InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

Chiron

12/08/10 6:20 PM

#262534 RE: seth06 #262532

I personally feel that with a 4 day hearing, Susman could have at least come for an hour or two just for the presence factor.
icon url

marayatano

12/08/10 6:25 PM

#262536 RE: seth06 #262532

With all due respect that is absolutely BS! You pay big gun attorney fee for a big gun you should see that big gun working IMO...you hire Mickey mouse for your child's b-day party and you get Pluto (still Disney, lots of b-days to attend) you would stand for that? Outrageous and just plain inconceivable in my mind! Peoples lives were ruined. Not to sa JN is not a fabulous attourney, but that is not ok. Aimo



All I am stating is how it done in law firms.

You contract/retain the Firm, not Susman.

In your example, you contract with the company to have a fictitious character to entertain the kids. Mickey Mouse can be duplicated, Susman cannot and is an individual. If Mickey does NOT come, you have a breach of contract. This does NOT apply to law firms since you retained the Firm, not Susman.

There is a difference. It is not an apple and apple comparison.

Believe me, I know how it works.

imo
icon url

uzualsuzpect

12/08/10 6:32 PM

#262538 RE: seth06 #262532

Shananigans... If I were to hire the Johnny Cochran firm (when he was alive) I would get John Doe, esq. that worked for the firm. Same thing here. SS has been in the spotlight in the Dodger case - thats good for the law firm either way. We have great attorneys from SG here. We're good. IF you can do better than Nelson or Sargent did last week- then so be it - however, I DOUBT IT.