got confused enough that I believe this should have been written this way:
In the interest of accuracy, the [reviewer] above is one of my client’s ex-spouse whom we won a case from.
You're thinking too hard about this, the lawyer left this response open ended on purpose as an ad. Regardless if the lawyer won or lost the case, the implication here is that they won, so they are so good at their job, the opposition cries about it.
Tis the opposite, I misread the response initially.
General rules:
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
got confused enough that I believe this should have been written this way:
You're thinking too hard about this, the lawyer left this response open ended on purpose as an ad. Regardless if the lawyer won or lost the case, the implication here is that they won, so they are so good at their job, the opposition cries about it.
Tis the opposite, I misread the response initially.