Aanestad Law

Aanestad Law recognizes that the customer has identified two concerns Prior to raising these concerns, the customer and her husband were given a 50% refund The customer is seeking a refund greater than 50%, claiming that two “issues” justify a greater refund We disagree Aanestad Law provided a free one-hour consultation to the customer and her husband Based on that consultation, Aanestad Law prepared documents for the customer and her husband to signThe work was completed and the customer and husband arrived on a Saturday to sign the documents However, customer and her husband chose not to sign the documents prepared They later requested a full refund The customer appears to be concerned with the time it took to return to the office to sign the documents Aanestad Law did not make any promises regarding the timing of scheduling a signing appointment A signing appointment was made for a date that was the first available on all parties’ calendars Aanestad Law is a family-owned and operated business While Aanestad Law does not generally schedule appointments for customers after work-hours or on weekends, exceptions and accommodations are made in some cases That does not, however, mean that the owners and employees of Aanestad Law are available every Saturday The customer’s husband informed Aanestad Law that the customer’s first available Saturday was April Aanestad Law’s owner and employee were unavailable that Saturday A Saturday appointment was scheduled on the first available Saturday thereafter, May The customer has also taken issue with the timing of communication regarding scheduling a signing appointment While the customer’s husband did leave a voice message with Aanestad Law on the morning of April 8, 2016, MrAanestad initiated a call that same day and spoke to customer’s husband in order to schedule a signing appointment MrAanestad was told by customer’s husband that he would have to check with customer Aanestad Law fully performed its services, including meeting with the customer and her husband on a Saturday The issues raised do not justify an increased refund

I am rejecting this response because: In the official response provided by [redacted] Law, there is yet another bold face lie. "While the customer's husband did leave a voice message with [redacted] Law on the morning of April 8, 2016, Mr. [redacted] initiated a call that same day and spoke to the customer's husband in order to to schedule a signing appointment." [redacted] NEVER spoke with my husband on the phone. Ever. The ONLY contact we had with him was during our initial consultation and at the failed signing of the documents.Also, we take issue with his statement that "[redacted] Law did not make any promises regarding the timing of the scheduling a singing appointment." Mr [redacted] did make a promise. He told us four weeks. My husband initiated the contact with his office (as verified by phone records) well after that four week mark had passed.I do not understand how this "family-owned and operated business" is able to get away with stating black and white lies in print. If [redacted] Law disagrees with our request to a greater than 50% refund, I would at least like them to admit that we caught them in several bold face lies.[redacted] NEVER had any contact with my husband besides the initial consultation. Yet multiple times, in print, he is lying and stating otherwise. This is a dishonest lawyer that engages in dishonest business practices."[redacted] Law recognizes that the customer has identified two concerns.  Prior to raising these concerns, the customer and her husband were given a 50% refund.  The customer is seeking a refund greater than 50%, claiming that two “issues” justify a greater refund.  We disagree.   [redacted] Law provided a free one-hour consultation to the customer and her husband.  Based on that consultation, [redacted] Law prepared documents for the customer and her husband to sign. The work was completed and the customer and husband arrived on a Saturday to sign the documents.  However, customer and her husband chose not to sign the documents prepared.  They later requested a full refund.         The customer appears to be concerned with the time it took to return to the office to sign the documents.  [redacted] Law did not make any promises regarding the timing of scheduling a signing appointment.  A signing appointment was made for a date that was the first available on all parties’ calendars.      [redacted] Law is a family-owned and operated business.  While [redacted] Law does not generally schedule appointments for customers after work-hours or on weekends, exceptions and accommodations are made in some cases.  That does not, however, mean that the owners and employees of [redacted] Law are available every Saturday.  The customer’s husband informed [redacted] Law that the customer’s first available Saturday was April 23.  [redacted] Law’s owner and employee were unavailable that Saturday.  A Saturday appointment was scheduled on the first available Saturday thereafter, May 14.        The customer has also taken issue with the timing of communication regarding scheduling a signing appointment.  While the customer’s husband did leave a voice message with [redacted] Law on the morning of April 8, 2016, Mr. [redacted] initiated a call that same day and spoke to customer’s husband in order to schedule a signing appointment.  Mr. [redacted] was told by customer’s husband that he would have to check with customer.  [redacted] Law fully performed its services, including meeting with the customer and her husband on a Saturday.  The issues raised do not justify an increased refund.""[redacted] Law recognizes that the customer has identified two concerns.  Prior to raising these concerns, the customer and her husband were given a 50% refund.  The customer is seeking a refund greater than 50%, claiming that two “issues” justify a greater refund.  We disagree.   [redacted] Law provided a free one-hour consultation to the customer and her husband.  Based on that consultation, [redacted] Law prepared documents for the customer and her husband to sign. The work was completed and the customer and husband arrived on a Saturday to sign the documents.  However, customer and her husband chose not to sign the documents prepared.  They later requested a full refund.         The customer appears to be concerned with the time it took to return to the office to sign the documents.  [redacted] Law did not make any promises regarding the timing of scheduling a signing appointment.  A signing appointment was made for a date that was the first available on all parties’ calendars.      [redacted] Law is a family-owned and operated business.  While [redacted] Law does not generally schedule appointments for customers after work-hours or on weekends, exceptions and accommodations are made in some cases.  That does not, however, mean that the owners and employees of [redacted] Law are available every Saturday.  The customer’s husband informed [redacted] Law that the customer’s first available Saturday was April 23.  [redacted] Law’s owner and employee were unavailable that Saturday.  A Saturday appointment was scheduled on the first available Saturday thereafter, May 14.        The customer has also taken issue with the timing of communication regarding scheduling a signing appointment.  While the customer’s husband did leave a voice message with [redacted] Law on the morning of April 8, 2016, Mr. [redacted] initiated a call that same day and spoke to customer’s husband in order to schedule a signing appointment.  Mr. [redacted] was told by customer’s husband that he would have to check with customer.  [redacted] Law fully performed its services, including meeting with the customer and her husband on a Saturday.  The issues raised do not justify an increased refund."

Aanestad Law recognizes that the customer has identified two concerns.  Prior to raising these concerns, the customer and her husband were given a 50% refund.  The customer is seeking a refund greater than 50%, claiming that two “issues” justify a greater refund.  We...

disagree.    Aanestad Law provided a free one-hour consultation to the customer and her husband.  Based on that consultation, Aanestad Law prepared documents for the customer and her husband to sign. The work was completed and the customer and husband arrived on a Saturday to sign the documents.  However, customer and her husband chose not to sign the documents prepared.  They later requested a full refund.          The customer appears to be concerned with the time it took to return to the office to sign the documents.  Aanestad Law did not make any promises regarding the timing of scheduling a signing appointment.  A signing appointment was made for a date that was the first available on all parties’ calendars.       Aanestad Law is a family-owned and operated business.  While Aanestad Law does not generally schedule appointments for customers after work-hours or on weekends, exceptions and accommodations are made in some cases.  That does not, however, mean that the owners and employees of Aanestad Law are available every Saturday.  The customer’s husband informed Aanestad Law that the customer’s first available Saturday was April 23.  Aanestad Law’s owner and employee were unavailable that Saturday.  A Saturday appointment was scheduled on the first available Saturday thereafter, May 14.         The customer has also taken issue with the timing of communication regarding scheduling a signing appointment.  While the customer’s husband did leave a voice message with Aanestad Law on the morning of April 8, 2016, Mr. Aanestad initiated a call that same day and spoke to customer’s husband in order to schedule a signing appointment.  Mr. Aanestad was told by customer’s husband that he would have to check with customer.  Aanestad Law fully performed its services, including meeting with the customer and her husband on a Saturday.  The issues raised do not justify an increased refund.