Loyd J. Bourgeois Injury & Accident Lawyer withdrew from representing a Louisiana driver in a disputed commercial vehicle accident claim after discovering undisclosed prior attorney relationships and inconsistencies that undermined trust in the case.
Case at a Glance
- Case Type: Disputed commercial vehicle accident claim
- Location: Highway in Louisiana, with a subsequent confrontation at a gas station
- Client: Louisiana driver reporting injuries from an alleged collision with a commercial vehicle
- Accident Details: Client reported being bumped by a commercial vehicle, but police found no visible damage to either vehicle
- Evidence Challenges: A witness accompanying the commercial driver reported seeing no collision
- Prior Representation: Client disclosed one prior attorney, but the defense provided documentation of five previous attorneys
- Resolution: Firm withdrew from representation after reviewing the undisclosed attorney history and inconsistencies
- Key Takeaway: Honest communication and full disclosure are essential to building a strong attorney-client relationship
Drew reached out to us after being involved in what he described as a crash with a commercial vehicle on the highway. He said the other driver bumped him, causing injury, and that he followed the commercial vehicle to a nearby gas station, where things escalated into a verbal confrontation. Police were called, and an officer responded to take photos of both vehicles. But when the officer inspected the scene, there was no visible damage to either car. The commercial driver also had a witness with him who said he didn’t see any crash.
When Drew first called us, he mentioned having been represented by another attorney who withdrew due to a conflict. We stepped in and submitted our letter of representation. Soon after, we heard from a defense attorney representing the other party. What came next raised major concerns. The defense attorney informed us Drew had already gone through five prior attorneys. He sent us each of their letters of representation as proof.
We believe in giving people a fair shot, especially in difficult situations. But we also rely on open, honest communication with our clients. Challenging cases don’t scare us. What we can’t work with is withheld information or behavior that undermines the case before it begins. After reviewing the history and inconsistencies, we made the decision to withdraw. It’s not something we take lightly, but trust is essential.
Our job is to fight hard for the people we represent. That starts with a strong partnership built on honesty. When that isn’t possible, it prevents us from doing our best work, and ultimately, it does a disservice to everyone involved.
