Just like her son, Raef Lawson, Elizabeth Lawson also testified in Court on June 10, 2024 that she was satisfied with the settlement agreement and the legal services provided by my law firm. Click here to read the transcript.
Q: Ms. Lawson, you had the opportunity to listen to the principle settlement terms that I've put on the record this morning.
A. Yes.
Q. And we had the opportunity before we came to court to both discuss those terms?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you are entering into this settlement agreement of your own free will?
A. Yes.
Q. Has anyone coerced you or pressured you into signing this, into agreeing to this settlement?
A. No.
Q. Okay. And you understand that in agreeing to the settlement that this resolves any and all claims that were asserted in this litigation?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you realize once you accept the settlement, you understand it becomes a final and binding contractual agreement?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. And you're satisfied with the terms of the settlement?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And, are you satisfied with the services that my firm has provided as your counsel?
A. Yes.
Further, in response to direct questioning by the trial judge, Elizabeth Lawson again confirmed that she was satisfied with my services:
Q. Ms. Lawson, have you had enough time to discuss the terms of this resolution with Mr. Reiser?
* * *
Q. With Mr. Reiser, your attorney?
A. Oh, yes, yes. We did.
Q. Okay. And you are satisfied with his services, correct?
A. Yes, I am. I am.
Having just testified to the above, under oath, Elizabeth Lawson then caused the following false review to be posted on Google:
In our first consultation with Glenn and his brother Stuart promised they would build our case by listening to our concerns and follow our needs by letting us be “in the driver’s seat”. Well, it just came out that Stuart's motto from another review that was left for the firm two months ago follows the old adage "a bad settlement is better than a good lawsuit". The other plaintiff and I let them know from the beginning that in order for a fair settlement to be reached the path to be taken would be for us to go to trial and have an impartial judge make the decision. We knew this from knowing the defendant's mindset that mediation would be a waste of time. If we knew then that this was this attorney’s viewpoint, we would not have chosen them. Although it is true this may work for most cases it was not the way to go for us.
“A bad settlement is better than a good trial,” is the kind of thing a trial lawyer says to a client/plaintiff when recommending a settlement offer that is less than full compensation for the wrong (that is, 99.9% of settlements) when the wronged client balks at the settlement but the trial lawyer thinks it is, on balance, a (relatively) good deal. This certainly was a fitting mantra for them as a bad settlement is exactly what they got us.
As Abraham Lincoln noted "A good settlement is better than a good lawsuit" and when mediation didn’t work with our first attorney where the defendants stretched out the billing hours and refused to even come up with a counter offer, we knew for sure that a trial was the only way for us to get a fair deal. Reiser’s following the adage of a bad settlement is better may work when you are up against insurance companies but was not applicable to our case, considering the unusual mindset and untruthfulness of the defendants in our case.
Another subject of issue is that despite Glenn's high fees, his law firm is run very spartanly which looking back should have set off numerous red flags. For starters, Glenn doesn't have an assistant. So, everything that is done will be billed at his high rate. Glenn doesn't have DocuSign; he doesn't accept any form of electronic payment in which he has you mail a check to him every month. It was also very unsettlingly how he'd reach out asking if I mailed the payment in the tone of someone who was expecting that I would renege on the bill. He seemed to be always having his hand out. I wholeheartedly suspect he most likely consciously drove up billing hours wherever he could.
Glenn also failed to inform us that a legal malpractice case was filed against him and his firm back in April 2023. Although Mr. Reiser boasts that this case is frivolous and the client a nut job (then why was he your client?) the case, even though Glenn has tried to get it thrown out, is still pending so the courts still believe it has merit see; CASTRO v. REISER et al
Glenn also displayed incompetence at times by not answering and ignoring important questions we posed to him in our emails. We asked for copies of our case files which he agreed to send to us however, he never did.
During our second day of trial, the judge said everyone preferred being back in court in-person after the pandemic. Glenn jokingly responded to the judge he was getting tired standing during the questioning.
Glenn not only charges his high rate driving to court and back, but he charges his full rate waiting for court to begin. Not even the experts we had appearing in court did that.
In my humble opinion, Glenn's high fees aren't worth the subpar service he provides. I would seriously think twice before choosing this firm if you are looking to receive a good and fair settlement from your case.
The case was a bitter family dispute and settled for a confidential amount after 4 intense days of trial and before the trial was to resume. The settlement amount was suggested by the client and was agreed to by the other side.
The judge scheduled a hearing to approve the settlement. The client attended the hearing and was given the opportunity to approve or disapprove of the settlement. Client approved the settlement after being questioned by the judge. Based on testimony from the client, the judge approved the settlement.
During the course of the settlement hearing, in response to specific questioning by the judge, the client confirmed that he was satisfied with my firm's legal services. However, in an about-face, by the time I got back to my office after a 1 1/2 hour drive back from the court, on the same day the settlement was approved, the client posted this review which is replete with false statements. The attorney-client privilege prohibits me from revealing all of the communications that occurred with the client that led to the settlement being agreed to in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment