- 15 -
decision authorized by only one petitioner, believing that
petitioners could later attack it as improperly authorized by
only one of them while they were undergoing a divorce.
At midnight of that evening, Montgomery called Tan again and
spoke to her for 3 hours trying to convince her that the
settlements were good for petitioners. Tan did not have any of
petitioners’ 1993 or 1994 financial records, and she told
Montgomery that she required those records before opining on the
settlements. During the morning of December 17, 2003, Montgomery
drove approximately 2 hours to Tan’s office to hand deliver
petitioners’ files to her and to discuss the settlements. He met
with Tan from approximately 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Tan informed
Montgomery at the end of that meeting that she still was unable
to opine on the settlements because she was uncomfortable with
the accuracy of certain numbers used by his accountant in
computing amounts reflected in the settlements. Montgomery told
Tan not to worry because his insurance carrier would cover any
expense resulting from an inaccurate computation by him or his
accountant. Tan continued to decline to opine at that time.
Also on December 17, 2003, Montgomery spoke to Mr. Keil for
approximately 10 minutes. During that call, Montgomery again
tried to convince Mr. Keil to approve the settlements and stated
that any mistake in them would be remedied by his law firm. Mr.
Keil declined to accept the settlements. Montgomery informed Mr.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011