 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Barrett v. Freise11/24/2003
declaration in the dissolution action, noting her opposition to Freise's discharge without involvement of the guardian ad litem, and asking the court to clarify and/or expand the guardian's role to include decisions in the personal injury case.
On March 25, 1997, Freise wrote Waggoner and provided a summary of his time and costs through March 25, 1997. Copies were sent to Jeff, John, Kahr, and Love.
On March 31, 1997, John and Jeff filed an ex parte proceeding seeking to have John appointed as Jeff's limited guardian. The next day, John and Jeff, noting the pendency of the limited guardianship action, filed a document in the marital dissolution action opposing JoLynn's motion to clarify the role of the guardian ad litem, and seeking to have Waggoner discharged in favor of John as Jeff's guardian.
On April 22, 1997, John was appointed as Jeff's limited guardian to handle all matters concerning Jeff's estate, including legal, financial, and contractual matters. On April 24, 1997, John, in his capacity as limited guardian, discharged Freise as Jeff's personal injury attorney. Freise then advised JoLynn to find replacement counsel for herself and the children, and she did so. John also replaced Tracy Waggoner as Jeff's guardian in the dissolution action.
At some point prior to his discharge, Freise ascertained that the drunk driver was essentially judgment-proof, and that he had been drinking quietly in the tavern and not drawing attention to himself prior to the accident.
In a May 5, 1997, letter to Freise, Kahr criticized Freise for having disbursed the balance of the UIM settlement proceeds to JoLynn, and asserted that Freise knew that JoLynn was contemplating divorce at the time of that disbursement. Despite her previous agreement that in order to preserve joint and several liability, it was not in the family's best interests to consummate the settlement with American States while the tavern matter was unresolved, Kahr criticized Freise for not having consummated the American States settlement. She pointed out that Jeff had lost interest income as a result. She also criticized Freise for communicating with Waggoner about his legal fees, even though she had previously indicated that Waggoner should be involved, and she challenged the costs that Freise had advanced for experts in the personal injury action, claiming that Jeff had not authorized incurring any expert witness fees. She also asserted that Freise owed Jeff $5,366.86 and that, if Freise did not pay this sum by May 7, 1997, Jeff and John Barrett would sue him. Freise declined to meet Kahr's demands, but advised of his willingness to extend the statute of limitations provided by RCW 4.24.005, to allow for mediation or a settlement conference regarding the fee issues.
The Fee Reasonableness Petition and Amended Petition
On May 9, 1997, John and Jeff Barrett filed a petition in King County Superior Court for a determination of the reasonableness of Freise's contingency fee agreement, pursuant to RCW 4.24.005. Shortly thereafter, venue was transferred from King County to Snohomish County, at Freise's request. In July 1997, John and Jeff amended their petition to add claims of legal malpractice, breech of fiduciary obligations, negligent misrepresentation, and a Consumer Protection Act claim with respect to Freise's handling of the personal injury matter. They also sought disgorgement of the contingency fee and reimbursement for costs advanced that Freise had retained from the UIM settlement proceeds. Freise denied liability, and counterclaimed for additional fees earned and costs advanced for Jeff in the personal injury action, to the date of his discharge.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|