I agree Ray! They have made a point of saying that if the original parties are not interested in re-interviewing, then they will stay with their choice. One of the criteria in the evaluation process is financial borrowing/bonding documents preparation experience. This is a separate line item in the budget and doesn't have any relevance to the day to day attorney duties, in my opinion. They can always use Ms. Mack as a consultant on borrowing/bond issues. This should not be part of the evaluation process, in my opinion.
If they are trying to conserve they need to get out from under that $375.00 rate.
Also, with a lawsuit pending in MA, it is my understanding that Ms. Mack is not qualified to practice in MA.....
Why do I have the feeling that somehow, the original parties are "not going to be interested" in participating in a "mock" evaluation when they now know the deck is stacked?!
I would like the names of the interested parties disclosed.
Twenty years is enough! Time for a change!
Please explain the inappropriate content below.