Should Gowlings Account be taxed
Should Gowlings Account be taxed given that they have drained my account over the years purporting to represent the investors whom they don't know and whose investments accounts they don't know. Even the investors don't know that Gowlings represents them. Gowlings does not have any retainer letters from any investors. They cannot show in the dockets if they even have dockets, what if any work they have done. They cannot show any interview notes with any investor. Yet they have seized illegally to hundreds of thousands of my money. They ought to be taxed. They ought to be reported to the Law Society of Upper Canada, they ought to account to somebody. Most important they ought to return my money.
Marshall Reinhart reply as follwoing
Mr. Tang,
First and foremost, as I have told you repeatedly, please do not contact any of the lawyers for the other parties directly. It is inappropriate and they will not respond to you. Adam has asked that I remind you not to correspond to him.
I want to address the points you raise in your email:
Gowling's accounts have been passed, so a court has approved their fees and disbursement. If the investors have an issue with the accounts, that is a matter for them. You already challenged their accounts.
You have to appreciate that much of the monies Gowling has used from the account was used to defend themselves from litigation you brought against them. This is perfectly reasonable, as they are entitled to reasonable costs incurred as a result of defending themselves in their position as Representative Counsel. You can't really argue that they wasted your money on litigation when you were responsible for the litigation in which your claims against them were found to be meritless.
The investors should have known that Gowling represents them. They could have easily found this out from the OSC if they wanted to know. There is nothing that requires Gowling to have retainer letters from the investors, as Gowling was appointed by the Court.
Gowling does have dockets and those dockets do show what work they have done. Gowling has not illegally seized your money, as the Court has approved their accounts and has permitted them to take the money to pay their accounts. I assure you that reporting Gowling to the Law Society of Upper Canada will be a waste of time, as your complaint will be denied.
Please understand that, while I am trying to represent your legal interests as best I can, I still owe you a duty to "tell it like it is" and not to give you false hope or unrealistic expectations.
Marshall Reinhart
Barristers & Solicitors, Notaries
969 Eglinton Avenue West
Toronto, ON M6C 2C4 www.rvlaw.ca
Tel: 416.364.5200 ext. 226
Fax:416.364.5282 [email protected]
Dear Mr. Reinhart
You are missing the points.
1. If I sue you, can I freeze your account and pass the account from time to time, you pay me in front and it is perfectly fine?.
2. Any court appointed lawyer has to inform the client about the appointment and to work diligently for that client. The client has to agree to be represented by that law firm appointed by the judge. It is not automatic. At least the client must know who is representing them. The issue now is, Gowlings adjourned the case in order to find out which are their investor clients and what investments were involved. But what have they been doing all these years not knowing who their clients are and the amount of investments each deposited. The dockets may only deal with the suits filed, how about work done on their clients on their clients' instructions. Do they even have instructions. This is Frantz Kafka. Lawyers draining money without knowing who their clients are and without receiving any instructions from the purported clients. This is a miscarriage of justice.
They could have made all arrangements with their clients before the Motion date which they knew about long before.
狗仔卡
发表于 2017-8-17 20:22:53
收藏
顶
踩
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
显身卡
楼主