Chandler & Associates, Attorneys & Counselors

I am rejecting this response because: The fact that Attorney Chandler would trivialize or liken my situation to a "Greek tragedy" attests to his tactlessnessIt is not a belief that I was not informed about returning the keys (and garage door opener) by Attorney Chandler prior to trial, it simply is the truthIt was his duty to inform and advise me legally as my fiduciary, knowing I fully disclosed my intent and all transpired events relevant to the case, but more so, since I shared I was a novice more than once in conversation, ensuring I had an adequate understanding of what I needed to do when moving outI received only one instruction from him following my rejection of the settlement, "to move out," which I followed based on the limited disclosure from himI never refuted the truth that I refused the settlement, however, he has not once accepted culpability for his neglect, plain and simpleHis error, however, exceeds the monetary judgment — it also includes a negative label on my background check/credit fileHe also provided no input or help during my over 9-month appealThere is no way or rational reason why I would elect to go to trial (I was under the impression with the limited communication prior to trial that I HAD to appear in court), if presented with the ramifications of my action through informed decision-making, if I knew it would prove detrimentalIt speaks volumes of his representation that I was so in the darkHad the eviction not appeared on my record, I would have been able to contest the judgment amount, which I had ample grounds to do given the lack of repairs by the landlord, and, in the worst case scenario, the amount would have been lessened, and, at best obliteratedMy original complaint, the unethical withholding of pertinent information to my case that could have averted this 7-year eviction from my record, still holds despite Attorney Chandler's explanation, and he is the reason I have had such difficulty in renting due to the outstanding judgment with accruing interest that he should reasonably coverSincerely, [redacted]

The documentary evidence previously submitted on November 14, clearly establishes [redacted] 's desire not to resolve the case vis-a-vis a settlement but rather her desire to go to trial and present her casePlease see Exhibit "4" of the November 14, letter packet and review [redacted] 's January 15, 6:a.memailThe purpose of using the Greek tragedy in my previous communications was solely for the purposes of an analogy and not intended in any way as to trivialize the situationAgain, had [redacted] agreed to settle based upon the negotiate settlement, the eviction would not be on her record because the negotiate term specifics that the unlawful detainer action would be dismissed with prejudicePlease see Exhibit "3' of the November 14, letter packetI have not further to add nor anything further to offerI request that you close-out the caseShould you have any questions, please let me know at [redacted] Thank you in advance for your cooperation and professional courtesyRespectfully, CHANDLE A FIRM

I am rejecting this response because: Attorney Chandler would have you believe that the settlement was the only option I had to avoid an eviction, and that simply is not trueHe has chosen not to address the clear fact that I could have mitigated the charges in a civil suit, at worst, or had no charges if the case was dismissed, at best (if the keys were returned prior to trial - a fact he was in the legal position to advise me of and simply didn't before my trial), and I still would not have had an eviction on my recordHad he not neglected to share all the pertinent details regarding my case with me, including but not limited to all the legal ramifications of every action, this precarious situation wouldn't have occurred, and he needs to accept culpability for his actions, and the lack thereofThe case has not been resolved

I am REJECTING Mr*** *** response because:
Mr*** response does not address ANY of the multiple issues we raised in our *** complaint -- at allIn our complaint, we detailed very clearly our grievances with this business, which I will reiterate below: (1) Mr*** *** deliberate misrepresentations about who would handle our case (told us he would take care of everything, then pulled a "bait & switch" trap and passed us off to a far less capable associate), (2) The lousy, downright unacceptable quality of his and this associate's work (especially the associate's very poor writing skills and failure to get basic facts right)(3) Their inability to follow our SIMPLE instructions (Here is just one example: When we wrote to him to "STOP ALL WORK IMMEDIATELY AND DON'T BILL ANY FURTHER," Mr*** acknowledged receipt of this email and assured us he would instruct his associate to stop workingYet somehow, he and his associate, *** ***, billed for thousands of dollars of work THE VERY NEXT DAY, AFTER I TOLD THEM TO STOP ALL WORKHow did that happen???), (4) Mr*** radio silence and failure to respond to emails about extremely urgent matters such as the opposing attorney wanting to take my deposition in a few weeks,(5) His associate, *** ***'s outrageously rude, flippant behavior and comments to us in their office (which she, notably, doesn't even deny)(6) Misplacing their OTHER CLIENT'S confidential documents and putting them in OUR file,(7) When we picked up those three banker's boxes from his office, they claimed all their "work" they did was in there; when there was - in fact - NOTHING from them reflecting the tons of money they billed me for,(8) Embarrassed when confronted by the absence of any work / end product from their firm in those banker's boxes, Mr*** then tried to insist that the work was "emailed" to us by his associate, when that woman has never once emailed usI even challenge Ms*** to produce any emails she allegedly sent to us, to prove that this is a blatant lie.(9) And most importantly -- it is *** & Associates' dishonest, sketchy, fraudulent, illegal billing practices that take the cakeThese include: (A) double billing for both his and his associate's presence at the same meeting despite his repeated assurances that he does not double bill, (B) OVER-billing for simple, elementary tasks such as hours or $1,for reading a 7-page letter, or hours for organizing items in chronological order, (C) billing for imaginary work, when they literally have NO WORK TO SHOW FOR, (D) hastily made-up, charges they tacked on at the 11th hour after they suspected we were firing them (a very shady, odd piece of paper purporting to be an invoice, but lacking the rate, cost and even the INITIALS of the person who supposedly did the "work.") There is a LOT MORE, so please see my original complaint!Mr*** managed to say a whole lot of nothing in this random response of hisMr*** went on and on about "doing a lot of work"Where is this work? Like I said, they had ample time to place copies of this "WORK" into those three banker's boxes, and there was NOTHING in there except for our own binders we compiledNothing emailed to us from this associate as he claims eitherAs I said in our complaint, the one single document we ever received from him was a "Draft of the Second Amended Complaint," which was not only horribly written and REPLETE with factual errors, but more importantly -- this draft was COMPLETELY UNAUTHORIZED IN THE FIRST PLACE! They started work on this "Draft of the Second Amended Complaint" despite our repeated written instructions that they were NOT to begin drafting ANYTHING until we set an appointment and brought our binders to bring them up to speed on the caseOnly THEN after that meeting were they supposed to begin working on the draft! Once again, showing they never listened to our explicit, written instructionsUnprofessionalism at its finestThis disgusting excuse of a "complaint" was a mere PAGES, yet *** *** billed me $12,for this! $12,for a "draft of a complaint" that was NOT AUTHORIZED IN THE FIRST PLACE! As Mr*** wrote in his response, yes, my wife and I are very kind and understanding peopleBut Mr*** and his firm's DISSERVICE, dishonesty and their fraudulent, bogus charges are not something we will stand forMy wife and I are both senior citizens -- and 69, respectivelyWe are both in very bad health; she is a cancer survivor, and I suffer from diabetesSo taking financial advantage of us in this way is unconscionable and, frankly, elder abuseThe only viable income we have is our Social Security IncomeEven writing this complaint has been an added stressor and wondering when we will get the $10,that we badly need back is taking a toll on my wife's health. Therefore, I politely urge Mr*** to stop this back-and-forth, and write a check to return our remaining $10,that he has taken hostageOtherwise, if he does not send us our money, we will definitely pursue our other legal venues to retrieve itIn the meantime, we always have *** and social media pages to spread the word and warn the publicIt's our duty to prevent other unwary people from becoming similarly trapped and victimized by this attorney and his firm.P.SAs a gesture of goodwill in response to Mr*** calling my wife and me nice people, we are willing to sacrifice $1,of our hard-earned Social Security money from the remaining $10,If Mr*** sends us a $9,check, we will thank him, accept it as a full payment and close out this complaint.Thank you

RE: *** *** v*** *** *** COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - CASE NO*** *** Dear Ms*** The purpose of this letter is to briefly reply to your letter dated June 12, and the related complaint by Mrand Mrs***. I want to start by stating
that Mrand Mrs*** are very nice people in a difficult position regarding the above-referenced lawsuit. The *** lawsuit has been pending since December 11, and set for trial on June 30, Mrand Mrs*** engaged our law firm on April 5, to review the very large case file and consider filing an amended complaint and based thereon file a motion for leave to file the amended complaint and an ex parte application to continue the pending trial. Given the short time period between engaging our law firm to review the *** case file (April 5, 2017) to the upcoming trial (June 30, 2017), there was a substantial amount of work than had to be done in a very short period of time. In the afternoon on May 12, 2017, our office was instructed to stop working on the caseOn May 16, we provided a detailed accounting of our charges and further discounted the charges incurred by $2,(total charges incurred was $12,408.89) and we refunded $10,of their $20,retainer. Mrand Mrs*** prepared their versions of the summary of the various real estate transactions involved in this present actionThough these summaries were helpful, they did not help facilitate in the preparation of the amended complaint related to presenting both the legal and factual bases for amending the complaint on new causes of action and possibly new parties

I am rejecting this response because:
The fact that Attorney Chandler would trivialize or liken my situation to a "Greek tragedy" attests to his tactlessness. It is not a belief that I was not informed about returning the keys (and garage door opener) by Attorney Chandler prior to trial, it simply is the truth. It was his duty to inform and advise me legally as my fiduciary, knowing I fully disclosed my intent and all transpired events relevant to the case, but more so, since I shared I was a novice more than once in conversation, ensuring I had an adequate understanding of what I needed to do when moving out. I received only one instruction from him following my rejection of the settlement, "to move out," which I followed based on the limited disclosure from him. I never refuted the truth that I refused the settlement, however, he has not once accepted culpability for his neglect, plain and simple. His error, however, exceeds the monetary judgment — it also includes a negative label on my background check/credit file. He also provided no input or help during my over 9-month appeal. There is no way or rational reason why I would elect to go to trial (I was under the impression with the limited communication prior to trial that I HAD to appear in court), if presented with the ramifications of my action through informed decision-making, if I knew it would prove detrimental. It speaks volumes of his representation that I was so in the dark. Had the eviction not appeared on my record, I would have been able to contest the judgment amount, which I had ample grounds to do given the lack of repairs by the landlord, and, in the worst case scenario, the amount would have been lessened, and, at best obliterated. My original complaint, the unethical withholding of pertinent information to my case that could have averted this 7-year eviction from my record, still holds despite Attorney Chandler's explanation, and he is the reason I have had such difficulty in renting due to the outstanding judgment with accruing interest that he should reasonably cover. Sincerely,[redacted]

The documentary evidence previously submitted on November 14, 2016 clearly establishes [redacted]'s desire not to resolve the case vis-a-vis a settlement but rather her desire to go to trial and present her case. Please see Exhibit "4" of the November 14, 2016 letter packet and review [redacted]'s January 15, 2016 6:14 a.m. email. The purpose of using the Greek tragedy in my previous communications was solely for the purposes of an analogy and not intended in any way as to trivialize the situation. Again, had [redacted] agreed to settle based upon the negotiate settlement, the eviction would not be on her record because the negotiate term specifics that the unlawful detainer action would be dismissed with prejudice. Please see Exhibit "3' of the November 14, 2016 letter packet. I have not further to add nor anything further to offer. I request that you close-out the case. Should you have any questions, please let me know at [redacted]. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and professional courtesy. Respectfully, CHANDLE A FIRM

Please allow this cover letter along with the attachments to serve as my response to [redacted]'s complaint. This is truly a sad situation much like a Greek tragedy where something terrible happens which could have been easily avoided. The crux of [redacted]'s complaint is that she believes...

that I did not inform her about turning in the keys before the unlawful detainer trial which was conducted on January 19, 2016 and as a result: (1) there is an eviction judgment against her and (2) there is also money judgment. [redacted]'s email dated January 22, 2016 at 6:50 a.m. states: "A judgment was entered against me, but I turned in the keys. Am I correct in thinking that because I vacated the premises before the court date, following your advice, that an eviction would not appear on my record?" Please see Exhibit "1" attached hereto. My response to [redacted] on January 26, 2015 at 10:48 a.m. states: "I am not sure why you elect[edj to go through with the trial if in fact you moved out and returned the keys." Please see Exhibit "2" attached hereto. On January 14, 2016 I facilitated a stipulation for judgment that would have prevented the problems that [redacted] is now complaining of Please see Exhibit "3" attached hereto. Unfortunately, on January 15, 2016 at 6:14 a.m. [redacted] decided not to sign the settlement agreement because she did not want to waive any rights to sue the landlord for the breach of habitability issues. Please see Exhibit "4" attached hereto. My involvement in this protracted unlawful detainer proceeding started on January, 13, 2016 for a  jury trail state was scheduled for January 19, 2016. In the six days before between January 13, 2016 to January 19, 2016 (i.e. the date set for jury trail), I attempted to reach a settlement of the entire case. I drafted a letter to the landlord's attorney. Please see Exhibit "5" attached hereto.Apparently, [redacted] informed the court that she vacated the premises and in open court Mr. [redacted] tendered the keys and garage door opener to the landlord or landlord's counsel and notwithstanding these events, the court nevertheless proceeded with the unlawful detainer trial. Please see Exhibit "6" attached hereto. As to the unlawful detainer ("eviction") judgement against [redacted], I would to explain two things. First, [redacted] had the opportunity to accept the negotiated stipulation and settlement agreement. Secondly, the eviction judgement could have been avoided if [redacted] had vacated and turned in the keys and garage door opener bfore the unlawful detainer trial started. Secondly, as to the money judgement (i.e., back rents), this would have been awarded even if the unlawful detainer trail on January 19, 2016 would not have proceeded as the case would have been converted to a general civil action (i.e., converted from an eviction to a collections case). However, [redacted] would have had an opportunity to seek offsets and credits for abatement of rents due to the sub-standard and/or uninhabitable living conditions.Nothing prevents [redacted] from suing the landlord for money damages for abatement of rents for sub-standard and/ or uninhabitable living conditions to try and offset the past due rents. The real turning point is [redacted]'s January 15, 2016 email (see Exhibit "4") which she states she is willing to sign the settlement agreement because of the deplorable living conditions that she and her children had to suffer through. Truly a Greek tragedy as the consequences that [redacted] faces could have easily been avoided bu the negotiated settlement agreement. Should you have any questions, please let me know at [redacted]. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and professional courtesy.Respectfully,CHANDLER LAW FIRM

I am rejecting this response because:
Attorney Chandler would have you believe that the settlement was the only option I had to avoid an eviction, and that simply is not true. He has chosen not to address the clear fact that I could have mitigated the charges in a civil suit, at worst, or had no charges if the case was dismissed, at best (if the keys were returned prior to trial - a fact he was in the legal position to advise me of and simply didn't before my trial), and I still would not have had an eviction on my  record. Had he not neglected to share all the pertinent details regarding my case with me, including but not limited to all the legal ramifications of every action, this precarious situation wouldn't have occurred, and he needs to accept culpability for his actions, and the lack thereof. The case has not been resolved.