The O’Quinn Law Firm not disovled and will go forward under the Executor of Estate, Gerald Treece
Posted by Rose in All Things Anna Nicole Smith, Amanda Bush, Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Art Harris Exclusive, Art Harris Scoop, Bald Truth Exclusive, Bonnie Stern, Bryan Cave LLP, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Chip Babcock, Debunking the myths on ALL cases related to Anna Nicole, Diana Marshall, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Entertainment Tonight, Exclusive Rose Speaks, Harry Susman, Harvey Levin, High Proflie Trials, Howard K Stern, John O'Quinn, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Nancy Hamilton, Neil McCabe, Rose Speaks Exclusive, Rose Turner, Susman and Godfrey, TMZ, TMZ.com, Teresa Stephens, The John O'Quinn Law Firm, The O'Quinn Law Firm, Virgie Arthur
We have been hearing rumors about what the Will said about the John O’Quinn Law Firm since John O’Quinn’s sudden death on October 29, 2009. With the release of a copy of his Will filed in the Probate Court, giving a two (2) page instruction on how to dissolve the firm and putting in place three trustees to over see that, the rumors that Mr. O’Quinn had in fact had a succession plan for the law firm under the executor of O’Quinn’s Estate, Gerald Treece has continued to swirl, so far as rumors.
We refused to put up articles based on rumors that the firm was not closing but going forward saying until we heard from the Probate Court that separate papers had been filed by O’Quinn’s Executive kept the firm in tact, Rose Speaks.com could not in good faith speculate on rumors.
Today, Neil McCabe, contacted Rose Speaks.com and on the record said; “The law firm is signing a new 5-year lease on the office space.” Meaning they are not going anywhere and the support staff jobs are secured. It is our understanding the Law Firm will be under the supervision of the Estate’s Executor, Gerald Treece, long time friend of John O’Quinn and Neil McCabe.
We have not yet learned though if the name will be changed to something else with a mild statement of “formally The O’Quinn Law Firm”, or if it will remain as is, as a tribute to O’Quinn and a warning to those on other side of lawsuits, the firm is solvent and determined to continue fierce litigation as it had under John O’Quinn.
I have to confess that is not very good news for people like me who find themselves in an adversarial proceeding with a client of the firm, Virgie Arthur, in prolonged litigation. Because of being an adversary with a client we cannot get many on the record statements and no interviews with lawyers or staff support at the Law Firm.
As we are able to learn more on who will be at the helm and what the name of the firm will be if changed we will let all of you know.
©Rose Turner
November 20, 2009
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.
The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Howard K Stern, John O'Quinn, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com
Entries (RSS)
Ok…. If the WILL say to DISSOLVE the firm how in the world can the Executor come in and say…”well we know he has died and this is what he wanted to happen but we aren’t going to do this. We’ve decided to keep going.”?
It seems to me that wills mean nothing at least in Texas.What is the point of having a will if it is not followed.I wouldn’t think they could use any money from O’Quinns estate to keep thisaction for VA going McShame I would think would have to come up with the cash I would think.AS O’Quinns will said everything was to go to charity. Or thats what I thought I read.
It has always been unclear to me if O’Q was the sole shareholder of the corporation. If not, then it would only be O’Qs percentage of the firm that would be dissolved. The remaining shareholders can carry on, imo.
Roxanne [1] my thoughts exactly and is it legal to go against what someone wrote in their Will? How can they legally go against O’Quinn’s wishes!!!!
Trina I thought I read where he was sole owner with no partners.Could be wrong as it has been a while since I even thought about the Man.
Rose—I tend to to go with my thoughts,and DO NOT believe for a second they would not obey the will,It just might take 5 or so years to clean up the cases they are currently working on.I had a hard time believing a Attorney would hand over his case to another Attorney after all there work they but into them.Is everyone supposed to be scared of the big bad wolf,PLEASE,McCabe needs to see Vergie Case through,he is still hoping for a big PAYOFF,and they need OQ money to finish .MY OPINION
I didn’t think of that Trina but if true then that part makes a little more sense but I though he was the only shareholder and had no partners. I could be wrong though. It wouldn’t be the first time.
The name of the firm is JMO’Quinn & Associates. And his will states that his “ownership interest” in the firm be put into a trust. So it has always been a question for me. Not that I really care, lol. The TX State case is doomed, imo.
Well IMO McCabe contacting Rose Speaks to inform/brag that the ‘Law Firm’ is still there and will be pushing forward with the VA suit was McC being his usual arrogant self.
trina [8] I agree the case maybe hitting trouble waters on the Plaintiff’s part cause a new Sheriff is coming to town [meaning new Judge will be presiding] so that means a fresh pair of eyes, ears and maybe and hopefully not so favorable rulings for the Plaintiff.