<As I read it, Ron is basing his "assumption" on the rarity of a law firm advising it's client to settle for a sizeable amount and then immediately start representing their client's oppostion after the settlement is determined.>
Yes you repeat what Ron said. But in doing so, you essentially are saying that we agreed to settle for peanuts in order to get their counsel to represent us.
No question that the counsel thing would have necessarily been part of the negotiated settlement. And from my prior post, I suggested a possible reason why TPL was looking for substitute counsel. But I think TPL would be on thin ice if they made this counsel switch to benefit TPL at PTSC's expense. Given the problems with Moore, would TPL risk having PTSC take them to task over this? Hmmmm. I don't know. Something like this would be pretty blatant and fairly obvious unlike expenses.
Opty
