Questions for Mast: 1) When did you first express doubts to Dulberg about whether McGuires were liable for Dulberg's injuries? What were those doubts? 2) When did you first inform Dulberg that you were unwilling to take the McGuire case to trial and that he should seek a settlement? 3) When did you first express doubts about whether Gagnon could be proven to be liable for Dulberg's injuries? What were those doubts? 4) When did you first inform Dulberg that you were unwilling to take the Gagnon case to trial? 5) If you felt that McGuires were not liable for Dulberg's injuries and you felt it would be difficult to prove Gagnon liable, why didn't you suggest Dulberg seek alternative counsel before accepting the $5,000 settlement (which wouldn't pay for 10% of Dulberg's medical bills) with the McGuires? 6) What new information did you receive between November of 2013 and April 14, 2014 that convinced you that you would be unwilling to take the Gagnon case to trial. If none, than why didn't you inform Dulberg you were unwilling to take the Gagnon case to trial before or while urging him to settle for $5,000 with the McGuires? 7) Did you send interrogatory questions to Gagnon? Did you send a request to produce to Gagnon? 8) Did you ever receive Gagnon's answers to interrogatory questions submitted by you? If yes, why were they not included in Dulberg's case file that you gave to him when you withdrew from counsel? If yes, why were they not included in the documents produced in this lawsuit? If yes, then why do this date does nobody seem to have a copy of them? 9) In the documents turned over to Dulberg when you withdrew from counsel, there is a request to produce for Gagnon prepared by you but there is no evidence that Gagnon ever turned over any of the documents requested. One of the documents you requested of Gagnon was a certified copy of his insurance policy. Did you ever receive any of the documents which you requested Gagnon to produce? Did you ever receive a certified copy of Gagnon's insurance policy? If yes, why were they not included in the documents you gave to Dulberg when you withdrew from counsel? 10) In an email from you to Dulberg dated Febuary 26, 2015 about the case file you handed over to Dulberg you wrote, "I don't think I have any insurance policies in the file." Since you requested both the McGuires and Gagnon to produce certified copies of their insurance policies, why didn't you have a certified copy of either insurance policy in Dulberg's case file? 11) Why did you repeatedly inform Dulberg that Gagnon's insurance limit was $100,000? 12) How did you obtain information that the Gagnon policy limit was $100,000? 13) Did you make an offer to settle the McGuire case for $7,500 to Ronald Barch on October 22, 2013? If yes, did Dulberg authorize you to make that offer? 14) Do you have any documented evidence that Dulberg authorized you to make that offer? Do you have any evidence Dulberg authorized you to seek a settlement with the McGuires on or before October 22, 2013? 15) When Ron Barch made an offer of $5,000 to settle the McGuire case on November 18, 2013, Dulberg's response was that he was unhappy with the amount offered. Do you believe that Dulberg was aware that the offer of $5,000 was actually a counter-offer to your proposal of $7,500 made on October 22, 2013? Do you have any evidence that Dulberg was aware that the McGuire offer of $5,000 was actually a counter-offer to the offer you initiated on October 22, 2013? 16) Dulberg's email reply to the $5,000 offer of November 18, 2013, dated November 19, 2013, states: "When you advised me to seek a settlement with the McGuire's insurance, I agreed to look at it only because they did not have their hands directly on the trigger of the chainsaw and that you would get at the least the medical bills paid for out of it. I thought that was made clear in your office." Did you advise Dulberg to seek a settlement with the McGuires as he stated? Was it first discussed during meeting in your office as he stated? During which office visit was that discussed? Was it at the November 4th meeting or at an office visit that happened earlier? 17) If looking into a settlement was first discussed with Dulberg at the meeting of November 4, 2013, how could you make the $7,500 offer on October 22, 2013 and claim that Dulberg agreed to it? 18) There was a second meeting between you and Dulberg in your office on November 20, 2013. What was the purpose of the meeting? 19) Did you hand Dulberg documents of case laws at the meeting of November 20, 2013? What case laws were in those documents? Did you discuss cases at the meeting? Which cases were cited? In what way are those cases applicable to the situation with the McGuires? 20) Did you send a request to produce to the McGuires? If yes, why was it not included in the documents you handed over in relation to this lawsuit so far? 21) In a request to produce which you gave to the McGuires, you asked for a certified copy of their insurance policy. They answered that they will give it to you when they receive it. Did you ever receive it? A certified copy of the McGuires insurance policy was not included in the case documents that you turned over to Dulberg when you withdrew from counsel. It was also not included in the documents you turned over in this present lawsuit. Why not? 22) If Dr Levin diagnosed Dulberg with dystonia in August of 2013 and Dr Kajawa diagnosed Dulberg with task specific focal dystonia definitely caused by trauma to his right arm in September of 2013, why did you feel that injury due to Dulberg's chainsaw accident was difficult to prove? 23) Did you read Gagnon's and Dulberg's depositions in order to compare the detailed differences in their version of the days events and the accident? 24) Did you note that Gagnon's description of the accident given to you by phone was very different from how it is described in his deposition? In his description over the telephone he never mentioned anything about Dulberg moving his arm. Later in the deposition he claimed Dulberg moved his right arm into the chainsaw blade. How do you account for this difference? 25) Did you notice that the decription of the chainsaw accident given by Dulberg was completely different from the description of the accident given by Gagnon? For example, Dulberg describes the branch being cut to be about 15 feet long while Gagnon describes it as about 5 feet long. Dulberg describes holding the base of the branch with one hand while Gagnon describes Dulberg holding a 5 foot branch vertically with his left hand above the place where Gagnon was cutting and his right hand holding the same branch below the place where Gagnon was cutting. How do you account for such a large descrepency? 26) Can you please describe how it is physically possible, using Gagnon's description of the accident given in the deposition, to explain how Dulberg was cut on the lower portion of his right forearm perpendicular to the forarm? (Gagnon described Dulberg holding a branch with his left hand above where Gagnon was cutting and with his right hand below where Gagnon was cutting.) 27) Did you note that your client claimed he was invited by Gagnon to the McGuires to see if he wanted the firewood, not to work? 28) Did you note that your client claimed he was sitting with Carolyn for at least an hour watching Gagnon working with William McGuire, and after William McGuire refused to work any longer it was Carolyn McGuire that first asked Dulberg if he could help Gagnon? 29) Did you note that the McGuires purchased the chainsaw, that they claimed the chainsaw was new, and that they were in possession of the chainsaw and provided it for Gagnon to use contrary to the clear warnings on the cover and opening pages of the chainsaw owners manual? 30) Did you note that the McGuires were in possession of the owners manual and that the manual explicitly has clear warnings written on the cover, on the opening pages and throughout the manual to not do what they admit to allowing to be done with it? 31) If you did not wish to take the McGuire case to trial, why wouldn't you simply advise your client to seek alternative counsel rather than to settle with the McGuires for an amount that wouldn't pay for 10% of his medical bills or anything towards future lost wages? 32) Considering that $5,000 is such a small amount of money relative to Dulberg's medical bills and practically nothing compared to future lost wages, why would you urge your client sign a release barring any future legal action against the McGuires connected to the chainsaw accident in exchange for such an insignificant sum? 33) Why were you so sure the presiding judge would allow the McGuires to get out of the case on a motion considering the same Judge allowed the complaint to proceed to discovery? Why didn't you believe the judge would allow the case against the McGuires to proceed to trial? 34) Considering that $5,000 wouldn't change much for Dulberg in the predicament he was in, wouldn't he have been better off in taking his chances by proceeding with new counsel?