Suspicious Conduct and Irregularities by Lawyers
Our family consulted four different law firms in an attempt to file a criminal complaint and clarify the cause of our father's death. However, each lawyer dismissed our explanations, shielded the hospital and police, denied the possibility of criminal charges, and in various ways obstructed progress. This page organizes those events based on verifiable facts and primary materials — with factual description and evaluative commentary strictly separated.
1. Lawyer Group ① — Attorneys F & H
(First law firm consulted — dismissive attitude and contradictions)
This law firm listened to our explanation only superficially. Although we presented objective medical evidence — PCI video showing perforation, CT showing acute subdural hematoma, discrepancies between nursing records and physician notes — they never engaged with the substance.
A. Their Immediate Reaction
- They repeatedly insisted, “This is not a medical accident.”
- They discouraged criminal complaints from the outset.
- They pushed for “amicable settlement” or civil litigation only.
- They ignored contradictions in the death certificate and postmortem process.
B. Ignoring Objective Medical Evidence
We presented the following evidence:
- PCI video showing extravasation and possible coronary perforation
- Nursing records showing shock-level vitals
- CT showing acute subdural hematoma before death
- Hospital explanations contradicting recorded data
However, the lawyers:
- Did not watch the PCI video in full.
- Did not review CT slices or clinical charts in detail.
- Dismissed the head trauma without analysis.
- Repeatedly said, “There is no causation.”
C. Statements Suggesting Prejudice or Prior Positioning
Examples include:
“This is not the type of case that becomes criminal.”
“Doctors rarely admit mistakes.”
“Even if there was a problem, proving causation is impossible.”
These statements were made before any thorough review of the medical records, suggesting a dismissive or predetermined stance.
D. Conclusion for Lawyer Group ①
The first law firm provided no substantive analysis, dismissed key findings without explanation, and discouraged criminal action from the beginning. Their behavior aligned with minimizing the issue rather than seeking truth.
2. Lawyer Group ② — Attorneys W & I
(Second law firm consulted — strong suppression, contradictions, and hostility)
The second firm displayed even stronger patterns of suppression. Despite having access to detailed medical evidence, they engaged in:
- Contradictory explanations
- Blatant dismissal of objective evidence
- Pressure to abandon the case
- Statements protecting the hospital and police
A. Their Handling of Medical Evidence
Upon reviewing the PCI images and CT scans, they acknowledged:
“Yes, the PCI caused a serious complication… I don’t know where the blood went.”
However, immediately afterward they said:
“But this is not a medical accident.”
This contradiction — recognizing the complication but denying the accident — was never explained.
B. Hostility Toward Clarifying the Cause of Death
When we pointed out inconsistencies such as:
- Hemothorax findings ignored by the hospital
- Shock vitals recorded by nurses
- Unexplained acute subdural hematoma
- Contradictory statements by the attending physician
The lawyers responded with irritation:
“You’re overthinking this. There is no need to pursue the cause of death.”
C. Reaction to Suspicious Postmortem Documents
We showed them the following:
- Photocopied death certificate
- Death notification never shown to family
- Judicial autopsy fee billed illegally
- Hospital billing showing “death certificate issuance fee”
Their response:
“These documents don’t matter. Stop focusing on them.”
This contradicted basic legal logic: **death-cause documents are central** in any suspicious death case.
D. Attempt to Shut Down All Avenues of Action
The firm strongly insisted:
- “Criminal complaints are impossible.”
- “Civil litigation is the only option, and chances are low.”
- “This case should be settled quietly.”
They provided no reasoned legal analysis for these positions, and became irritated when asked to clarify contradictions.
E. Threat-Like Statements
They said things such as:
“Even if you try to pursue this, nothing will happen.”
“Pushing too hard will only make things worse for you.”
These statements created a sense of intimidation rather than legal guidance.
F. Conclusion for Lawyer Group ②
Their behavior shows a consistent pattern of dismissing evidence, contradicting themselves, and pressuring us to abandon the case. Their stance aligned closely with shielding the hospital and police.
3. Lawyer Group ③ — Attorney H
(Third law firm — refusal to engage with postmortem irregularities)
The third lawyer we consulted was calm and polite, but ultimately refused to engage with any of the crucial irregularities regarding the postmortem documents, the suspicious death classification, or the contradictions in the hospital’s explanations.
A. Initial Impression
At first, this lawyer seemed receptive. Upon showing the PCI images and clinical data, the lawyer acknowledged:
“This PCI has many concerning findings.”
However, the engagement stopped there.
B. Complete Avoidance of the Falsified Death Documents
When we raised critical issues such as:
- death certificate being a photocopy,
- death notification submitted by an impostor,
- judicial autopsy fee billed illegally,
- hospital billing showing “death certificate issuance fee,”
the lawyer responded:
“I don’t think these points will be useful. Please forget about the postmortem issues.”
This stance contradicts standard legal practice: postmortem documents are central to any suspicious death inquiry.
C. Narrow Focus on Only One Part of the Case
The lawyer insisted that only the “PCI complication” be considered, dismissing the broader structure of concealment.
“Even if the PCI had an issue, everything afterward is unrelated.”
This ignored shock vitals, tamponade, hemothorax, and the acute subdural hematoma.
D. Conclusion for Lawyer Group ③
Although polite and calm, this lawyer avoided every structural element involving concealment, and ultimately refused to pursue criminal action or clarify the cause of death.
4. Lawyer Group ④ — Attorney N
(Fourth law firm — strongest contradictions and dismissal)
The fourth lawyer demonstrated the most serious contradictions, outright refusals, and dismissive attitudes.
A. Reaction to Evidence of Medical Accident
Upon showing PCI images, CT scans, and nursing records, the lawyer responded:
“I don’t see any medical accident here. Even if the PCI caused a complication, proving causation is impossible.”
This contradicted both the medical evidence and the lawyer’s own earlier comments.
B. Refusal to Address Suspicious Death Signs
When we explained that:
- the death was registered as natural,
- the death notification was forged,
- the autopsy fee was illegally billed,
- the CT scan showed acute subdural hematoma,
the lawyer replied:
“Let’s not talk about the cause of death. It complicates things.”
C. Attempt to Terminate Consultation
The lawyer eventually said:
“This case cannot move forward. I recommend you stop pursuing it.”
This was said without providing any legal reasoning.
D. Refusal to Accept Additional Evidence
We attempted to show further records:
- ventilator-setting record under a different patient name,
- emails showing contradictory statements by hospital staff,
- the hospital’s “chronology of events” with false entries.
The lawyer said:
“I don’t need to see any more documents.”
E. Conclusion for Lawyer Group ④
This lawyer provided no meaningful analysis, contradicted themselves repeatedly, refused evidence review, and pushed strongly to abandon all action.
5. Overall Structural Analysis — Patterns Shared by All Four Lawyer Groups
Across all four law firms, despite differing styles, a consistent pattern emerged:
- 1. Refusal to analyze objective evidence
- 2. Dismissal of contradictions without explanation
- 3. Avoidance of postmortem falsification issues
- 4. Pressure to avoid criminal complaints
- 5. Statements protecting hospital and police
- 6. Irritation when contradictions were pointed out
- 7. Attempts to end consultations prematurely
Importantly, these behaviors:
- did not involve actual legal reasoning,
- did not engage with medical facts,
- did not address postmortem document irregularities,
- and contradicted standard practice in suspicious-death cases.
This strongly suggests a shared positional alignment across independent law firms, rather than coincidence.
In effect, all four groups acted in ways that protected the hospital, police, and forensic institutions — and suppressed the family's ability to pursue the truth.