 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Drakulich12/19/1995
of 1988, after a favorable verdict was obtained, but before formal judgment was entered, appellant advanced Hall $300.00 for the work he had performed because Hall said he needed funds so he could give his kids a decent Christmas. Later, Hall performed the above-noted asset check and was paid an additional $275.00. Explaining why he did not charge Hall's services to the clients, appellant testified that "a lot of it was basically finding work for Harold to do, and also assisting my office in things that my normal staff would have to do, contacting a client, making contact with them, making sure that he got answers to interrogatories . . . ."Appellant found work for Hall to do because he was Hall's friend, because Hall had "difficulty with one of his kids medically," and because Hall had problems maintaining a job. Appellant insisted that Hall was only paid for services performed and did not receive any remuneration in other cases he referred to appellant where Hall did not perform work. Appellant also explained why Hall never submitted any written bills for his services:
Mr. Hall was not a licensed"in fact, Mr. Hall told me he wanted to become an investigator. The only way that I could really have Harold do anything for my cases, other than people he would know and that he would be able to contact, he would have to either be employed by my office, which I didn't want to do, or he would have to go ahead and go formally with another investigative agency. And that just wasn't in the ballpark for Harold Hall. And he wasn't"he didn't have a secretary, and I'm not going to have my secretary type his bills. It was just a thing of this is what I had done type of transaction.
[111 Nev. 1556, Page 1562]
Appellant directly contradicted Skelly's testimony that he used Business and Professionals Collection agency to perform asset checks. Appellant flatly denied ever using that company to conduct an asset check. Appellant further testified that both Skelly and Stellmach left appellant's office under less than amicable circumstances. According to appellant, Skelly was disappointed when appellant informed her that she would not be employed as an attorney in appellant's office after she obtained her license to practice. Additionally, "hard feelings" resulted from a number of problems, one of which involved alleged incidents in which she provided legal advice to appellant's clients. With respect to Stellmach, appellant testified that he "got extremely mad" when she left some gay literature (relating to the Gay Rodeo Association) in the office copy room. The literature was inadvertently stapled to some other papers which were then sent off to a client. Additionally, when appellant upbraided Stellmach for making "off-colored" comments and jokes in his office, Stellmach took offense and suggested that appellant "should be taken to the Equal Opportunity Employment . . . ."Stellmach resigned shortly thereafter when he refused to let her leave early on the Friday before New Year's Eve. Appellant stated that Stellmach informed him that "because of . . . personal reasons and the pressures at the office, she was no longer going to work for me." Later, when Stellmach made a claim for unemployment benefits, appellant "confronted her on it." Appellant also called an attorney from a large personal injury firm in San Francisco to testify. The attorney testified that his firm often hires people to perform tasks similar to those which appellant claimed were provided by Hall. Further, the attorney stated that payments for such services come out of the attorney's fees themselves rather than the costs attributed the client. Our view and our practice is that if"if what we're doing for the client is a lawyer-related activit
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Nevada Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|