Construction progress: Duplex with WU basement and developed attic

Letter from the new lawyer:

Wait, your GCs have not yet been given a deadline to remedy the defects?

And what about reaching a compromise with the people/guilty parties? For example, 50% of the amount you expect?

No chance. He imagines still getting money from me.

Wait, your GUs were not given a deadline to remedy defects?

Not by the lawyer, he just terminated the contract like that. Of course, I had previously requested the GU to remedy the defects with an appropriate deadline and a threat of subsequent performance. But that was before the first lawyer was appointed. However, the lawyer never asked about that afterwards. For the court, my request applies. I know, otherwise there would have been trouble again by now.

Thanks for the excerpt from the lawyer's letter. Very interesting to see that. Without further context, I find it strange that this extremely expensive expert opinion is supposed to be obtained first before you agree on which claims you might assert (2nd paragraph). Do you already know roughly what range that will be in? You at least discussed that orally, right? Also interesting is the subjunctive regarding the possible incorrect advice from the first lawyer. Is there still a contract with the first lawyer? What does he say about the accusation of not initiating a pre-litigation evidence preservation procedure? I find the written documentation exemplary, as the new lawyer is doing. Was that also the case with the first lawyer? So once again the question: What "strategy" did you choose and commission with the first lawyer? Options would include something like: defect remediation, as quick a contract termination as possible, maximum financial compensation, or something else? Because you can’t do everything at once. And depending on the choice, an evidence preservation procedure would be more or less helpful. At least from the perspective at the time.

Thanks for the excerpt of the lawyer’s letter. Very interesting to see it.

Without further context, I find it strange that this very expensive expert opinion is supposed to be obtained first before you agree on which claims you could assert (2nd paragraph). Do you already know roughly what range that will be in? You must have at least discussed it verbally, right?

Also interesting is the subjunctive regarding the possible incorrect advice of the first lawyer. Is there still a contract with the first lawyer? What does he say about the accusation of not having initiated an evidence preservation procedure?

I find the written documentation, as carried out by the new lawyer, exemplary. Did the first lawyer do that as well? Hence another question: What "strategy" did you choose and commission with the first lawyer? Options would have been something like: defect remedy, as quick a contract termination as possible, maximum financial compensation, or something else? Because you can’t do everything at once. And depending on the choice, an evidence preservation procedure would be more or less helpful. At least from the perspective at that time.

According to lawyer no. 2, our claims only arise from this very expensive expert opinion. In the sense that it establishes what value the work of the general contractor 2 actually has. Which repayments we have from paid but not or improperly performed services and what the cost of defect remediation is. Also, it must be clarified what are execution errors and what are construction supervision errors, since the construction supervisor also completely failed here (I know, it’s always someone else’s fault, just not mine). The mandate with lawyer 1 is still not terminated. That will be done soon by lawyer 2. He is not yet aware of the mentioned accusation. He had been tasked to deal with the damages, with the goal of quickly continuing construction preferably with that money, provided an out-of-court settlement is possible. Apart from the termination, he did nothing and that also incorrectly.

Unfortunately, it is the case that you basically have to take care of yourself in such a court proceeding …. Everything the lawyer suggests you have to google, you have to become half a lawyer yourself …. The outsider thinks: the lawyer does everything. He does nothing. He does only what you tell him, no more and no less. Only a few affected people have the nerve for that. Understandably.