Stuart Bronstein wrote:
Stuart,
Ok. I'll concede the marketing technique legitimacy. I will only get a better read on his technical expertise thru some judiciously asked questions. I think I have a good feeling for what reasonable answers would be. #1 negative if he is does not feel he needs to ask me further questions about my and my sister's needs and current and future lifestyles and ability/desire to deal with complex legal structures and potentially face Irs scrutiny. Will keep you posted on results. I might add (and it may be picky) that in the first draft of the will he was preparing, there was a terrible run on sentence, which was not due to excess legal verbiage, with which I am very familiar. It was simply lack of a period and the start of a new sentence. His secretary was doing the manual labor from his collected information, but I know boiler plate templates are used for these things, and in the particular paragraph, *I* could have written it correctly. In fact, I was the one who spotted it immediately. Of course, he agreed to correct it, but initially there was definitely a position of "oh, it's not that important; run-on sentences and poor grammar/punctuation are common in legal documents". Duh? I've always understood it to be criticial to have these documents, more than any others, be as letter perfect as possible, and that in worst case scenarios, misplaced commas and such can create nasty situations. If I'm correct in feeling that this should not have been downplayed as no big deal, it's not a good indication of the level of quality I can expect from his firm. Am I being overly judgemental? jo