a breach of contract or any other action, have at it but until a court says otherwise, you owe what you owe.

How is he not standing on it if it was in the contract that I would pay him? Isn't this then him trying to enforce his contract? How can it even be proven that he ACTUALLY did the work he charged for and that it took the amount of time he claims it did and charged for? Because I don't believe a lot of it. Therefore because of that and previous reasons already stated, I don't believe he's due most of that.

 

[CharlieS15]

Just from those two items above I have a feeling that the attorneys (rightfully) felt that you were trying to tell them how to run the case. Between that and not paying, I suspect you'll have a hard time finding anyone to represent you.

I wasn't. I took their advice despite me not agreeing with it, and it got us nowhere. Just a massive bill with zero results.
The guy tried to file a petition in probate when trusts do not go through probate. (As multiple other attorneys later told me.) It got rejected. He didn't know what he was doing and he lied about reviewing key evidence that completely proves the trustees illegal actions. I did pay the 2nd one, and again, the 1st one was to be paid when the case settled. I wasn't NOT going to pay him.

 

[CharlieS15]

You don’t inherit through a trust. You are named beneficiary (if that is what the trustor intends) and receive money if the trust says you get money. The trustee is obligated to act as the trust documents direct.

A lot of trusts are not created to simply pay out the assets upon the trustor death. Some trusts never pay out the corpus of the trust. To know what you are due from the trust, the creating documents would have to be studied.

Sure I do. That's how the trust and pour over will is written. It has been reviewed. All property was put into the trust.

 

[justalayman]

How is he not standing on it if it was in the contract that I would pay him? Isn't this then him trying to enforce his contract? How can it even be proven that he ACTUALLY did the work he charged for and that it took the amount of time he claims it did and charged for? Because I don't believe a lot of it. Therefore because of that and previous reasons already stated, I don't believe he's due most of that.

The contract is now done with. What you owe accrued while the contract was in place. It became an outstanding debt for you when you terminated the contract.

So yes, for him demanding payment for work performed, you can say he is standing on the contract if it makes more sense to you but it is only to support his demand for payment for work performed. If you believe he breached the contract then act accordingly. What you are implying is he is guilty of legal malpractice. It may be a valid option for you. Just get out your checkbook and start hunting for a lawyer that agrees and will take your case.

 

[justalayman]

Sure I do. That's how the trust and pour over will is written. It has been reviewed. All property was put into the trust.

Sure you do What? Inherit from a trust? You don’t technically inherit from a trust. You are named beneficiary of the trust and the terms of the trust are whatever the trustor makes them to be. Distribution of the trust or any action of the trust doesn’t depend on the life or death of the trustor unless the trustor creates the trust to be affected by such actions.

If you are to recieve the corpus of the trust upon the death of the trustor, it is not controlled by the probate laws that address inheritance matters. It is controlled by the laws regarding trusts. In fact, technically you aren’t even receiving it from your father. Your father transferred ownership of the assets to the trust. You will be receiving whatever you receive from the trust itself.


But that is a matter of semantics and doesn’t change anything you seem to be concerned with currently.

 

[CharlieS15]

Sure you do What? Inherit from a trust? You don’t technically inherit from a trust. You are named beneficiary of the trust and the terms of the trust are whatever the trustor makes them to be. Distribution of the trust or any action of the trust doesn’t depend on the life or death of the trustor unless the trustor creates the trust to be affected by such actions.

If you are to recieve the corpus of the trust upon the death of the trustor, it is not controlled by the probate laws that address inheritance matters. It is controlled by the laws regarding trusts. In fact, technically you aren’t even receiving it from your father. Your father transferred ownership of the assets to the trust. You will be receiving whatever you receive from the trust itself.


But that is a matter of semantics and doesn’t change anything you seem to be concerned with currently.

yes, and I know all that. Yes, semantics. That is how it was set up for me to receive my inheritance. The trust is written as such. And yes, that's part of the problem with the 1st lawyer. The guy tried to probate it. He didn't know what he was doing but acted like he did when it came to hiring him.

So yes, I guess I will have to write him and try to reach some kind of reasonable payment and if not, report him and hit him with a malpractice suit because its definitely warranted.

 

[justalayman]

Through all of this you’ve never mentioned what the problem is. If the trust was written that the corpus is distributed to the beneficiaries immediately it would be a simple action to seek an order from the courts to demand that action be taken.

Your troubles suggest the trust is not written simply to distribute the assets immediately. Without disclosing anything that would jeopardize your case, care to share any details? It’s simply curiosity on my part.

 

[CharlieS15]

Through all of this you’ve never mentioned what the problem is. If the trust was written that the corpus is distributed to the beneficiaries immediately it would be a simple action to seek an order from the courts to demand that action be taken.

Your troubles suggest the trust is not written simply to distribute the assets immediately. Without disclosing anything that would jeopardize your case, care to share any details? It’s simply curiosity on my part.

I would like to, but I really don't want to give any more specifics than I already have. Yes, the trust is written to distribute upon death. Like I said before I wanted to file suit immediately because I knew the trustee would never give me my fair share, and would not give me an accounting and I have sufficient evidence to prove it all. Once bank records were subpoenaed, it would prove it even further. But both attorneys suggested writing letters and then a demand. And the first idiot tried to probate this after his letters failed, then the 2nd one dropped my case after his demand failed and he was told of the lien. I did not agree with either of their methods, but I gave it a try anyway thinking they knew what they were doing and had my interests in mind.

I guess I just have to hire another attorney and get them to file suit right away but now I'm not sure how this lien is going to effect that and my funds are even more limited now.