I. Robert Cox files document in court where he was not admitted to practice law. Federal judge issues order to Cox to show cause why he should not be held in contempt.
II. After a comedy of error in one case, Robert Cox is sued for legal malpractice by his trucking company client and their liability insurance company where:
A. Cox never checked to see if the driver had been served with the suit papers. (para 11-13)
B. Although the defendant truck driver had not been served with the suit papers, Cox filed an answer on his behalf without the driver’s permission. (para 11)
C. Cox failed to interview his truck driver client to secure his co-operation. (para 7). This negligence was a pattern.
D. Cox’s client refused to submit himself to discovery because he had not been served. Because of this, Court rendered judgment against Cox’s trucking company client - all due to Cox’s inattentiveness. (para 11-13)
Cox’s partners have an unsavory history that is documented at richardglassmanmemphismalpractice.com