Arrogant Attorney Asshats

[Stoid]

I followed the links in that case….which led to the CORRECT citation for McGlothen!

In re McGlothen, 99 Wn.2d 515:

This attorney disciplinary proceeding presents us with a question of how broadly CPR DR 5-104, the rule governing attorneys’ business dealings with clients, should sweep. We must focus on whether to limit the rule’s applicability solely to present and clearly defined attorney-client relationships or whether to include less well defined relationships where the attorney’s status gives him disproportionate influence. To more effectively protect the public, we choose to paint with the broader brush. In so broadening the rule, we hold that the transaction in this case, an attorney’s purchase of property from a client, was subject to CPR DR 5-104. We hold further that the respondent attorney did not satisfy the high standards of disclosure which that rule imposes. Inasmuch as we are announcing a new standard, however, it would be unfair to impose discipline here and hence we refrain from doing so.

…

McGlothlen apparently contacted Delford Woodall, the executor of Mr. Cole’s estate, and was asked to bring the estate to a satisfactory close. On July 22, 1975, McGlothlen wrote to Ward, reviewing the file for her, informing her that he was taking it over, requesting her cooperation and assistance, and suggesting that she call him “*f [she] ha[d] any immediate legal questions”. Report of Proceedings, Exhibit 4. Ward, who lived in California, replied several days later, basically thanking McGlothlen for his assistance. In part, her letter stated:
I sincerely hope you will take care of this matter for me. It is kinda hard for me living in Calif. instead of Wash. I could drop in to see you about the second week in Sept. I had not planned on coming to Toppenish however I can do so if you need to see me.

    Report of Proceedings, Exhibit 1. 

McGlothlen apparently informed Ward that a meeting was unnecessary.
On September 19, 1975, McGlothlen wrote to Ward once more, to notify her that it would be necessary to probate Mrs. Cole’s estate as well as that of Mr. Cole. McGlothlen also acted to set up an account in the name of Mrs. Cole’s estate. On December 17, McGlothlen wrote to Ward again, informing her that he was able to commence the probate of Mrs. Cole’s estate and suggesting that Delford Woodall be substituted as executor. Ward agreed and Woodall was apparently officially substituted at some point, though the record does not indicate when.

    At the time she authorized Woodall's substitution as executor, Ward also mentioned that she wished to sell the sole asset of the Cole estates, a house, as soon as possible.

McGlothlen wrote back, offering to help locate a purchaser and asking Ward what price would be acceptable. Apparently, McGlothlen and Ward later spoke on the phone about selling the house and on June 1, 1977, McGlothlen wrote to Ward offering to purchase it himself for $8,500. McGlothlen also offered to draw up the necessary papers, so that Ward would save attorney’s fees. He testified at his disciplinary hearing, however, that he intended to act as his own counsel, not Ms. Ward’s. Though the house had last been appraised in 1971 for $9,000, it had significantly deteriorated since that time and McGlothlen did not mention the appraisal to Ward. He did describe a recent fire in the house, indicate that it was in very poor shape, and suggest that she check with Delford Woodall if she had any questions about its condition.

    Ward agreed to sell her interest in the house for $8,500 and entered into a real estate contract with McGlothlen. A year later, McGlothlen sold the house, also by real estate contract, to the occupying tenant for $14,500. Because McGlothlen's resale was on different payment terms than his purchase from Ward, the hearing examiner found, and we agree, that it is not possible to judge the relative value of the respective real estate contracts.

    Soon after McGlothlen's resale, a local real estate broker filed a complaint with the [663 P.2d 1333] bar association 1 which instituted the present proceeding. The hearing officer concluded (1) that McGlothlen and Ward had an attorney-client relationship; and (2) that CPR DR 5-104, which requires an attorney who enters into a business transaction with a client to make full disclosure, was applicable; but (3) that there had been sufficient disclosure.
    Pursuant to DRA 5.2, bar counsel filed an objection to

this last conclusion with the Disciplinary Board while McGlothlen filed no objections at all. The Board concluded that McGlothlen’s disclosure had not been sufficient and recommended that he receive a censure. McGlothlen refused to accept the censure, and the proceeding is now before us. McGlothlen contends that CPR DR 5-104 is not applicable because Ward was not his client and that, even if CPR DR 5-104 were applicable, his disclosure was sufficient….

It goes on, but I think that’s more than enough to kill this cite as proof that answering one of my information questions is fraught with peril for the answering attorney. But I’m not an attorney, so I’m sure I’m wrong.

So let’s keep looking…

Estate of Nicholson v. Phipps, 2000 WL 1022869 (WACA, 2000)
“ Next, the Estate contends no evidence supports the court’s finding that ‘{o}nce the Petition for Guardianship was granted and Mrs. Phipps was appointed, Mr. Edelblute became Ms. Phipps’ attorney.’ ‘Determining whether an attorney/client relationship exists necessarily involves questions of fact.’ Bohn v. Cody, 119 Wn.2d 357, 363, 832 P.2d 71 (1992). ‘The essence of the attorney/client relationship is whether the attorney’s advice or assistance is sought and received on legal matters.’ Id. Whether a relationship exists ‘‘turns largely on the client’s subjective belief that it exists.’’ Id. (quoting In re McGlothen, 99 Wn.2d 515, 522, 663 P.2d 1330 (1983)). The client’s subjective belief does not control unless it is reasonably formed based on the circumstances, including the attorney’s words or actions. Bohn, 119 Wn.2d at 363”

Bohn:

Lucille and Landis Bohn loaned money to their daughter after discussing aspects of the proposed loan with their daughter’s attorney. After their daughter failed to repay the loan, the Bohns sued the attorney. The attorney moved for summary judgment on the theory that he owed no duty of care to the Bohns, because the Bohns were neither his clients nor were they within the class of third parties to whom an attorney would owe a duty of care. The trial court found that no duty of care existed and dismissed the Bohns’ claims in contract and negligence. The trial court also dismissed the Bohns’ claim that the attorney had violated the former attorney disciplinary rule regarding conflicts[832 P.2d 73] of interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

    On the issue of duty, we reverse. Although we agree with the courts below that no attorney/client relationship was formed under these circumstances, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Bohn was within the class of nonclients to whom an attorney owes a duty of care. We affirm the dismissal of the claim alleging violation of the disciplinary rules.

A. Existence of Attorney/Client Relationship.
Determining whether an attorney/client relationship exists necessarily involves questions of fact. See 48 Am.Jur. Proof of Facts 2d, Existence of Attorney-Client Relationship 525 (1987); 1 R. Mallen[832 P.2d 75] & J. Smith, Legal Malpractice § 11.2 n. 12 (3d ed. 1989). Summary judgment is proper on a factual issue only if reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion on it. Steinbach, 98 Wash.2d at 437, 656 P.2d 1030.

    The essence of the attorney/client relationship is whether the attorney's advice or assistance is sought and received on legal matters. See 1 R. Mallen & J. Smith § 11.2 n. 18; 7 Am.Jur.2d Attorneys at Law § 118 (1980). The relationship need not be formalized in a written contract, but rather may be implied from the parties' conduct. In re McGlothlen, 99 Wash.2d 515, 522, 663 P.2d 1330 (1983). Whether a fee is paid is not dispositive. McGlothlen, at 522, 663 P.2d 1330. The existence of the relationship "turns largely on the client's subjective belief that it exists". McGlothlen, at 522, 663 P.2d 1330. The client's subjective belief, however, does not control the issue unless it is reasonably formed based on the attending circumstances, including the attorney's words or actions. See 1 R. Mallen & J. Smith § 8.2 n. 12; Fox v. Pollack, 181 Cal.App.3d 954, 959, 226 Cal.Rptr. 532 (1986); In re Petrie, 154 Ariz. 295, 299-300, 742 P.2d 796, 800-801 (1987).

    Cody told Lucille Bohn at the outset of their very first meeting that he could not act as her attorney in this matter, as he was already representing the Folletts. Lucille Bohn has not challenged this statement. Moreover, Cody reemphasized this point when he told Lucille Bohn later in the conversation that he would prepare the necessary documentation only upon obtaining the Folletts' approval.

    Lucille Bohn maintains that despite these clear disclaimers she still believed that Cody was acting as her attorney. She argues that her belief was reasonably held because Cody gave her legal advice and performed legal services for her. First, she contends that he answered (though not fully) her questions concerning the effect of the assignment of the right to receive the fulfillment deed. An attorney/client relationship is not created, however, merely because an attorney discusses the subject matter of a transaction with a nonclient. See 1 R. Mallen & J. Smith § 11.2 n. 19. Second, she points out that Cody prepared the assignment paperwork. Yet an attorney for one party to a transaction does not become the other party's attorney merely because he prepared the documents formalizing the transaction. 

    Lucille Bohn also relies on the letter Cody wrote seeking reissuance of the fulfillment deed to the Bohns. This letter, however, was written approximately 4 weeks after the conversations were held that form the basis for the Bohns' action. The important consideration here is the reasonableness of Lucille Bohn's belief at the time of the allegedly tortious acts. The occurrence of subsequent events has no bearing on this issue, for we are not concerned with whether Cody was acting as her attorney at a later time, and the letter gives no indication that he was acting as the Bohn's attorney at any prior time.

    In light of Cody's disclaimers of any attorney/client relationship and in light of the Bohns' inability to show that Cody acted inconsistently with these statements, we conclude that Lucille Bohn's subjective belief was not reasonably based on the attending circumstances, and no attorney/client relationship was formed. Reasonable finders of fact could reach no other conclusion on the record here presented.

B. Attorney’s Duties Toward Third Parties.

    Even in the absence of an attorney/client relationship, however, liability could still exist in this case. We next turn to whether Cody owed a duty of care to the Bohns even though they were not his clients.

    Traditionally, a rule of strict privity limited an attorney's liability for malpractice. Under this rule, a malpracticing attorney could be held liable only to the attorney's own clients. 

    Privity of contract, however, is no longer required in all cases. Under certain circumstances, an attorney may be held liable for malpractice to a party the attorney never represented. Two theories provide the basis for this expanded liability.  First, an attorney may be held liable for negligence toward thirdparty beneficiaries of an attorney/client relationship. Second, an attorney may be held liable under a multi-factor balancing test developed in California. This test involves analysis of the following six factors...

Slogging onward…

Clark Capital Management v. Annuity Investors Life, 149 F.Supp.2d 193 (E.D. Pa., 2001)

To determine whether Friedman is in violation of these ethical rules, I must decide whether Annuity is a “former client” of Dilworth. In other words, did there previously exist an attorney-client relationship between Annuity and Dilworth.3 “An attorney-client relationship is one of agency and arises only when the parties have given their consent, either express or implied, to its formation.” Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances of the Virgin Islands Bar Assoc. v. Johnson, 447 F.2d 169, 174 (3d Cir.1971). Both parties agree that no formal attorney-client relationship existed between Annuity and Dilworth. “Where no express relationship exists, the intent to create an attorney-client relationship can be implied from the conduct of the parties.” (“attorney-client relationship does not arise only in agency manner, but also where layperson submits confidential information to lawyer with reasonable belief that latter is former’s attorney”) The issue is whether an implied attorney-client relationship arose during the course of the several telephone conversations between Frechette and Biemer. Annuity asserts that an implied attorney-client relationship between Annuity and Biemer arose because, acting on Annuity’s behalf, Frechette: (1) disclosed confidential information to Biemer, (2) with a reasonable belief that Biemer was acting in the capacity of attorney for Annuity throughout the course of the communication.

    Based on the facts presented, I find that the several brief telephone conversations between Frechette and Biemer did not give rise to an implied attorney-client relationship between Annuity and Dilworth. Frechette asserts in his first sworn affidavit that he disclosed to Biemer confidential information related to Annuity's defenses and legal theories of the case. Biemer admits that it is possible such disclosures were made. However, Biemer contends that he has no recollection of disclosure of any confidential information.

    Setting aside for the moment the question of whether confidential information was in fact disclosed, it is clear from the facts presented that Frechette could not have held a reasonable belief that Biemer was acting as an attorney for Annuity during the course of the communication. Frechette initiated the communication with Biemer to inquire into Biemer's interest and availability to be retained as co-counsel for Annuity in the present action. At no time during the communication did Frechette offer to retain Biemer as co-counsel and at no time during the communication did Biemer consent to representation of Annuity. To the contrary, it was evident from Frechette's request that Biemer send informational materials about the firm, that Frechette had not yet decided whether to retain Biemer as co-counsel. Frechette was reserving the right to make a decision after learning more about the firm. B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., 638 F.Supp. 1050, 1052 (S.D.Texas 1986) (finding no implied attorney-client relationship where it was clear during an initial interview that the purported client was reserving the right to make a decision as to whether to retain the lawyer).

    Furthermore, it is evident that Frechette never conceived that Biemer was acting as Annuity's attorney during the communication, because Biemer had not yet run a conflict check. Frechette contests Biemer's assertion that Biemer raised the need to run a conflict check before consenting to representation during the telephone conversations. However, even if Biemer did not raise the need to run a conflict check, Frechette, equally knowledgeable of the ethical rules, was well aware that Biemer would not consent to representation of Annuity before running a conflict check. Frechette explicitly stated in his second sworn affidavit:

    I certainly assumed that Attorney Biemer would not undertake a matter without performing a conflict check and, accordingly, felt no need to specifically inquire as to the matter further.

    Frechette 2d Aff. ¶ 9. When Frechette first contacted Biemer on October 26, 2000, the telephone conversation during which Frechette asserts that he first disclosed confidential information to Biemer, Frechette could not have reasonably assumed that Biemer had already run a conflict check. By Frechette's own admission, therefore, it was unreasonable for Frechette to assume during that conversation that Biemer had consented to representation of Annuity. The duty to maintain confidences does not arise absent an attorney-client relationship. It follows that Frechette unreasonably assumed that Biemer would maintain the confidentiality of any information Frechette disclosed, despite Frechette's awareness that no attorney-client relationship had been established. Annuity is not a former client of Biemer and neither Friedman nor Dilworth are in violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9.

Golly, I’m tired. Do I have to keep going?

You have now seen a live demonstration of how I’ve been practicing law in my case, by the way. I don’t grab a couple of convenient summaries and toss them at the judge hoping it will work. I take the red pill and I stay in Wonderland and I see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Not just because it’s interesting, but because, silly me, I think that’s the smart approach, seeing as how I’m not a lawyer.
And I reiterate my call for cases showing that the kinds of conversations and questions (and attitude and circumstances…) that I have presented in this thread are actually advice as far as the law would view it. And by that I don’t mean “are advice because a lawyer would call it advice” but show me the case where the court examined similar facts and determined that it was advice. The cases here seem to support my point of view, not that of the lawyers berating me for my inability to comprehend what constitutes advice.

I mentioned it earlier in the thread and here in these posts… in response to my second attorney and my neighbor-attorney telling me I should go after my first attorney for malpractice, seeing as how the rulings against me were so incredibly fucked up, i did some pretty deep research on malpractice, just to see. And it’s really fucking hard… The cases that have failed would leave you speechless. A lawyer can sleep through the trial and not be convicted of malpractice!!

So trying to sell me on the idea that telling me you heard of a case is exposing you to losing your license…good luck with that.

[Stoid]

Oh, and to bring it around to the personal…given that, as the cases I quoted show, the standard seems to be a reasonable person having a reasonable expectation based on circumstances, etc, I think any attorney can feel completely comfy answering me on these boards, at least. If I tried to claim an attorney-client relationship I’d be laughed out of court about a minute after these threads were put in front of the judge.

[Stoid]

@Enginerd

This is why people think that you’re crazy. Every lawyer in the thread has explained why your question constitutes legal advice, and you refuse to accept that explanation and insist that your opinion of the law should trump theirs.

That is not true. They have stated that it’s advice because they say so, and then they have explained that giving advice exposes them to malpractice. Neither of those things explains how my questions about the law, coupled with my very clear statments that i do not want any advice…really are requests for advice.

And simply saying so over and over and calling me crazy isn’t going to suddenly turn unsupported assertions and descriptions of consequences into clear and logical explanations of how information is advice.

[Stoid]

@adarby

Completely goes against your claim of not talking about your case, and asking or wanting advice from these attorneys you get on the phone. Simply elegant, in fact.

Nope. Same assertion, different post. I ask the attorney: you ever seen this, heard of it? And you say I’m asking for advice.

I will be asking for advice when I ask:

“What do you think…”
“What should I do?”
“If I do this, what will the result be?”
“would the best thing to do be to…”
"Howlong should I, when should I, would should I, will happen if, can I do this can I do that? what are the results of my doing this? "

And I never ask those questions. I stopped asking those questions over a year ago.

I make all my own decisions. Based on my research. Because relying on other people’s filters, opinions, beliefs and attitudes has been disastrous for me in this situation. I do not feel safe relying on advice.

I just want information so I can get more information so i can make what I believe will be the best decision based on the maximum amount of knowledge I can get.

As i pointed out, the two bigass threads are the perfect demonstration! I asked in this very thread: SHOW ME THE CASES.

Someone came along with cases! YAY!

So I did with those cases what i do with all cases: read them. And then I read the cases that were cited in those cases. And read some of the cases cited in those cases. And in my own case, if the issue is compelling and complex enough, I will keep reading the cases til I run out of cases to read.

Because that’s how I understand.

And for the non-lawyers: that’s how lawyers understand, too. Unless it falls right in your lawyer’s area of expertise and aligns perfectly with prior experience, your lawyer is going to head straight for casebooks and codes and do what I do. Only they won’t go as deep or as wide because they already have a lot under their belt. I don’t, so I keep going, to make sure I don’t miss anything. (And I knwo that because the lawyers I know all admit it. One of them told me they don’t teach you shit about the law in law school…they teach you how to think like a lawyer.)

[astro]

Stoid I think you’re kinda missing the point that the fear is not so much that they will be found guilty of giving you bad advice, but that if you get it into your head that they are responsible for any mishaps you experience as a result of relying on that information/advice that you will spare no effort or expense to come after them. They don’t fear the result they fear the process and a hassle of having to deal with you trying to come after them. You seem quite obsessed with achieving your legal ends and obsessed people are quite often extremely time consuming, dangerous and unpredictable.

[Stoid]

@astro

Stoid I think you’re kinda missing the point that the fear is not so much that they will be found guilty of giving you bad advice, but that if you get it into your head that they are responsible for any mishaps you experience as a result of relying on that information/advice that you will spare no effort or expense to come after them. They don’t fear the result they fear the process and a hassle of having to deal with you trying to come after them. You seem quite obsessed with achieving your legal ends and obsessed people are quite often extremely time consuming, dangerous and unpredictable.

And you seem to be missing a whole lot of points, including:

1. Someone wants to say no, say no. Just don’t feed me bullshit in the bargain.

2. If you’re going to paint me with the crazy brush in terms of fearing that I’ll “spare no expense” to “come after them”, it would be nice if you could point at something I’ve done that was similar. (See my previous on this topic.)

3. That’s a particularly bizarre concern given that I didn’t go after my REAL lawyer when OTHER lawyers told me I should. So thinking I’m going to come after some guy who gives me the answer to a question is more than a little paranoid. And kinda stupid.

[adarby]

“Advice”…that word does not mean what you think it does in this context. I am facinated that the concept doesn’t sink in with you, truly I am. Your tortured and ridiculous definitions, and miles of posting are lunatic-al. (What does that say about me, being facinated by and provoking such lunacy)? Anyway. Continue to dig up citations that have fuck-all to do with California law for your matter, I am sure the judge will be ever so impressed and will certainly be calling you for advice on any other matters she just cannot grasp.

[Loach]

I am not a lawyer. Maybe you can clear something up for me. To try and parse down post 321 to something more managable, you say your case is so unique that there is no one who could know it better than you. Then you ask for information that would pertain to your very specific set of circumstances. To steer you in the right area they would need to know the particulars for your case. If they steer you in the wrong direction it could harm your case. And this is not advice. Did I get it right?

[ivn1188]

@Stoid

And you seem to be missing a whole lot of points. . .

It’s like a no smoking sign on your cigarette break.

[Tenebras]

Loach, I believe Stoid already described her problems with the trial itself and its immediate aftermath in the other thread, so I’m not sure why she’s become so reticent to go into details. This post in particular lays out a lot of the specifics of the whole house division thing. I’m not at all clear what she thinks is going to happen if the appeal goes through. I wouldn’t hold that against her, though. The whole thing sounds like a mess and nobody knows what should happen.

As for the question of what constitutes legal advice, Stoid, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree here. As you have no doubt discovered, lawyers can get a bit Humpty-Dumpty about words.

You must know this, or you wouldn’t have gotten as far as you have. For instance, you came here looking for clarification about the precise definition of “equity” instead of just looking it up in your Funk & Wagnalls.

In this case the term in dispute isn’t “equity” but “legal advice.” The term “legal advice” means something different when you’re talking to the regulars in a pub than it does when you’re talking to a lawyer. Arguing with them isn’t going to change that.

A lawyer can find themselves in deep shit if they violate ethics rules, some of which involve giving out legal advice. Who decides what “legal advice” means, and what kind of action is unethical, et cetera? Lawyers. Do you really think they’re going to listen to your pilot example and then say “oh, you’re right. That’s not legal advice after all. Why don’t I risk my livelyhood to help you for free?”

I don’t know what your business is, but every vocation has its own jargon. (Lawyers have so much of it, they have to use Latin to fit it all in!) Would you ever in a million years be convinced by an outsider that a term in your line of work meant something different from what it meant? Even if they had a really good analogy about airline pilots?
ETA – Also, I think the fact that Fotheringay-Phipps appears to you to be the voice of reason in this matter–or any matter, really–should be a flashing neon red flag. Have you seen his “torture” thread?

[Loach]

@Tenebras

I don’t know what your business is, but every vocation has its own jargon.

I don’t always pay attention enough to remember personal information for individual posters. But if I remember Stoid’s job correctly then it would make for a lively discussion.

[Linty_Fresh]

@adarby

Your tortured and ridiculous definitions, and miles of posting are lunatic-al. (What does that say about me, being facinated by and provoking such lunacy)?

You and me both. It’s like watching Fatal Attraction only Glenn Close is obsessed with advice instead of sex with Michael Douglas.

I swear, I read threads like this, and I just want to lock up all our housepets and not let them near anyone who looks like she knows how to boil water.

[Happy_Poster]

Stoid, I’ve had exes like you before.

You’re a classic bunny boiler.

Move on, already…

[Frank]

@ghardester

Will she make it in time? Will the good lawyer she befriends survive his terrible wounds? Will little Billy find the dusty old law book that saves the day in court?

Lassie: Woof! Woof!
Billy: A law book has fallen down the well? Let’s go, everyone!

[Elysian]

1. You have admitted you are deep in debt but are still pursuing this issue.

2. Almost every lawyer you talk to says don’t pursue it. (And they almost unanimously think you’re crazy.)

3. You are stubbornly ignoring every post that lawyers have made in this thread.

4. You are also ignoring what every non-lawyer has to say about this, unless it agrees with your prior opinion, see F-P.

5. You think your ex has filed the suit to “annihilate” you.

Hey, do us all a favor and think about the above points for five minutes. The amount of crazy radiating from your posts is overwhelming. I’ve always understood that one of the hallmarks of the truly crazy is that they don’t think they are the crazy ones – they are the only sane ones in a crazy world.

[twickster]

@Linty_Fresh

Warning: Linty Fresh is not a real structural engineer. He just says that when the chicks look at him funny and go “You’re not a neurosurgeon.” Then he says, “Yeah, you got me. I’m a structural engineer with a twelve-inch love catepillar.” In his heart of hearts, Linty Fresh knows this will work someday.

I’m just reading this thread to check out the Stoid crazy, but I gotta say, if a guy told me he had a 12" love caterpillar, I’d be seriously intrigued.

[Linty_Fresh]

@twickster

I’m just reading this thread to check out the Stoid crazy, but I gotta say, if a guy told me he had a 12" love caterpillar, I’d be seriously intrigued.

*It worked, it worked!! *What did I tell you all?

[brazil84]

@Stoid

I actually know and understand the difference between information and advice. Do you?

For me, the line is a bit blurry. I will add to my example in the last thread:

Is the following question a request for information, or a request for advice?

What is the statute of limitations for fraud in New York?

If it’s just a request for information, one is tempted to simply say “6 years” and be done with it.

The problem is that there are many exceptions to this rule. For example if the victim is a minor. Or the defendant is the State of New York. Or if the defendant has filed bankruptcy. And so on.

So a cautious lawyer will be reluctant to answer the question without knowing more facts about the situation. So the answer is starting to look more and more like “advice.”

As others have pointed out, you already have access to all the information you could possibly need. By asking questions of lawyers, you are demonstrating that you need more than just information.

That said, I do agree that many attorneys tend to be a bit arrogant when asked for information (or advice). It’s a bit like threads where somebody asks how a magic trick is done and some wannabe magician posts that he knows how the trick is done but he’s not telling.

[Contrapuntal]

@Stoid

1. Someone wants to say no, say no. Just don’t feed me bullshit in the bargain.

For crying out loud! Why don’t you just stop asking? None of the lawyers IRL tell you what you want to hear, none of the lawyers around here tell you what you want to hear, not one, so why don’t you just stop asking? That’s why you seem crazy to some folks. You keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Give it up already. Even if you are 100% correct, no one but you will ever know, because, apparently, the whole legal world is conspiring against you. It would *have *to be. Have you ever heard of another topic that every fucking lawyer in the world agrees on? Think about it. A buttload of lawyers and and not one argument among them?

[Stoid]

@Contrapuntal

For crying out loud! Why don’t you just stop asking? None of the lawyers IRL tell you what you want to hear, none of the lawyers around here tell you what you want to hear, not one, so why don’t you just stop asking? That’s why you seem crazy to some folks. You keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Give it up already. Even if you are 100% correct, no one but you will ever know, because, apparently, the whole legal world is conspiring against you. It would *have *to be. Have you ever heard of another topic that every fucking lawyer in the world agrees on? Think about it. A buttload of lawyers and and not one argument among them?

This is not what is going on, and it’s not even what I’ve experienced, which is plain if you’ve really been reading. I have a surprisingly good number of attorneys available to me. The problem has been the limitation of their experience in the areas I now need information about.

Further, and again, the lawyers who actually have taken a close look at the case agree with my understanding 100%. The only ones that tell me I’m nuts are the ones who don’t have enough information to speak authoritatively one way or another… the people in these threads.

And to clarify for you and others re “what I want to hear” - you’re right, I don’t get much in the way of what I want to hear, which is information. Cases. So there’s no continued misrepresentation or misunderstanding, I do not go to attorneys and say: “I’m going to do this and that and this is how it is and the law does X, right?” and they do not say to what I have not said: “No, Stoid, you’re wrong, it doesn’t work that way, you will fail, xyz.”

I say: “have you ever heard of this?” and they refuse to give advice, or they probe deeper, or they say they don’t know.

And on the rare occasion when a new lawyer in the mix does engage on some level (It happens to have happened twice in the last few weeks, one I knew from my friend lawyer gave me a little time, another I paid for a consultation in a new area that’s related to my decisions in this case, but not directly.) they obsess about what they think, based on almost no information, should be my decision, instead of accepting my decision and answering the question I asked.

Finally, even around here some lawyers actually HAVE responded to me in the manner I am asking, such as Billdo. So the asking has worked to some degree. The fact that so many others have felt the need to weigh in with why they can’t or won’t, particularly in the first thread, is unfortunate. It would have been nice if they’d respected the OP and left it alone.

FTR, I am not going to continue to respond to the posts that inaccurately represent what I’ve said, I’ve spent too much time doing it already.