Lawyer Ethics and Letter Limiting Liability

You have several complaints about your current counsel. One of them is that he put your case into state "MANDATORY" arbitration without your consent. I am not a Pennsylvania lawyer (and you should consult one for definitive answers to your questions), but the fact that you call the arbitration MANDATORY tells me that your lawyer had no choice. Perhaps he could have notified you sooner or explained it better, but mandatory means you must do it.

As I interpret your remarks, the lawyer then caused the case "to be valued too high", which allowed it to be removed to federal court (and out of the mandatory arbitration) of which you complained.

Have you shared your personal reasons for not wanting the suit heard in federal court with your lawyer? Have you shared with him your agenda for the case, which apparently goes beyond mere winnining of the suit?

Some of the tactical decisions of which you complain are usually left to the lawyer's best judgment as to how to further the case. I, for one, would be unlikely to accept a case if the client insisted on a particular court if I believed another court would yield a better result. That is what we are paid to know and is one of the tools we use to help us win the client's case. And if a client insisted I take a particular course of action that I did not believe to be in the client's best interests, I would AT A MINIMUM attempt to limit my liability with a letter to the client formalizing my advice, the fact that he rejected it for another path, and noting that he would be responsible for the results of the decision.

Are you not willing to accept responsibility for the decisions you make, particularly when they overrule the lawyer's best judgment?

If you have been completely open with all your reasons for your "directions" about the tactics of the litigation, then it may simply be that the lawyer intends to use in own judgment in the case, as he normally would.

Does the fee contract address the issue of who makes these decisions?

If you cannot resolve your differences,then why have you not sought replacement counsel.

You have several complaints about your current counsel. One of them is that he put your case into state "MANDATORY" arbitration without your consent. I am not a Pennsylvania lawyer (and you should consult one for definitive answers to your questions), but the fact that you call the arbitration MANDATORY tells me that your lawyer had no choice. Perhaps he could have notified you sooner or explained it better, but mandatory means you must do it.

As I interpret your remarks, the lawyer then caused the case "to be valued too high", which allowed it to be removed to federal court (and out of the mandatory arbitration) of which you complained.

Have you shared your personal reasons for not wanting the suit heard in federal court with your lawyer? Have you shared with him your agenda for the case, which apparently goes beyond mere winnining of the suit?

Some of the tactical decisions of which you complain are usually left to the lawyer's best judgment as to how to further the case. I, for one, would be unlikely to accept a case if the client insisted on a particular court if I believed another court would yield a better result. That is what we are paid to know and is one of the tools we use to help us win the client's case. And if a client insisted I take a particular course of action that I did not believe to be in the client's best interests, I would AT A MINIMUM attempt to limit my liability with a letter to the client formalizing my advice, the fact that he rejected it for another path, and noting that he would be responsible for the results of the decision.

Are you not willing to accept responsibility for the decisions you make, particularly when they overrule the lawyer's best judgment?

If you have been completely open with all your reasons for your "directions" about the tactics of the litigation, then it may simply be that the lawyer intends to use in own judgment in the case, as he normally would.

Does the fee contract address the issue of who makes these decisions?

If you cannot resolve your differences, then why have you not sought replacement counsel?