Attorney-client agreement

[Micah Ritchie]

It went OK. The court understood that it may be that you might not have much relevant 
information but he couldn't rule as a matter of law that you had no relevant information 
and did not need to appear. However he ordered the other side to make clear when they were 
going to call you and provide information on that so that you are not standing around 
waiting to be called. He also made it clear that I preserve my right to object to their 
questions on grounds of relevance, so, you need to be available on Monday or Tuesday the 
29th and 30th to appear but I will let you know as we get closer what time and day.  
We will also need to prepare for your testimony the week before.
 

With regard to the other motions, the court ruled that they cannot present any evidence as 
damages of costs incurred or the fee received while Gary Ferguson was representing the 
Grover's. That is pretty good ruling.
 

As to many of the other issues he simply punted them for trial, preserving our arguments
 

The only issue that we need to discuss is the Court's willingness to consider their claim 
for breach of contract. The court is going to allow them to assert a claim for breach of 
contract.  The Court indicated that it was a close call, but they have one paragraph in 
their complaint suggesting a claim for breach of contract, but he limited the breach of 
contract claim to their allegation that under the fee agreement you would not take any 
money without paying the Grovers under your retainer agreement. That is the only breach 
of contract claim.  If you look at the retainer agreement attached, I don't think it says 
that (paragraph 1) . What it says is that if the case is settled, you can take your fee 
and pay costs. However they are arguing that the whole case had to be settled before you 
took any fee.
 

 

Even if that were the case, then you should have been able to receive 
the 53,093 at the end 
of the case after they lost to Timpanogos (either under P&M's agreement or your agreement.) 
and they would've had to pay the costs.  In other words, I think we have the stronger 
argument here. And, if we win, we will  be able to assert a claim for attorny's fees.  
But if they win, they also have that right.
 

 

However, because the court allowed them to assert this claim for breach of contract ruled 
that he would allow me to conduct more limited discovery before trial if I think I needed to.  
Upon first glance of the issue, I don't think I need any additional discovery. But I wanted 
to run this by you guys. Let me know your thoughts as soon as possible.  He also said he 
might consider bumping the trial if I tell him why I need to for this new claim. but I think 
if it is limited to that issue.  I don't think 'll be able to convince him to bump the trial 
unless I simply demand it. 
 

I would like your thoughts.
Micah Ritchie | Lesch, Lesch and Doyle | 131 Estevan Fall | North Tamia City, 84165-6693
Direct: (379) 961-8813 | Facsimile: (379) 961-8813 | www.cfgt.com.au | vCard
This email is from a law firm and may contain privileged or confidential information.  
Any unauthorized disclosure, distribution, or other use of this email and its contents 
is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and 
delete this email. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
テキスト形式以外の添付ファイルを保管しました...
ファイル名: Return accounting compensation.zip
型:         application/zip
サイズ:     15761 バイト
説明:       無し
URL:        <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-jp/attachments/20150929/e7ff98e0/attachment.zip>