-24-
purpose of this meeting, which lasted several hours, was to
identify any computational issues with respondent’s settlement
offers and that, in fact, Mr. Kauffman subsequently relayed to Ms.
Miller several computational problems that had been identified at
this meeting. We do not find credible petitioners’ suggestion
that Mr. Gazi thought the purpose of this meeting was simply to
discuss petitioners’ case with Mr. Kauffman. It is hard to square
petitioners’ suggestion with their allegation that Mr. Kauffman
was no longer authorized to represent them during this time.
Moreover, if, as petitioners suggest, on June 15, 2003, Mr. Gazi
was operating under the impression that the cases had been
continued until June 30, 2003 (as Mr. Kell’s notes indicate Mr.
Gazi told him), it is telling that Mr. Gazi had not renewed his
efforts to have Mr. Kell enter these cases (a continuance having
been one of Mr. Kell’s major preconditions) and, insofar as the
record reveals, was doing nothing else to prepare these cases for
the trials that he supposedly believed were upcoming in 2 weeks.
On the basis of all the evidence, we are led to the conclusion
that Mr. Gazi was doing nothing to prepare the cases for trial
because he understood the cases were to be settled in accordance
with the settlement offer that Mr. Kauffman had traveled to
Baltimore to review with him.13
13 We are not insensitive to the fact that Mrs. Gazi was
gravely ill during this time. Undoubtedly, Mr. Gazi was
(continued...)
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011