which part is not clear?

1. my attorney told me any evidence requires to be presented before trial so the other party can be reacted. However, he showed me a evidence the respondent presented at the date of trial implying that I have to sign the agreement, this is not right.

2. he always suggested that we go for trial, and that makes me feel confident that the trial result must be better than the result of settlement. However, at the date of trial, he made a last minute settlement, and that settlement was extremely not what I wanted. If I was ever given a hint of such a result or even a close one, I would have signed off for good long time ago, and wouldn't have to waited for this last minute settlement after paying huge of legal services to that attorney.

However, I'm not sure if these two arguments strong enough for not paying his remaining balance, or just good enough to file a complaint to the bar association

Thank you for your input anyways

所有跟帖： 

• I don't think a settlement can be effective without -CyberCat- ♂ (16 bytes) () 10/13/2009 postreply 13:59:43

• I don't think your arguments are good enough. -CyberCat- ♂ (1461 bytes) () 10/13/2009 postreply 14:05:32

• 回複：I don't think your arguments are good enough. -要一點公平- ♂ (1914 bytes) () 10/13/2009 postreply 15:06:58

• I'll come back tomorrow to see any suggestions I may get here -要一點公平- ♂ (0 bytes) () 10/13/2009 postreply 15:07:44

• You are stubborn -CyberCat- ♂ (2502 bytes) () 10/14/2009 postreply 06:29:42

• Well, I'm just trying to understand the system better -要一點公平- ♂ (233 bytes) () 10/14/2009 postreply 09:23:35