No, I don't think you got it. He gave what was probably the most cogent summary of the situation and relevant facts, and then in his last line he noted (as any lawyer with an IQ over 10 would do) that since he is not licensed to practice in MT, and he is only offering some opinions at no charge, then his helpful information should not be taken as legal advice per se.
Or to put it another way: if he had practiced law in MT for 1,000 years, and wrote the book on 'Montana law in regards to auto accident liability', and for whatever reason was no longer licensed to practice in MT, he would still a) post useful information b) add the caveat that his info should not be taken as legal advice from hired counsel.
Too often I see these threads devolve into a projection of what 'should' happen. It's not that simple. it's more about what can and cannot be proven. so, for example, 'she was using the wrong turn signal' doesn't help his situation much. but 'she is an uninsured motorist' does.
hope everything works out.
Bookmarks