Michael Jay Jurista

Michael Jurista

After not hearing from John for months, I received an email message from him yesterday which included odd allegations consistent with the above. Immediately, John received an away message from me indicating that I was in a deposition all day and that I would get back to him thereafter. Rather then mentioning that, John claims that he got no reply which was not only blatantly false, but several hours later I responded in more detail just as I said I would. Rather than understanding that I have other obligations, John felt the need to post a review on this website falsely accusing me of not replying (amongst other things). Putting that aside, I was distraught to learn about how upset John was as this was never previously brought to my attention. As I shared with him in my private response to him yesterday, John retained me for a very limited purpose and put me on a hard cap with fees, all of which is set forth in our retainer agreement (which also notes that if he wants me to do anything else another agreement is required). Not only was this discussed in detail before he signed the retainer agreement, but thereafter I communicated with him via email before taking any action to receive his approval. John also curiously fails to mention the emails I sent to him during my representation wherein I said that I can do further investigation into the company if he wants me to but I did not want to do so given his concerns with spending money unnecessarily which he never authorized me to do. Further baffling is his allegation that I should have known he sued the wrong company. Not only is this a case this John started years prior and hired me for a limited purpose, but John is aware that I found hundreds of other cases wherein people sued this DBA itself, many of which resulted in judgments. And in researching those judgments, it was apparent that the assets for the company (such as bank accounts) were being held in the name of the DBA. In other words, while it is of course possible there is a parent company or another entity which may have liability, I did not start the case, I was not retained to look into that and based upon research I conducted consistent with my authority pursuant to our agreement - which John knew about - assets were being held in the name of the DBA itself which other parties executed upon. While John is certainly not the first client nor the last who has revisionist history, clients such as this are the exact reason that lawyers are unwilling to make financial accommodations to assist someone in need. So, for those clients out there with limited means who are confused why they can't find a lawyer to help them, you can thank people like John who have made it impossible for lawyers to take on smaller cases which are simply not worth the aggravation.