rome

Why on earth would you publically disclose what you are "recommending" to your client. That it is a blatant breach of the ethical rules is bad enough. But it is especially inconceivable to me in this case, where a good deal of your client's defensive leverage will obviously be via an interpleader action against your client's co-defendants, including Porsche. You should be ashamed.

Sanjeevan

I have to answer this as I had used the same words to describe Nick, how ever it may feel like we are ganging up on you, it's not my intention.

He is helping a family who has suffered a lot, that's all the reason you need, and that qualifies him as a stand-up kind of a guy. I am sorry to hear that he needs to help both families (who are equally suffering) to qualify as one in your eyes.

Everyone here agrees that Corey and his family went through the same trauma, and we are equally passionate for him too. The difference is who is sueing who? so if Ben's family had sued Corey's family then I will be irate with Ben's family as well.

You can easily make a case that Corey enticed him for a test drive and really wanted to see what the car can do and peer-pressured Ben in to doing things that he was not compfortable with. I am not saying Corey did this, but if Ben's family wants a lawsuit they could say that,...

Does'nt matter whether it's Ben or Corey, but hate to see either ones name draged through the mud, in this case it's unfortunate that it IS Corey's family doing the dirty deed. (I don't care if they sue Porsche, the track or the club,....but not the other equally suffering family, DO YOU GET THIS?).

How ever, to me it sounds like you are not seeing the obvious here, don't use this topic to advance your obvious personal differences against Nick.

Les Quam

Jeff,

Heck yeah I am serious about a 275 GTB/4 my friend recently bought one for a client at an Arizona auction. And I had a chance to look it over. Black with tan interior. First time I ever tried to have sex with a car.

The "4 " means 4 cams double overhead on each cylinder head and has a bulge in the hood as opposed to the 275GTBs. About 280 were made. Where did your friend buy his? They are not so easy to find?

Oldnslow

wch. Congrats on the F40, a stunning car. In light of this thread please be a little careful with that beast. At our local track her in Seattle (Pacific Raceways) a couple of years ago at a PCA Drivers Ed event a fellow was driving and hit a wall at fairly low speed. The F40 burst into flames quickly, and the occupants just barely escaped through the windows before the entire car was reduced to a pile of rubble, all within a few seconds. I'm telling you the blaze looked like what's left when an IED explodes under vehicle in Baghdad. Fortunately no one got hurt. Everyone was shocked at what happened--the fuel tank apparantly ruptured. I've seen lots of Porsches hit that same wall over the years and certainly never saw anything burst into flames like that. If I had an F40 I'd seriously consider a fuel cell. Good luck and enjoy the F40 and stay safe.

SS S2

My lord! Has anyone ever heard of a racing incident? When you enter an area of a contest or forum involving speed, accidents happen. You can't avoid it. Speed contests are dangerous by nature and it is impossible to inform someone about every danger and/or possible scenario. You have to know this prior to getting in the car. I wonder what kind of car the attorney drives?!
A wise man once said, the only thing for sure about a lawsuit is the cost.

Nick

When the insurance company took over the defense of the case, she was no longer my client. Also you are confusing a course of action and no recommendation. Whether she decides to pursue a claim is up to her and the defense attorney representing her given the defense stategy. Should she decide to pursue a case against Porsche ( discovery may uncover Porsche negligence) she probably will be required to retain a Plaintiff counsel.

BTW since the insurance company controls the litigation they will decided whether to file a cross-claim against Porsche. Ben's widow is not a party to this litigation.

Lightened up. This strategy is known by everyone involved in the case plus several street people bumming quarters for a cup of coffee. This is not rocket science. Jeez

JBH

I apologize if I have offend anyone - that was not my intent.

Les Quam

Duh!
The reason he comes on this Porsche forum with his less than enthusiastic opinons of Porsche is precisley to torment us. That's why I enjoy his posts so much he is so darned entertaining!

It would be like watching paint dry around here if it wasn't for Nick!

Vancouver83LTD

OH MAN i WAS PAINTING MY HOUSE THIS LIKE BEIGE COLUR AND OMG THE WAY IT DRIED WAS AWESOME!
Seriously though it dried in like 20 minutes, latex based however so if it got wet it came right off - it was pretty neat stuff

rome

Wake up man. You have been representing her and Ben's estate (which she is a beneficiary of) in matters relating to this accident. You are blabbing all over the internet about advice you are giving her in regard to potential claims against co-defendants. There is not necessarily a commonality of defense among all defendents, so it unclear how the insurance company's counsel will proceed if a resolution is proposed say for Porsche (on design defect issues) but not the estate (for e.g. on a negligence claim).

What happens when you are deposed as a fact witness (and later called to trial) to explain why you have publically remarked on this forum that you have "recommended" no action against Porsche? A cross claim, or as I put it, interpleader, against Porsche could very well be in the estate's interest down the road depending on how this plays out.

Sanjeevan

JBH, FWIW you did not offend me,...this topic is a sensitive issue in different levels here, so everyones on a hair trigger and thus the passion in our responses. I know you from your post's in off-topic, and I know you are great guy. I know Nick is used to getting this kind of heat, we are guy's, we'll argue till we are red in the face, and then buy a beer for each other. It should be the same here . Have a great day.
Jeeva

Nick

Rome your assertions are ludicrous and your allegations baseless. However I will not responded because it would be useless. Your example about the fact witness is comical. Look, you may strive to lower this discussion to a persoanl level but I refuse to do so.

rome

I know you understand what I am saying and you know that it is correct. I strongly suspect that you will refrain from publically divulging information about the advice you give your clients, and the litigation, on a going forward basis.

JChiles

Surely sounds like you have a pretty messed up system over there.

Graygoose997

<Surely sounds like you have a pretty messed up system over there>
you think ?
the only good thing you can say about our lawyers is that it keeps a large population of otherwise unemployable miscreants off of the welfare rolls.