Larry Daugert

1. Every meeting with Larry he was unable to remember the 4 points of our case and we had to remind him. Even at the end during our meeting preparing for the deposition of Hallberg we had to remind him. 2. Larry did not give us an informed balanced perspective from which we could make reasonable ch...oices. He would not provide a strategy. Strategy to us meant telling us what the possible choices we could make, the benefits and risks of each choice. We asked him about the repercussions of each choice. Each time he would say not to worry. I kept asking about what Phil might do and he would say not to worry about that. Larry’s response when we asked for a strategy was “depose and proceed with arbitration”. Again not informing us of the potential consequences, no discussion of options, risk versus benefit. 3. Larry did not do any discovery until we pushed him to do so. When he sent the interrogary to Hallberg every question was specific to “the leak”. There were no questions about contractors, work done on the house. Larry kept telling us we needed to find people familiar with the house in order to find some one that might know or have information about the leak. Larry will say he reviewed the questions with us. We had to provide him with most of the questions, he did not offer advice about what or how to pursue information. During the deposition of Hallberg she had names of the shower contractor, the person that sheet rocked the downstairs, the builder of the house. How much more did she know? We provided Larry with questions and trusted he would ask them in a way that would provide us the most information and protect us if she did not disclose information. 4. He did not include the shower leaking or other issues we told him about. We provided him with pictures of the shower leaking. It turns out that if we had challenged the shower leak from the very beginning Hallberg could not have suddenly surprised us as it actually being the source of the leak. 5. We repeatedly asked Larry if the initial answer from Hallberg about the foundation leaking (provided before we had exposed the actual holes in the foundation) was usable in case they had other explanations latter. He said yes. Hallberg claimed foundation leaking and a curtain drain fix before we knew the leak was from the wall. So when she provided the shower leak as an explanation in her amended interrogatory we believed we now had two official explanations which contradicted each other. We had repeatedly asked if their first response stated curtain drain as the leak solution and then they say shower leak in the interrogatory does the initial statement have value. We asked this question many times. 6. As soon as a court date and deposition date was requested Serka responded with the spoliation motion and summary judgment motion asking for Hallbergs expenses. Why did Larry not inform us of this possibility? Still no strategy. 7. A year ago Jianna called Larry’s office and asked to speak with someone about our concerns with Larry. She was directed to the office manager, Michael. Michael was told of Larry not being able to remember the specifics of our case, that he did not seem to have any strategy, that for 3 months we asked Larry to challenge Serka about the claim that they had asked to be present for the excavation and Larry kept responding it did not matter, that we were concerned if Larry had an unknown health issue and we were concerned about his competence.. Michael reassured us Larry was the best, very competent, no need to worry. We are wondering why when a client calls very upset that the managing partner is not made aware or responds. Larry’s law firm was informed by us that there were concerns and that clearly Larry had mishandled at least part of our case. 8. Two weeks before the deposition Larry tells us we can reduce our claim to the three winnable points if the deposition does not produce any helpful information. Then he says the water problem is a weak point, after the deposition he tells us the cable is not winnable and t