Bachus & Schanker, LLC

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I contacted Bachus and Shanker (BS) weeks before the day stated in the response and had to wait for a call after calling back to correct my contact information because it was not taken correctly I had never agreed to settle with The Hartford (H) directly, I inquired of the 10k and 13k settlement offers that were mentioned over the phone by their representative and had not heard back from them I had discussed my intentions with the lawyer (BS) on the phone initially to settle and was convinced that I did indeed need legal assistance because I was being low-balled The communication of the paralegal's consistent replies to my emails of reiterating this case was needless and repetitive as information was already given to the lawyerThe paralegal had tried to convince me to go back to treatment and not settle right away to get more money, even though I had up to date doctor paperwork from July that was never requested to support my case and showed that I had no need to go back to treatment for the current information to get updated It took almost a month to actually hear back directly from the lawyer (BS) to re-state once again that I wished to settle (from aug - sept 28) when he had been cc'd on all the emails from the paralegal in the first place The Request was prompted by me after that point of only wanting to hear from the lawyer as almost all communication went through the paralegal up until October Most of all the emails originated from me to the paralegal or lawyer of the that were mentioned The response neglects to reflect that both instances that my paperwork was promptly filled out and immediately returned that it was it was lost or misplaced and had to be sent several more times as no one had knowledge of its whereabouts but my fax and email confirmationsI did get a phone call once that they had located it- days after the fact from the paralegal as the lawyer had not known I was never alerted when paperwork was received or filed from myself or from (H) nor was I informed that the settlement had arrived - I had to call and request that information several times to a voicemail or email and would rarely get a call back and days after for an email My call to a supervisor was to make the firm aware of the incompetence, lack of communication and waste of my money on this caseMy calls were not returned after a resolution was promised several times I filed a complaint with The Revdex.com (Revdex.com) as no one was doing anything to fix the situation My complaint stands, I paid for legal services, not to orchestrate a drawn out costly process with no benefit Had I called and settled directly, (H) informed me that I would have for 13k and it would be about days from request to settlement check received, that would not have cost me anything at all or the time To this day, I still do not know what my case had been worth, nor will I ever, as I, having no legal background have any working knowledge of these processes, put my faith and money into legal assistance that did nothing for me but take advantage of someone who had already been through the workman compensation system and felt helpless I am currently in communication with (BS) Client Services for resolve

Mr [redacted] ’s case is unfortunate, and we did everything we po***bly could have done to achieve a positive outcome in his matter There are two types of [redacted] claims, [redacted] and *** I communicated to Mr [redacted] that it would be very difficult to win his [redacted] case since, because it had been so long since he had worked and paid into the [redacted] system, we would need to provide evidence showing he was disabled dating back before 12/31/ In addition to his [redacted] claim, we filed an [redacted] claim Unfortunately, [redacted] did not send us a copy of the denial of his [redacted] claim and only a copy was sent to Mr [redacted] himself, who failed to inform me of it or otherwise provide it to me until well after the deadline to appealThe following is a timeline of events regarding the relevant matters(1) Proceedings and filings for Mr [redacted] ’s [redacted] claim:- On 8/17/15, we filed an application on behalf of Mr [redacted] for [redacted] benefits His case went to [redacted] (***) for an initial decision On 9/28/15, Mr [redacted] informed us that he received a denial from [redacted] regarding his [redacted] claim The deadline is days to file an appeal from [redacted] and request a hearing before an administrative law judge at the [redacted] (***).- On 10/14/15, we filed a timely appeal and request for hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ)- On 1/24/16, we wrote to the [redacted] to inform them his disability appeal was pending and they should therefore continue his state benefits- While the average duration from appeal to hearing is seventeen months, on 11/14/16, we wrote to the [redacted] in hopes they would schedule his hearing very soon, as his original request for hearing was filed on 10/15/ - On 1/30/17, we were contacted by [redacted] who scheduled his disability hearing for 4/17/- On 4/17/17, I attended hearing with Mr [redacted] before ALJ [redacted] in [redacted] ** After the hearing, I explained to Mr [redacted] that he should expect a decision in 30-days which should be mailed to his home I again explained to Mr [redacted] that his [redacted] claim would be difficult to win because it requires that we prove he has been disabled since at least 12/31/ At that time, Mr [redacted] informed me that he had a workers compensation (WC) claim back in and received medical treatment through the WC system until In general, a judge will accept evidence after the hearing and will consider it in the decision so long as it is submitted before the decision is written In my experience, the [redacted] can take up to days to obtain an old file when requested by an attorney However, where a former claimant himself appears at the location of WC, his or her file can often be obtained immediately For this reason, I advised Mr [redacted] to obtain his old WC file and bring it to our office as soon as po***ble After returning to my office on the same day as his hearing, I wrote Mr [redacted] an email so he would have written instructions on what I had just advised him after his hearing In my 4/17/email, I again provided my opinion of the need to obtain evidence dating back to at least 12/31/07, provided specific instructions on how to obtain his WC file, and provided all nece***ry contact information to get his WC file- On 6/2/17, I called Mr [redacted] to follow up on whether he had done what I had advised him to do regarding obtaining his 2000-WC file Mr [redacted] informed me he had gone to WC, obtained the records, but did not send any of it to us because, as he stated, “none of it was helpful.” I again advised Mr [redacted] to get me that evidence- On 6/13/17, still not having received the WC file from Mr [redacted] , we contacted the ALJ’s a***stant who informed us that Mr [redacted] ’s [redacted] claim had been denied- On 6/15/17, I called Mr [redacted] to inform him I was withdrawing from his case On the same date, we provided him with his entire file and provided a list of other attorneys who could help him out- On 6/16/17, we sent letters to both Mr [redacted] and [redacted] informing all parties that we had withdrawn from his case We have never received a paper denial of his case but a copy should have been sent to him from the ***(2) The [redacted] matter:On June 5, 2017, Mr [redacted] informed me for the first time that his [redacted] claim had been denied He informed me of this by sending me a copy of his denial which was dated December 10, The deadline to appeal and request a hearing is days I advised Mr [redacted] to reapply for [redacted] rather than appeal because the deadline had long passed Mr [redacted] then alleged to have provided my assistant, [redacted] , with a copy of this denial back on February 8, 2017, which would have afforded us days to appeal his case I asked Mr [redacted] to forward me the email he alleged to have sent [redacted] on February 8, On June 15, 2017, Mr [redacted] forwarded me an email that he sent to [redacted] on February 8, This email did not mention a denial on his [redacted] claim but instead discussed the need to reschedule a doctor’s appointment Attached to that email was a document discussing the time and date of the doctor’s appointment Immediately after receiving this forwarded email from Mr [redacted] , I received a second email from Mr [redacted] The second email from Mr [redacted] was identical in content to the first email However, attached to this second email was the [redacted] denial Also included on the second email was an indication that it was forwarded to [redacted] on July 5, 2017, the very date that Mr [redacted] first informed me of his denial It appears that Mr [redacted] attempted to alter the appearance of an email that he forwarded [redacted] for the purpose of maintaining his allegation that he had informed [redacted] that his [redacted] claim was denied.In light of Mr [redacted] ’s behavior, I respectfully withdrew from his claim and provided him with referrals to three other attorneys in the area and advised him to contact them to handle his case

The foregoing response was prepared with the advice of counsel, [redacted], Esq., regarding all ethical issues pertaining to Rule 1.6 and comments.
Mr. [redacted] retained our law firm on August 17, 2015. He signed a contract for legal fee services on August 17, 2015, which was for a 20%...

contingent fee agreement on his workers' compensation claim. He previously told our call screener that he was "in negotiation" for a settlement of his claim.
At the time of our initial contact with Mr. [redacted], he did not have with him all of the necessary information to process his claim through the initial investigation steps, and thus an email was sent from Mr. [redacted] to Mr. [redacted] on September 1, 2015 requesting this specific information. On or about September 2, 2015, Mr. [redacted] provided the information. It was learned on or about September 2 that a claim had never been filed with the State of Colorado. This occurred well before our representation began. Mr. [redacted] asked Mr. [redacted] to complete a claim form, which he did, and said claim was promptly filed on or about September 3.
On September 11, our office discussed the claim with the adjuster, [redacted] from the Hartford. She indicated that she had told Mr. [redacted] that his options were to settle the claim, or select a provider in Washington State. (Mr. [redacted] had moved out of the State of Colorado where the claim initiated). Our office relayed this information to Mr. [redacted]. The adjuster also told us in writing that she had been discussing settlement with Mr. [redacted] prior to our involvement in the case. Ms. [redacted] indicated that her settlement offer to Mr. [redacted] had been for $10,000 dollars. This information was emailed to Mr. [redacted] on September 11. He wrote back on the same day indicating that he had originally agreed to settle directly with the adjuster, but no paperwork had been signed. Mr. [redacted] then indicated he wished not to settle. Our office relayed this information to the insurance carrier on the same day (September 11). An email was also sent from the paralegal to Mr. [redacted] asking him to be clear on whether he wished to continue getting medical treatment, or whether he wished to settle the case. There was no reply at that time.
Mr. [redacted] requested a phone call from Mr. [redacted] on September 28. That call occurred on September 28. During that call, Mr. [redacted] advised Mr. [redacted] that if he wished not to settle, and to seek treatment, it would likely be with physicians chosen by The Hartford given that the insurance carrier had not relinquished its statutory right to select the authorized treating physician. Mr. [redacted] had previously expressed that he did not want to seek treatment from doctors chosen by the Hartford. On or about September 28 Mr. [redacted] advised Mr. [redacted] that he wished to settle his claim. The amount of $14,000 dollars was negotiated with the claim adjuster and it was requested that she have her counsel prepare settlement documents to that effect.
Those settlement documents were delayed due to the adjuster not transmitting them to her counsel. On October 6, 14 and 22 Mr. [redacted] provided email updates to Mr. [redacted] on the status of the settlement documents. Those documents were received, and signed by Mr. [redacted] on October 27, 2015. Of note, Mr. [redacted] signed a "Consent to Settle" form that is attached hereto. The attorney fee of 20% was reduced by agreement of the parties to ensure that Mr. [redacted] was satisfied, and our office was compensated for the numerous letters, emails, and file work that was performed by Mr. [redacted] and his paralegal.
During the processing of the settlement paperwork, on November 9, 2015, Mr. [redacted] contacted the client services department at our law firm and lodged a complaint regarding not being communicated with properly. This is the only complaint we received from Mr. [redacted] to our Client Services. During that call he did not express that he wanted to rescind his settlement, and he reiterated that he did not wish to seek further medical treatment which was an option that had been provided to him no less than three separate times in writing during the month of September. On November 10 Mr. [redacted] contacted Mr. [redacted] to confirm that he indeed wished to proceed with the settlement that he signed, as well as to address any further concerns regarding communication. Given his clear rejection of further medical treatment, Mr. [redacted] advised that it was acceptable to settle at the current offered amount.
As of today's date, the settlement funds have been delivered to Mr. [redacted], and all issues with the case have been concluded per the desires of Mr. [redacted]. It is adamantly denied that any lack of communication occurred during the approximately 60 day representation of Mr. [redacted]. During the representation, there were over 40 emails generated between our office and Mr. [redacted]. At least 10 of these emails were directly from Mr. [redacted] to Mr. [redacted], dating back to September 1, 2015.

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I contacted Bachus and Shanker (BS) 2 weeks before the day stated in the response and had to wait for a call after calling back to correct my contact information because it was not taken correctly.
I had never agreed to settle with The Hartford (H) directly, I inquired of the 10k and 13k settlement offers that were mentioned over the phone by their representative and had not heard back from them.
I had discussed my intentions with the lawyer (BS) on the phone initially to settle and was convinced that I did indeed need legal assistance because I was being low-balled.
The communication of the paralegal's consistent replies to my emails of reiterating this case was needless and repetitive as information was already given to the lawyer. The paralegal had tried to convince me to go back to treatment and not settle right away to get more money, even though I had up to date doctor paperwork from July that was never requested to support my case and showed that I had no need to go back to treatment for the current information to get updated.
It took almost a month to actually hear back directly from the lawyer (BS) to re-state once again that I wished to settle (from aug 17 - sept 28) when he had been cc'd on all the emails from the paralegal in the first place.
The Request was prompted by me after that point of only wanting to hear from the lawyer as almost all communication went through the paralegal up until October.
Most of all the emails originated from me to the paralegal or lawyer of the 40 that were mentioned.
The response neglects to reflect that both instances that my paperwork was promptly filled out and immediately returned that it was it was lost or misplaced and had to be sent several more times as no one had knowledge of its whereabouts but my fax and email confirmations. I did get a phone call once that they had located it- 10 days after the fact from the paralegal as the lawyer had not known.
I was never alerted when paperwork was received or filed from myself or from (H) nor was I informed that the settlement had arrived - I had to call and request that information several times to a voicemail or email and would rarely get a call back and days after for an email.
My call to a supervisor was to make the firm aware of the incompetence, lack of communication and waste of my money on this case. My calls were not returned after a resolution was promised several times.
I filed a complaint with The Revdex.com (Revdex.com) as no one was doing anything to fix the situation.
My complaint stands, I paid for legal services, not to orchestrate a drawn out costly process with no benefit.
Had I called and settled directly, (H) informed me that I would have for 13k and it would be about 30 days from request to settlement check received, that would not have cost me anything at all or the time.
To this day, I still do not know what my case had been worth, nor will I ever, as I, having no legal background have any working knowledge of these processes, put my faith and money into legal assistance that did nothing for me but take advantage of someone who had already been through the workman compensation system and felt helpless.
I am currently in communication with (BS) Client Services for resolve.

Mr. [redacted]’s case is unfortunate, and we did everything we po[redacted]bly could have done to achieve a positive outcome in his matter.  There are two types of [redacted] claims, [redacted] and [redacted].  I communicated to Mr. [redacted] that it would be very difficult to win his [redacted] case...

since, because it had been so long since he had worked and paid into the [redacted] system, we would need to provide evidence showing he was disabled dating back before 12/31/07.  In addition to his [redacted] claim, we filed an [redacted] claim.  Unfortunately, [redacted] did not send us a copy of the denial of his [redacted] claim and only a copy was sent to Mr. [redacted] himself, who failed to inform me of it or otherwise provide it to me until well after the deadline to appeal. The following is a timeline of events regarding the relevant matters(1)    Proceedings and filings for Mr. [redacted]’s [redacted] claim:-          On 8/17/15, we filed an application on behalf of Mr. [redacted] for [redacted] benefits.  His case went to [redacted]) for an initial decision.  On 9/28/15, Mr. [redacted] informed us that he received a denial from [redacted] regarding his [redacted] claim.  The deadline is 60 days to file an appeal from [redacted] and request a hearing before an administrative law judge at the [redacted]).-          On 10/14/15, we filed a timely appeal and request for hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). -          On 1/24/16, we wrote to the [redacted] to inform them his disability appeal was pending and they should therefore continue his state benefits. -          While the average duration from appeal to hearing is seventeen months, on 11/14/16, we wrote to the [redacted] in hopes they would schedule his hearing very soon, as his original request for hearing was filed on 10/15/15.  -          On 1/30/17, we were contacted by [redacted] who scheduled his disability hearing for 4/17/17. -          On 4/17/17, I attended hearing with Mr. [redacted] before ALJ [redacted] in [redacted].  After the hearing, I explained to Mr. [redacted] that he should expect a decision in 30-60 days which should be mailed to his home.  I again explained to Mr. [redacted] that his [redacted] claim would be difficult to win because it requires that we prove he has been disabled since at least 12/31/07.  At that time, Mr. [redacted] informed me that he had a workers compensation (WC) claim back in 2000 and received medical treatment through the WC system until 2004.  In general, a judge will accept evidence after the hearing and will consider it in the decision so long as it is submitted before the decision is written.  In my experience, the [redacted] can take up to 60 days to obtain an old file when requested by an attorney.  However, where a former claimant himself appears at the location of WC, his or her file can often be obtained immediately.  For this reason, I advised Mr. [redacted] to obtain his old WC file and bring it to our office as soon as po[redacted]ble.  After returning to my office on the same day as his hearing, I wrote Mr. [redacted] an email so he would have written instructions on what I had just advised him after his hearing.  In my 4/17/17 email, I again provided my opinion of the need to obtain evidence dating back to at least 12/31/07, provided specific instructions on how to obtain his WC file, and provided all nece[redacted]ry contact information to get his WC file. -          On 6/2/17, I called Mr. [redacted] to follow up on whether he had done what I had advised him to do regarding obtaining his 2000-2004 WC file.  Mr. [redacted] informed me he had gone to WC, obtained the records, but did not send any of it to us because, as he stated, “none of it was helpful.”  I again advised Mr. [redacted] to get me that evidence. -          On 6/13/17, still not having received the WC file from Mr. [redacted], we contacted the ALJ’s a[redacted]stant who informed us that Mr. [redacted]’s [redacted] claim had been denied. -          On 6/15/17, I called Mr. [redacted] to inform him I was withdrawing from his case.  On the same date, we provided him with his entire file and provided a list of 3 other attorneys who could help him out. -          On 6/16/17, we sent letters to both Mr. [redacted] and [redacted] informing all parties that we had withdrawn from his case.  We have never received a paper denial of his case but a copy should have been sent to him from the [redacted]. (2)    The [redacted] matter:On June 5, 2017, Mr. [redacted] informed me for the first time that his [redacted] claim had been denied.  He informed me of this by sending me a copy of his denial which was dated December 10, 2016.  The deadline to appeal and request a hearing is 60 days.  I advised Mr. [redacted] to reapply for [redacted] rather than appeal because the deadline had long passed.  Mr. [redacted] then alleged to have provided my assistant, [redacted], with a copy of this denial back on February 8, 2017, which would have afforded us 2 days to appeal his case.  I asked Mr. [redacted] to forward me the email he alleged to have sent [redacted] on February 8, 2017.  On June 15, 2017, Mr. [redacted] forwarded me an email that he sent to [redacted] on February 8, 2017.  This email did not mention a denial on his [redacted] claim but instead discussed the need to reschedule a doctor’s appointment.  Attached to that email was a document discussing the time and date of the doctor’s appointment.  Immediately after receiving this forwarded email from Mr. [redacted], I received a second email from Mr. [redacted].  The second email from Mr. [redacted] was identical in content to the first email.  However, attached to this second email was the [redacted] denial.  Also included on the second email was an indication that it was forwarded to [redacted] on July 5, 2017, the very date that Mr. [redacted] first informed me of his denial.  It appears that Mr. [redacted] attempted to alter the appearance of an email that he forwarded [redacted] for the purpose of maintaining his allegation that he had informed [redacted] that his [redacted] claim was denied.In light of Mr. [redacted]’s behavior, I respectfully withdrew from his claim and provided him with referrals to three other attorneys in the area and advised him to contact them to handle his case.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: I emailed him the outcome  from the workman's comp claim the same day he decided to withdraw from my case. [redacted] informed him that beings he was not served the papers denying the [redacted] claim when he was the one that filed it that we had a good chance to ask for the appeal since he was not informed. The date I got the [redacted] denial I contacted his assistant who has later been terminated from his company. I was told since the [redacted] case was not denied due to not working. That we would be better off to pursue the [redacted] claim. Every time I receive something in the mail I called that firm immediately. The person that was handling my case name [redacted] was horrible I had to complain numerous times. I completely think my case was mishandled. And could have handled been handled much better. I am very computer illiterate and take great offense to their allegation that I try to alter an email I have no idea how to even forward an email let alone alter one. I guess my case just was not worth enough money to them for them to actually work for it.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

The foregoing response was prepared with the advice of counsel, [redacted], Esq., regarding all ethical issues pertaining to Rule 1.6 and comments The facts of our representation, however, have been reviewed and investigated internally.  We have come to the conclusion that our communication, representation, and conclusion of Mr. [redacted]s case were not only completely acceptable ethically, but went above and beyond standard practices.             Mr. [redacted] states that he initially contacted our office two weeks before hiring our firm.  Even assuming that were true, that is not the basis of a valid complaint.  We have a file review process and needed to set up a phone conversation (as Mr. [redacted] was out of state) in order to vet a case and find out whether we would represent the individual.  It is an ethical obligation that no work be performed without an executed fee agreement, thus the date of the signed fee agreement is what is important, not whether the individual may have made an information query-type of call two weeks earlier.             We respectfully refute Mr. [redacted]s contention that he had not originally agreed to settle the case with The Hartford.  His own email to our office on September 11, 2015 directly refutes this and stated that he had agreed to settle, but that he would have had to wait for up to four weeks to get the check (as is often the case with pro se individuals).              Our paralegal never “convinced” Mr. [redacted] to return to medical treatment.  As was stated previously in our response, Mr. [redacted] was given the option to settle the claim (for $4,000 dollars more than what had been the apparent offer while he was pro se), or continue to seek medical treatment.  The idea that anyone at our law firm tried to convince him to get treatment is asinine.  We merely provided him with options that he needed to choose.  As was stated previously in our response, his position on whether or not to settle changed 180 degrees between September 11 and September 28.  We needed to be sure of his true intentions, and make sure he was fully informed, which we did do.             As was stated to Mr. [redacted] repeatedly, he had the option of settlement or continued treatment.  His decision to not seek treatment was based on an apparent disdain for “workers’ compensation” physicians.  On September 11, 2015, Mr. [redacted]s email to our office stated that [due to his] “physical state” he could not wait the four weeks for a settlement as a pro se individual.  This email suggested that his physical condition were an issue for him, and that is yet another reason we suggested further treatment may be an option.  It is not a valid complaint to merely state that he didn’t like the system and chose not to seek treatment.  He didn’t even know who the workers’ compensation doctor was going to be at that time because it was being discussed between our office and the adjuster for The Hartford.             Mr. [redacted]s timeline cited from August 17 to September 28 is a misrepresentation of the facts of this situation.  During this time it was wholly unclear whether Mr. [redacted] did in fact wish to settle his claim.  Our office asked him to clarify his position on September 11, 2015, and did not actually hear his answer back until September 28, 2015 based on our notes.  During that time, and in anticipation he may actually wish to keep getting treatment, Mr. Olsen and the adjuster were discussing who the new treating doctor would be in the event he chose to continue getting treatment.              The idea that “most” of the emails generated were from Mr. [redacted] is false.  Our office was very responsive, and at any point Mr. [redacted] had access to speak with his attorney either by direct dial phone or email.  The fact that the attorney and Mr. [redacted] did not speak directly between September 2 and September 29 should not form the basis of a valid complaint for several reasons.  For one thing, our office was in constant communication during this time, and the case was being discussed internally repeatedly.  Second, it is standard practice for a client to speak with his attorney several times over the course of 30-45 days, which is what occurred here.  That was enough communication to ensure Mr. [redacted] was informed of his options fully.             As stated in our prior response, Mr. [redacted] was continually updated throughout October 2015 of the status of his settlement agreement.  We are not disputing that he faxed his agreement paperwork to our office timely.  It wasn’t transmitted to the Worker’s Compensation Division immediately, but approval was obtained on November 6, 2015, a turnaround time of only 10 days.    His statement that The Hartford told him he could settle for $13,000 dollars and have the check within 30 days is not only irrelevant, but it is not factually correct as well.   A pro se litigant often waits at least 30 days to even get the settlement hearing.  It is not unheard of for the entire process to take longer than 60 days for a pro se individual.  Mr. [redacted] clearly indicated throughout this process that time was of the essence, and he did not want to be involved with any sort of bureaucracy or workers’ compensation system.              Mr. [redacted]s allegation of unreturned phone calls is adamantly denied.  Our office was extremely responsive.  Again, we received only one complaint to our customer service department, and that was handled in a very prompt manner. Our position is that we were prompt with our information replies, and in fact our communication level was extremely high for such a case.  The fact that Mr. [redacted] appears unhappy is very unfortunate.  We truly wish him the best in the future, and did everything in this case to try and get him the best results possible.  We do this with all our clients, without exception.              We must respectfully disagree with his contentions on every point.  We have, nonetheless, provided the resolution he initially requested.