kirk_rogers
New Member
My lawyer and I agreed that he would get 1/3 of Settlement.I was awarded over $400,000.The defendant offered part cash and restricted stock.I rejected that offer and told my lawyer I didn't want restricted stock.I would only agree to stock that I could sell at my discretion.This is not in dispute between the two of us.He called me to say they've offered $305,000 of which $125,000 in cash and stock worth $180,000 at time of Settlement.I asked my lawyer is the stock restricted....no he said...you can sell at your discretion.I said okay.He said," I don't know much about stock and don't know a stock broker so I said,"lets make it simple you take the cash ($101,0000 and I'll take the stock because I know a stock broker." My lawyer sent me paperwork and I signed.A month later I signed Settlement Agreement that said $125,000 cash plus x amount of company stock worth $180,000.I signed the agreement.The cash came and a week later my lawyer sent me the stock certificate of defendant company shares.
I went to sign it on back to send up to my stock broker but on the back it said RULE 144 Restricted Securities.I was absolutely furious.
Bottomline....told my lawyer that "our deal" should be voided because the Settlement Agreement wasn't fully funded and the stock couldn't be sold for a year which I explicitly said I didn't want.I told my lawyer I would've never signed "our deal" if I knew the stock had a 1 year restriction plus how could he keep most of the cash when the stock price is unknown with the 1 year waiting period.He said we have a deal and you took the risk.I countered by saying the only risk I agreed to was the time I got the stock to the time I sold the stock at my discretion.I had no discretion.
I feel my lawyer is wrong on several accounts.First "our deal" should've been null and void as soon as the stock certificate said restricted securities.Second, as my lawyer, he should've protected my interests better in the Settlement Agreement language because as I've learned just saying x amount of stock could mean any type of stock...he should've caught that and made sure the stock wasn't restricted.
My question....does my lawyer have a legal and ethical responsibility to void "our deal" and only keep $41,000 of the $101,000 cash he desposited.
The stock..one year later is worth less than 5% (about $6,000) when I signed Agreement though I objected to this as soon as I saw the Rule 144 Restricted Securities imprint on the back.
I went to sign it on back to send up to my stock broker but on the back it said RULE 144 Restricted Securities.I was absolutely furious.
Bottomline....told my lawyer that "our deal" should be voided because the Settlement Agreement wasn't fully funded and the stock couldn't be sold for a year which I explicitly said I didn't want.I told my lawyer I would've never signed "our deal" if I knew the stock had a 1 year restriction plus how could he keep most of the cash when the stock price is unknown with the 1 year waiting period.He said we have a deal and you took the risk.I countered by saying the only risk I agreed to was the time I got the stock to the time I sold the stock at my discretion.I had no discretion.
I feel my lawyer is wrong on several accounts.First "our deal" should've been null and void as soon as the stock certificate said restricted securities.Second, as my lawyer, he should've protected my interests better in the Settlement Agreement language because as I've learned just saying x amount of stock could mean any type of stock...he should've caught that and made sure the stock wasn't restricted.
My question....does my lawyer have a legal and ethical responsibility to void "our deal" and only keep $41,000 of the $101,000 cash he desposited.
The stock..one year later is worth less than 5% (about $6,000) when I signed Agreement though I objected to this as soon as I saw the Rule 144 Restricted Securities imprint on the back.
