I earlier reviewed this lawyer because I thought my case was proceeding too slowly. So I called him, "risk aversive." But Jay Watson was smarter than I was. He urged me to be patient and to let the seeds he planted come to fruition. He was right, and I was wrong. I'm glad to admit it, because he won my case for me! I could tell from the start that Jay was a good man (and I said so). What I didn't appreciate was his attention to detail and his careful analysis of what was going on with my case. I was too close to it, and I was angry. Jay managed to calm me down. I think that's a great attribute to have in an attorney: someone who sees a client like me--a bull in a china shop--and manages to keep me from breaking the china!

John is a good man but he's a bit risk aversive. He doesn't want to litigate unless he knows he can win. My case involves "good old boys" who resort to bullying and intimidating me and other tennis officials in North Carolina. John has written two letters on my behalf for my $1,000. He hasn't received a reply. I may have to hire another lawyer who is more aggressive. I did have great conversations with him about philosophy and religion, but that didn't win me any bennies. The case is ongoing, so maybe he'll get a good result. We'll see.

I earlier reviewed this lawyer because I thought my case was proceeding too slowly. So I called him, "risk aversive." But Jay Watson was smarter than I was. He urged me to be patient and to let the seeds he planted come to fruition. He was right, and I was wrong. I'm glad to admit it, because he won my case for me! I could tell from the start that Jay was a good man (and I said so). What I didn't appreciate was his attention to detail and his careful analysis of what was going on with my case. I was too close to it, and I was angry. Jay managed to calm me down. I think that's a great attribute to have in an attorney: someone who sees a client like me--a bull in a china shop--and manages to keep me from breaking the china!

John is a good man but he's a bit risk aversive. He doesn't want to litigate unless he knows he can win. My case involves "good old boys" who resort to bullying and intimidating me and other tennis officials in North Carolina. John has written two letters on my behalf for my $1,000. He hasn't received a reply. I may have to hire another lawyer who is more aggressive. I did have great conversations with him about philosophy and religion, but that didn't win me any bennies. The case is ongoing, so maybe he'll get a good result. We'll see.

I earlier reviewed this lawyer because I thought my case was proceeding too slowly. So I called him, "risk aversive." But Jay Watson was smarter than I was. He urged me to be patient and to let the seeds he planted come to fruition. He was right, and I was wrong. I'm glad to admit it, because he won my case for me! I could tell from the start that Jay was a good man (and I said so). What I didn't appreciate was his attention to detail and his careful analysis of what was going on with my case. I was too close to it, and I was angry. Jay managed to calm me down. I think that's a great attribute to have in an attorney: someone who sees a client like me--a bull in a china shop--and manages to keep me from breaking the china!

John is a good man but he's a bit risk aversive. He doesn't want to litigate unless he knows he can win. My case involves "good old boys" who resort to bullying and intimidating me and other tennis officials in North Carolina. John has written two letters on my behalf for my $1,000. He hasn't received a reply. I may have to hire another lawyer who is more aggressive. I did have great conversations with him about philosophy and religion, but that didn't win me any bennies. The case is ongoing, so maybe he'll get a good result. We'll see.