Mark John Holady

Mark Holady

I do not know who the objecting person is. The writer may not have been my client. She might have been, instead, another party involved in an estate on which I worked. Since I do not have any facts, I cannot tell what happened. Were the writer to come forward, I could appropriately respond to the above allegation. Unfortunately, although I previously requested the information, the writer desired to remain anonymous. She may have a valid complaint, but I cannot tell. What I can tell is that the Oregon statutes and judges (or juries) ultimately determine how the law applies to the facts in a case. When a probate case comes to me, the facts are usually already set in place, i.e., someone has died, a will can no longer be changed, etc. The challenge to all parties is to learn and apply the facts. For example, if the writer thought she was going to get $100,000, but there were claims against the estate, the writer’s share may have been reduced, lawfully, to $70,000. What I can say is that attorneys get paid more when their clients get paid more. How? Happy clients refer new clients. Moreover, to me, $30,000 is no small amount of money. Telling someone that they are getting $30,000 less than she expected is not an enjoyable prospect. That writer is likely to be upset. Instead of getting a referral, I am likely to get a bad review in Avvo. I would like to address the writer’s objection directly. Perhaps in the future, I shall have the chance. The statement that the writer hired an attorney to deal with me gives me an idea which writer may have left the above comment. Still, without more facts, I refuse to speculate. The writer refused to have an open dialogue when I asked previously. Yet without her permission, I cannot respond fully. Why? I cannot breach my ethical duties and talk about cases, whether here or in person. So, if the writer wishes to remain quiet, I must respect her wishes.