I had not seen this message until today. I'm not familiar with who this client might be. I would like to get more details.
I certainly don't give up when a case goes in a different direction. I usually will explain a client's options when the case is ongoing. There are things that can be done to object to a defendant's bankruptcy. I know it can be frustrating to a client when the case does not go smoothly. In most cases we would advise the client about the odds on winning in each scenario as presented.
I'm going to need payment from the client to continue to do work for them. There are court costs to pay and attorneys cost money. If I knew who this person was I could probably explain more completely.
But, this seems to be not a client at all. He mentions I wasn't wearing a belt, clothes wrinkled, hair not combed. Seems like a fashion critic not a legal analyst. I'm guessing it's someone I collected money from that was unhappy about having to pay their bill with the extras that come with a judgment against them. But I don't know who this could be and would love more information about them and the case.
On the plus side I'm a 1982 Georgetown Law Center graduate. I have been doing this work in Dallas since 1983.
I was just given a Martindale Hubbell Preeminent rating which is given for the highest possible legal ability and ethical standards as determined by the bar and judiciary. So that means I'm probably not a con artist attorney.
If the reviewer would please provide more information about themselves I can give a more complete response.
Yes, I agree with you on that first point. Equally, the peer review award could be just a group of shysters giving another shyster the thumbs up. But, even with lawyers, I try to give the benefit of doubt to someone until they show they are not worth it; if only to keep from wallowing in my own cynicism.
Aren't lawyers supposed to be great at reading? If this one had been, he would have seen how old the post was. At least he didn't advertise his site like so many, so that's a plus in his favor...
Even lawyers are human and, as I am sure you have noticed in the past, many people who post replies here pay attention to the post but miss (or ignore) the dateline just above it and thus make a reply to a post that is months or years old. Although, you would tend to expect that a lawyer, whose job often requires them to deal with the minutiae of printed documents, would notice such details.
For some reason unknown to me, those extra names did not come up in the first search of that site. But as Celtic said, shouldn't this poster have looked at the date on the original post? It just came to his attention 3 years later? How? Did he search his name or phone number? Why? Was he expecting to find something derogatory?