Reviews
Anonymous
Around July 20XX, I would like to ask Mr. Singpitch to represent me in the Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit named XXXX vs YYYY in the District Court of Northern California. I paid him the first retainer $XXXX, and the recovery of the arrangements for any future contingency. Shortly after I took over the case which I originally referred to myself as, Mr. Singpitch promised that he would give a short answer to the pending motion against the protective order and to the opposition to the other lawyer's claim for expenses. Mr. Singpitch did not give a short answer, nor did he object to the opposite lawyer's claim for expenses. This was obviously a breach of his promise to me, and also violated his fiduciary duty. Fortunately, the court decision was good for me. Mr. Singpitch didn't explain to me that he failed to speak quickly on this matter.
20XX In December 2012, a conciliation meeting was held in San Francisco, San Francisco, California, in front of Judge XXXX in the above litigation. Mr. Singpitch represented me. Under the conditions of the trial, an oral agreement that the defendant paid XXXX dollars to me was made public. The defendant also claimed that he would pay a refund of about $XXXX to California. I agreed. About two weeks later, I was released on parole in California. Later, I learned from my acquaintance, Derek. When I was released on parole in early January 20XX, the defendant lost the jurisdiction to ask for my return. In other words, there is no more concrete payment by the defendant against the Original Settlement Agreement. This fact was confirmed by experienced parole lawyer D. G. Esq. I gave this information to Mr. Singpitch, and cautiously explained that after I was released on parole, it was really illegal for the defendant to return. I appealed to Mr. Singpitch to the Federal Court for a change in the settlement agreement. I discovered the decision made public in strongly supporting my argument to Mr. Singpitch. In addition, Derek contacted Mr. Singpitch and explained in more detail that the defendant no longer has jurisdiction and does not have the legal authority to take back the case from me. Derek told Mr. Singpitch that the settlement agreement would not violate the law. It's the black letter method. Despite these convincing arguments, however, Mr. Singpitch remained unmoved, and I strongly insisted that I had to sign the Federal Reconciliation Plan and that the defendant would illegally allow me to return it. Mr. Singpitch soon got angry and was angry that I would not sign the settlement agreement on the basis of a firm belief that the terms of return of the agreement were illegal. In fact, I was shocked by Mr. Singpitch's behavior, which was very wonderful. As a client, Mr. Singpitch never respected the fact that I was the ultimate decision maker. Mr. Singpitch threatened to leave my case if I didn't sign my release. His powerful tactics especially lost his energy. The coercion I had with Mr. Singpitch was considerable.
While Mr. Singpitch was employed by me, he entered into two related national illegal acts. In September 20XX, a case management meeting was held in both cases. Mr. Singpitch was unable to provide the necessary CMC statements for both of these cases in accordance with the California Court Rules. In September, 20XX, I fired Mr. D illegally and unilaterally without consulting me and without previous permission. T. I'm one of the defendants in my suit. In California, it is clear that lawyers need the permission of their clients before they can eliminate the parties to the case. It is a serious breach of state law that Mr. Singpitch did not comply with this clearly established rule.
