Cravens & Noll PC

I am in receipt of you letter dated April 8, regarding the complaint filed against my companyWhile I cannot guarantee it, I believe that it was I that spoke to [redacted] As I explained to [redacted] , our website does mention that we set up payment plans, but those payment plans are established on accounts with an active balanceOnce a client has exhausted their initial retainer, continued work on a case generates additional legal feesIt is commonplace for a law firm to demand that a client bring their entire account current on a monthly basis in order to continue representationWe feel that this practice can be exceptionally onerous on clients with a low income, and we therefore set up a monthly payment plan to address any outstanding balances.However, and this is where some clients get confused, we do not set up payment plans on initial retainersThat initial retainer ensures payment for legal expense at the onset of a case and protects the attorney from essentially working for free before withdrawing from a case due to nonpaymentAs most clients are not familiar with the business side of a law firm, we do not expect them to understand the difference between a retainer and an ongoing bill for legal servicesI feel that our attorneys do an excellent job of explaining this to potential clients during our free initial consultHowever, this is a difficult thing to explain on an initial phone call where the clients most pressing needs are determining if the attorney can take the case, and how much it will cost to completeMost potential clients also often mistake a retainer for being the total cost of representationThis fallacy, unless such representation is set up as a flat fee retainer, is also explained during the initial consultation and before a retainer is signed.I must add that our firm feels that this set up allows our attorneys to quote lower initial retainers because it allows a client to pay a smaller amount over time once that initial retainer is usedI do not feel that our website declaration rises to the level of “advertising”, but I do understand [redacted] ’s concernI must say that in the thousands of consults that I have had, I have yet to have a client, or potential client, declare to me that they feel our statements were any type of bait and switch after I have explained our system to them.I hope this letter addresses your concerns and I stand ready to speak to you again about any of this if you so choose

I am in receipt of you letter dated April 8, 2016 regarding the complaint filed against my company. While I cannot guarantee it, I believe that it was I that spoke to [redacted]. As I explained to [redacted], our website does mention that we set up payment plans, but those payment plans are...

established on accounts with an active balance. Once a client has exhausted their initial retainer, continued work on a case generates additional legal fees. It is commonplace for a law firm to demand that a client bring their entire account current on a monthly basis in order to continue representation. We feel that this practice can be exceptionally onerous on clients with a low income, and we therefore set up a monthly payment plan to address any outstanding balances.However, and this is where some clients get confused, we do not set up payment plans on initial retainers. That initial retainer ensures payment for legal expense at the onset of a case and protects the attorney from essentially working for free before withdrawing from a case due to nonpayment. As most clients are not familiar with the business side of a law firm, we do not expect them to understand the difference between a retainer and an ongoing bill for legal services. I feel that our attorneys do an excellent job of explaining this to potential clients during our free initial consult. However, this is a difficult thing to explain on an initial phone call where the clients most pressing needs are determining if the attorney can take the case, and how much it will cost to complete. Most potential clients also often mistake a retainer for being the total cost of representation. This fallacy, unless such representation is set up as a flat fee retainer, is also explained during the initial consultation and before a retainer is signed.I must add that our firm feels that this set up allows our attorneys to quote lower initial retainers because it allows a client to pay a smaller amount over time once that initial retainer is used. I do not feel that our website declaration rises to the level of “false advertising”, but I do understand [redacted]’s concern. I must say that in the thousands of consults that I have had, I have yet to have a client, or potential client, declare to me that they feel our statements were any type of bait and switch after I have explained our system to them.I hope this letter addresses your concerns and I stand ready to speak to you again about any of this if you so choose