``The lawyer, who brought a series of patent infringement suits for Patriot on a contingent-fee basis, claims the executives then leading the company, Jeffrey Wallin and Lowell Giffhorn, misled him about the ownership of the patent at issue, causing him and his firm to be disqualified in March 2005 after the ownership came into dispute.``

Ron wrote:

``he is apparently taking his position that clients should be responsible for teaching the law to their own lawyers``

I came aboard after the Higgins mess, so let me get this clear.....

B & O : we were hired and blew it, so now PTSC has to share income results 50/50 with TPL....we got fired because of it, including getting booted by the court....even though PTSC has , because of our screw up, lost 60 million dollars to date of would be income....we are going to ask the court to force PTSC to fork over a piece of a smaller pie (thanks to us) to us. We hold in our hands a contract that states we get part of any deals, we are going to plead to the court to up hold the contract even though we got fired, booted from the court and never did any thing to aquire the deals. We are going to ask the court to award us free money for something we did not produce, and even though this may seem as a breach of contract by us, we being lawyers and all, we will sue anyway and tell the court...``it is all our former clients fault we looked bad in court`` and as a matter of (we hope it will fly) fact we never did any research, we just took the word of JW and LG as to the whole mess ``our clients`` and poor us, ``They miss led us`` So you see, even though we produced nothing and even made thing worse, would your honor please let us back in the door .....Pretty Please, it was there fault they were force to hire someone else to do the job, and now that we see that results can be had we want some of the other guys fruits.....LOL

I am very far from being a lawyer, my question is this,

Is this akin to me hiring my neighbors kid to mow my grass, and we sign a contract that states my grass gets mowed once a week and I will pay him $200 a month. A month goes by and not only does the grass not get cut but the city comes by and writes me a citation for a very mess yard and requires me to get it mowed or pay a fine, so I am forced to hire a pro to come in and do the job at twice the cost, I agree to pay the pro company $400 a month and the job gets done very well....as a matter of fact the pro does such a good job my yard starts to look very rich. Then all of a sudden I get a lawsuit from the neighbor`s Kid and in the suit it claims that Me and Him have a contrat that states he gets $200 a month because my grass gets mowed once a week. He shows the contract to the judge and states that the grass is indeed mowed, however he didn`t do it himself, but that`s not his fault.....It`s really my fault becaue I never told him I didn`t own a lawn mower, so what does the court expect ``me to use my own mower or borrow my mom and dad`s?.

Ron, is that the way this thing is?