Is my lawyer mishandling or mis representing my case.
3 attorney answers
There is no way any one here can determine if your attorney has done wrong or not based on this little bit of information.
First and foremost you need to decide to stay with this attorney to get another. You have a right to move on if you do not believe your present attorney is handling your matter to your satisfaction. However, changing attorneys can be expensive and counterproductive, so only do so if you really believe you need to.
Entering into litigation is always an expensive proposition and should not be done without substantial resources to bring it to the end. On its face most of what you have described may well have been an attorney doing a good job for you.
Good luck to you.
This answer should not be construed to create any attorney-client relationship. Such a relationship can be formed only through the mutual execution of an attorney-client agreement. The answer given is based on the extremely limited facts provided and the proper course of action might change significantly with the introduction of other facts. All who read this answer should not rely on the answer to govern their conduct. Please seek the advice of competent counsel after disclosing all facts to that attorney. This answer is intended for California residents only. The answering party is only licensed to practice in the State of California.
No one reading your summary can advise you. Not sure what "partisan" means. A cross-complaint is frequently a good defense. Unless you were willing to accept a default judgment and its implications, you had to respond to the complaint.
Mediation is often a good option for litigation between family members. Your lawyer is not responsible for the other side not showing up. It's concerning if you were responsible for the mediator's entire fee. In most cases, mediation will not happen until both sides pay their share.
Most cases settle. Generally, the earlier the parties can agree to settle, the fewer attorney fees each party will pay. If you cannot afford to continue to litigate, settlement now seems like a good option.
My answers are for general information only. They are not legal advice. Answers assume California law. I am licensed only in California. Do not rely on my answers. Legal advice must be based on the interplay between specific exact facts and the law. This forum does not allow for the discussion of that interplay. My answer to any specific question would likely be different if that interplay were explored during an attorney-client relationship. I provide legal advice during the course of an attorney-client relationship only. The exchange of information through this forum does not establish such a relationship, nor does my answer or comment create a reasonable expectation that I am willing to discuss the possibility of forming an attorney-client relationship with anyone. That relationship is established only by personal and direct consultation with me followed by the execution of a written attorney-client agreement. The communications on this website are not privileged or confidential. I assume no duty to anyone by my participation on Avvo because I have answered or commented on a question. Specifically, I assume no duty to respond to any question, comment, telephone call, or email. All legal proceedings involve deadlines and time limiting statutes. So that legal rights are not lost for failure to timely take action, and because I do not provide legal advice or counsel in answer to any question, if you are an interested party you should promptly and personally consult an attorney licensed in the appropriate jurisdiction for advice and counsel. See, also, Avvo's terms and conditions of use, specifically item 9, incorporated by this reference.
Practical answer - if you have no money and the settlement will yield a positive cash amount, seriously consider it. Litigation is expensive and there are no guarantees. In another words, if it makes any sense to take the money and run, you need to think about it.