DG
#2Consumer Comment
Tue, January 21, 2014
Several points should be made with respect to Peter's complaints. First, Ms. Vogel is and was NOT Peter's lawyer. According to the complaint Ms. Vogel represented the deceased former tenant. Second, Peter states that he is a landlord. Presumably he is familiar with attorneys and likely consults with attorneys from time to time. Third, Peter's assumptions or desires as to the proper administration of a decedent's estate in California and the order of preferences with respect to payment of creditors is apparently wrong. The order of payment of claims is a matter of law and can be found in the California Probate Code. Fourth, Peter's apparent assumption that Ms. Vogal was obligated to consult Peter or somehow provide him with information is also mistaken. Ms. Vogel did inform Peter that there was an estate. She also advised him of his right to file a creditors claim. Peter could have retained HIS OWN attorney or gone to the court house and reviewed the probate file if he was truly interested in the affairs of the estate. He could also have retained his own attorney to persue an unlawful detainer (eviction) action in order to reclaim the premises sooner. He did not choose to do so.
I am not Ms. Vogel and I do not work with or for Ms. Vogel. I am a Calfiornia licensed attorney and have practiced for over 2 decades in this area of law. However, this complaint is totally without merit and suggests that attorneys are obligated to provide legal advice to independent - NON CLIENT - third parties who somehow think that they shouldn't have to retain their own counsel in legal matters that might affect them. This complaint is similar to a defendant in a lawsuit expecting the plaintiff's lawyer to tell them what to do. It is baseless.
Stacey
Dallas,#3Consumer Comment
Sat, April 27, 2013
What did your attorney say about this situation?