Jump to content

Addonexus

Members
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I know this reply comes late in the game, but it turns out that FindLaw believes this is a hot topic, which caught my attention. So, after reading all of the posts, I had to provide some additional input: (1) It is probably a good thing that you did not file a small claims case. That filing may have acted as a bar to subsequent filings. (2) A great way to see how you can go about winning a lawsuit is to access the case that the "third lawyer" you referenced won. The case file will provide quite a bit, if not all, of the information you need to get started. (3) You may not need to move towards a 'variation' on the career of your dreams. As you describe the industry, the public vindication that you could receive (along with a sizable cash payout) could inform potential employers of your very harsh treatment. I will stop there.
  2. Hello Ange86: Piggybacking off of the answers provided above, all of which are quite accurate and concise, I want to add the following: This attorney was my exs and my attorney until divorce. He was a long time partner of my exs divorce attorney and from phone records in constant touch with my ex and his attorney during divorce. Under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, this situation presents several possible conflicts of interest. (1) If this Attorney was partners with your husband's divorce attorney and he had served as your attorney up until that point, that Partnership may have a conflict of interest, (2) if the Attorney (a) continued to represent your husband (and not you), ( b ) on matters that he had previously represented both of you, and ( c ) acted in ways adverse to your interests, then that is another potential conflict. Unknown to me he had given my ex a large sum of money and was involved with him in an undisclosed LLC which he lied to me about. He created a false 100g loan liabililty my ex took in divorce and did not disclose or tell me about short sale with no deficincy negotiation he handled for a property my ex took and signed the day after he took it in divorce for 2M. I cant prove his involvement regarding my ex receiving 176g in cash in exchange for not suing for a deficiency we were owed but he did handle this foreclosure and deficiency and lied to me regarding why it could not be collected on and wrote a contract to buy back a 176g asset the man we foreclosed on kept for 250g when he owed us almost 2m for the mtg deficiency. While still acting as my attorney after divorce, he wrote a mtg mod on the business I received, acting as the attorney for the community bank holding it, which was definatly not in my best interest, almost causing its loss. These facts are not entirely clear, and contain some assumptions that would need to be clarified. That said, if you are within the Florida Statute of Limitations mentioned in an answer above (3 years), you may have a viable claim. I know it sounds paranoid and far fetched but I and my current attorney believe he collaberated with my ex, his attorney as well as the bank to assure my ex got most assets then I would lose what I got back to him unable to pay hidden bills, after my ex cleaned out all accounts. As you go forward, take some time to clarify your message, and delivery. For example, before making such a sweeping 'collaboration' argument, make a list of facts identifying the supporting evidence. There is quite a bit to unpack from that single sentence; like, what hidden bills are you referring to? Is this part of the fraud alleged above? Assuming so, if your husband failed to disclose material liabilities, and you were able to provide evidence of that in court, I am curious to know why you received no relief. Perhaps the issues were not explained clearly - and that is why you are currently suing for malpractice. On the whole, you or your attorney should be rushing to file something before the SOL expires. Your cause of action, if viable, would be more about the existence of the conflicts of interest than false testimony at a hearing. The false testimony is better dealt with through impeachment (with facts) at a new hearing, if available.
×
×
  • Create New...