Court in the Medical Malpractice Action directed that we appear in court to swear under oath that we requested that Mr. Frank be relieved from the Medical Malpractice Action.
            8. We informed defendant that we did not want to make such a representation to the Court because it was not true. However, defendant threatened us that Mr. Frank would "ruin the case" if we did not "discharge" him.
            9. We had no choice but to follow defendant’s direction. Thus, we appeared before the Trial Court and requested that Mr. Frank be discharged.
            10. Although from the outset defendant had led us to believe that he was a
"super" lawyer and would "come in at the end and do the trial himself", defendant informed us after the Trial Court approved the discharge of Mr. Frank that he had already retained another lawyer to try the Medical Malpractice Action.
            11. On or about June 29, 1999, at defendant’s direction, we met with the law firm of Assail and Yoelli whom defendant said was going to try the underlying case. However, Assail and Yoelli decided not to take on the Medical Malpractice Action.
            12. Thereafter, on or about July 8, 1999, defendant telephoned plaintiff
Stephanie Speken and stated that he had settled the Medical Malpractice Action and that we were required to sign general releases and appear before the Trial Court immediately.
            13. In response, we met with defendant later that same day at his office to
discuss the settlement. During this meeting, defendant told us that we had no choice but to accept the settlement and to sign general releases because, inter alia:
             (a) If we did not sign releases, the Trial Judge would immediately
"close down" the case;
             (b) The Trial Judge was "corrupt" and therefore it was no use talking to the
Click for Previous Page
Click for Next Page (4/20)
Click for Legal Malpractice Lawsuit