|Association name||Position name||Duration|
|Philadelphia Bar Association||Member||N/A|
|Pennsylvania Bar Association||Member||N/A|
|American Bar Association||Member||N/A|
|Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law||Law||JD - Juris Doctor||1986|
|Emory University||N/A||BA - Bachelor of Arts||1983|
Posted by anonymous
Michael is not interested in winning your case; his modus operandi involves pressuring you to settle as soon as possible at any amount. Michael then collects his attorney fee and avoids cost and trouble of actually arguing case in court. Michael comes across at first interaction as fair and compassionate; however he is running a business, and your best interests as a client are not of primary concern.
Michael is also very arrogant and self-centered as a man. As a client, it was often necessary to overrule many of Micheal's decisions and recommendations in the best interest of case. Michael likes to be in charge; If you show Michael you are his equal or more knowledgeable in any way; his ego will surface, and he will turn on you. Instead of learning from others, Michael becomes defensive and combatant.
In spite of being the victim in case; Michael often failed to support client position when in direct conflict with apposing attorney or personnel. This lack of client respect came across as case credibility issue; and often made me wonder if Michael felt I was the criminal. One of the most troubling instances associated with interaction with Mr. Power was his repeated courtesy towards opposing associates and attorneys; whom presented contrived and insulting allegations in court to bolster their case. Mr. Power did nothing to defend client reputation, honor or even challenge frivolous conduct or allegations.
Michael has very little engineering or technical background; this is problematic when arguing cased related to automotive engineering design deficiencies. Many technical details presented in court by apposing attorney were materially flawed or insubstantial. These flawed technical arguments went right over Micheal's head, As a client, I contributed to the case, more so, than Michael; identifying and pointing out flawed technical arguments and accusations. In the end, we settled out of court; not because settlement was sufficient for level of damages; but because I was at the breaking point with Micheal, his arrogance, and his disdain to actually argue a case in court; where an attorney should be present.
My case was strong, the evidence clear, and the apposing party had completely discredited themselves in documented fact. In court, a judge would have most likely awarded replacement vehicle; however with Mr. Power representing my interests; less than half of original investment was recovered, and design defect in automobile was left for me to resolve.