Legal Question in Wills and Trusts in Pennsylvania

It sounds like your attorney was able to convince the other attorney that it would be better for all parties to resolve as many issues as possible without a trial/hearing. If you'd have had to go through a trial/hearing or further procedures, it would have run up your attorney fees and might not have had the same effect.

Did you not want to have these issues resolved? The "year-long" case probably laid the groundwork for your lawyer to be able to achieve this result without the need for the hearing. It was necessary to go to court to put on the record what was agreed on/what issues have been resolved.

Settling issues is not giving away a game plan.

What are you not satisfied about? Go back to your lawyer to discuss your concerns.

This response is not legal advice, since I do not have all of the information that would be required, and I do not have a representation agreement with you.

* If the answers to your question confirm that you have a valid issue or worthwhile claim, your next step should almost always be to establish a dialog with a lawyer who can provide specific advice to you. Contact a lawyer in your county or township.

* Another reason for contacting a lawyer is that it is often impossible to give a good answer in the Internet Q&A format without having more information. The unique circumstances of your situation and things that you may not have thought to mention in your question may completely change the answer. If you want to be sure that you have a complete answer to your question and an understanding of what that answer means, establish a connection with a lawyer who practices in the area of your concern.

This is not a probate issue but a legal malpractice issue, although I don't see any malpractice here based on the information that you have provided.

Trials are very very costly and time consuming. And everybody except the lawyers (who hopefully get paid) loses.

Having been involved in some litigation myself, there are times when the other side takes a "head in the sand" approach. They just hope the matter will go away. In such cases, all you can do to get the attention of the other side is file suit and call their bluff.

I don't see the meeting as "giving away your game plan." You are right - a general in a war does not send the general of the opposing army his battel plans on the eve of battle. That would be stupid and no reasonable lawyer is going to do that. I don't think that is what went on here.

We do not have trial by ambush in America. There are many opportunities for each side to get a good knowledge of what issues will be involved, what evidence will be presented and how it will be handled. If a lawyer was not prepared he or she would be guilty of malpractice.

While none of us know the full details, Attorney Jacobson is probably correct. Your lawyer had a "come to Jesus" meeting with the other side, showed him what would happen if they went to court and your uncle, realizing that he had nothing in defense, folded rather than face removal. Your uncle did not want to give up power it seems. But you sent him an effective message - you are watching what he does and will be back to object if he screws up again. And your uncle can't just do what he wants - his actions are limited by the terms of the will, if any, or the state intestacy laws. So keep no making sure your uncle does the jobn properly. It is still a win for you as you made your uncle do what he should have done at the outset.

However, if this bothers you, then talk to your attorney. You are asking lawyers here, without having an opportunity to study the case or documents, to second guess the attorney who actually reviewed everything and prepared the case over a year. It is not fair to the attorney and it would be unethical for any attorney here to intervene and interfere in your ongoing relationship with your attorney.