The document refers to a $5,000 offer made by the McGuires to Dulberg first made on November 18, 2013.  The following terms are used interchangably to refer to offer:

p1 - "The McGuires offer", "the McGuires' settlement offer"
p5 -  "$5,000 settlement offer", "$5,000 offer", "$5,000 settlement offer from the McGuires"
p6 -  "$5,000 settlement offer from the McGuires", "the settlement offer"
p14 - "the McGuires offer" 

At no time would a reader of the document know that this was actually a counter-offer.  The original settlement offer was made to the McGuires on October 22, 2013 for $7,500 by Mast on behalf of Dulberg.  

The fact that Flynn specifically references "The McGuires' settlement offer", "the settlement offer", the McGuire offer", "$5,000 settlement offer, "$5,000 offer", "$5,ooo offer from the McGuires" and uses each of these terms to refer to the same instrument is highly illuminating that the original settlement offer for $7,500 made on October 22, 2013 was never mentioned once.  Flynn's choice of terms certainly give the impression that there was no origninal offer made about i month before the one he refers to.  One would never know that the McGuires were making a counter-offer. 

But it is impossible to understand why the McGuires made a $5,000 counter-offer or when they made their counter-offer of one does not know about the original offer.  How can Flynn reference a counter-offer throughout his document as if it is an original offer and how can flynn never mention the original offer when he uses a term like "the settlement offer" in this document?

To what action does the term "the settlement offer" refer?  Does it refer to the Dulberg settlement offer of $7,500 made on October 22, 2013 or does it refer to the McGuire settlement counter-offer made on November 18, 2013?

Why use the term "$5,000 settlement offer" when it would be more correct and less confusing to use the term "$5,000 settlement counter-offer"?  Since the $5,000 offer  to an original settlement offer of $7,500, why not call it a "counter-offer"?  We can then use the term "$7,500 settlement offer" and "$5,000 settlement counter-offer" in a way that clarifies the fact that two offers were made and one followed the other.

 When Flynn uses the expression "the settlement offer" to mean the McGuire offer and never mentions the original $7,500 settlement offer in the document Flynn is clearly hiding the original settlement offer.

WHY DID HE HIDE THE ORIGINAL OCTOBER 22, 2013 OFFER OF $7,500?

Flynn has very good reason to ignore the original $7,500 settlement offer made on October 22, 2013 for the following reasons:

Mast made the original $7,500 settlement offer on Otober 22, 2013 without Dulberg's knowledge or consent.

There is no evidence of any communiation involving $7,500 between Mast and Dulberg leading up to October 22, 2013.

Mast can't explain why Dulberg was asking Mast to cite case law showing why McGuires were not liable on November 20 if they agreed to settle about 4 weeks earlier.  Mast can't explain why Mast was explaining to Dulberg why the McGuires are not liable  at November 20 meeting if Dulberg and Mast agreed to settle earlier and made an offer of $7,500.

There is no evidence of any communication about the 7,500 offer leading up to or at any time following Oct 22, 2013.

The 7,500 offer was never discussed at the November 4, 2013 meeting that Mast requested to discuss the McGuire case.  A witness at the meeting can confirm this.

It is not possible to explain why Mast called the November 4th meeting to discuss the McGuire case with Dulberg if they already made an offer 4 weeks earlier and were waiting for Barch to reply at that time.

It is clear that Dulberg disagreed with the 5,000 offer from first hearing about it on Nov 18 until finally agreeing on December 24th.  The 7,500 offer was not mentioned once during these Mast-Dulberg exchanges.

Dulberg quickly called for a meeting with Mast.  The 7,500 offer was not discussed at the November 20th meeting.  A witness at the meeting can confirm this.



introduction:

incorrect claims -

"Eventually, in Masty's legal opinion, the case against the property owners was weak because the evidence showed they did not control the work."

Left out - $7,500 offer made without Dulberg's knowledge or consent.  $5,000 offer is a counter-offer and cannot be understood without knowing of the original offer.

"Dulberg later settled with Gagnon, and waited until November 28, 2017 to sue Popovich and Mast.

He has never been able to explain what legal opinion he received or how it caused him to "discover" his claim and damages, or why he still waited almost another year after December 2016 to file his lawsuit."

Introduction is about the 2 year statute of limitations bar.


In II.  STATEMENT OF CLAIM

"In late 2013 or early 2014, Mast met with Dulberg and agreed with Mast to accept $5,000, releasing William and Carolyn McGuire."

"Dulberg retained other attorneys and proceeded to a binding mediation where he received an award."



Also in V.  ARGUMENT time barred.

Only time barred issues are raised in the argument and summary.

Flynn names Bulke and Baudin.  There is no evidence that Bulke communicated with Dulberg about Mast's possible malpractice actions.  There is no evidence that the Baudins did.

Flynn then argues that Dulberg should have come to a concludsion on his own about possible Mast malpratice even though Dulberg retained an attorney during this time and the attorney did not inform Dulberg of any popovich malpractice act.

Why would Flynn expect the Dulberg to  know legal aspects of malpractice that Flynn doesn't expect from Dulberg's attorneys?  Flynn expects Dulberg to recognize an act of legal malpractice that Dulberg's own retained attorneys at the time apparently did not recognize and of whih they did not inform Dulberg even if they did.




p6 - "Mast thought the case against David Gagnon was difficult.  Mast told Dulberg he did not make a good witness.  Dulberg and Gagnon were the only people who witnessed the accident.  There were differences between factual testimony provided by Gagnon and Dulberg in the underlying case."


p6 - "Dulberg did not accept the settlement offer on November 8, 2013.  Dulberg met with Mast on November 20, 2013."


p6 - "Eventually Dulberg told Mast that he would agree to accept the $5,000 settlement offer from the McGuires, just before Christmas in December of 2013.  Dulberg received a letter with a settlement release from Mast on January 29, 2014 and signed it and sent it back.  From December 25 until he received the settlement release, he contacted Mast again to discuss whether it would be appropriate to let the Mcguires out for $5,000.  Dulberg did not talk to any other lawyers and there was nothing preventing him from seeking a second opinion from some other laywer at the time.  Dulberg emailed Mast with a question about the release on January 29, 2014, and then put a stamp on the envelope with the executed release, put it in his mailbox, put the flag up, and waited for the mailman.  Mast did not force him to take the settlement." 

The original settlement offer of $7,500 made by Mast on October 22, 2013 on Dulberg's behalf without Dulberg's knowledge or consent is what began this whole series of processes.

p9 - "Mast's recommendation of suggestion that Dulberg settle the case for $5,000 against the McGuires was based on his analysis of the entire case, including the risks and benefits of going forward and potentionally losing the case at trial."

The offer by the McGuires of $5,000 was actually a counter offer to an offer of $7,500 made by Mast on October 22, 2013 on behalf of Dulberg.  Dulberg was not aware Mast made the $7,500 offer on Dulberg's behalf until early July, 2019.


p9 - "Gagnon's testimony regarding the facts surrounding the accident differed from Paul Dulberg's version of the facts.  Mast took that difference in testimony into account in his evaluation and his analysis of the case."

On February 1, 2013....

Gagnon never filed an answer.  Mast must have known this.  Mast first told Dulberg he did not want to pursue the Gagnon case to trial in April 2014... 



P 14 - "He was clearly questioning whether he should agree to accept the McGuires' offer, and he deliberated on it extensively.

The McGuires' offer of $5,000 was actually a counter-offer to an earlier offer of $7,500 made by Mast to the McGuires on behalf of Dulberg.  Dulberg was not aware Mast made the $7,500 offer on Dulberg's behalf until early July, 2019.

Beginning on p5 is an amazingly scattered paragraph naming every...  ??