Hemb Law Group

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 6, 2015/07/28) */ This letter is in response to the complaint filed by my former family law client, [redacted] , Fresno County Superior Court Case No.: [redacted] , [redacted] vsBob Eudale [redacted] The facts are as follows: 1) Lack of professional representation - this case had a minimum of hours of legal hours by just myself as the lead attorney at $per hour (not including all work performed by the paralegals and [redacted] E [redacted] , associate attorney, in preparation for trial) due to clients repeated requests that information be produced via subpoenas based uponthe client's belief that Mr [redacted] was purportedly hiding assets earned during and after the date of separationMs [redacted] has paid the total sum to my office to date of $4,900.00, PERIODAt all times I was involved in all aspects of Ms [redacted] 's case and no time was Ms [redacted] 's issues and/or case handled with neglect or undue delayIn fact, I personally prepared the multiple settlement conference statements, the trial brief and all related documentsi) As to my associate attorney, [redacted] E [redacted] , Ms [redacted] (as one of my clients - please note that all of my family law clients were advised simultaneously) was advised via written communication on or about August 20, 2014, that Ms [redacted] was my new associate attorney and that I would be asking Ms [redacted] to handle certain matters that were to be determined at my discretion and that if any one of my clients had an issue with the new associate attorney handling any part of their matter, that the client retained the right to elect not to have my associate attorney involved in their caseI would further note that out of all of my clients, only THREE notified me in writing that they did not wish to have my new associate attorney handle their case ii) Ms [redacted] was NOT one of my clients who notified me either in writing or otherwise that she did not wish to have my new associate attorney, [redacted] , handle any part of her caseIn fact, Ms [redacted] repeatedly new about Ms [redacted] 's involvement in her case, had repeated telephone conversations with Ms [redacted] , repeated email and written conversations with Ms [redacted] and was fully aware that Ms, [redacted] would be litigating the final two issues in her case i.e,: attorney fees and permanent spousal supportIn fact, Ms [redacted] was the attorney who prepared Ms [redacted] for trial and spent several hours in this processTo now state that Ms [redacted] "didn't know this attorney" is extremely disingenuous at bestTherefore, Ms [redacted] 's case was not "assigned...to another attorney, unbeknown to me (Ms [redacted] )" nor was Ms [redacted] "unknown" to Ms [redacted] Furthermore, as the lead attorney, I have the duty of preparing (NOT TRAINING) Ms [redacted] for trial and preparing the client for trial -which is what I did as the lead attorney and of which Ms [redacted] was fully aware of at all time and only now chooses to argue this matter when Ms [redacted] does not want to pay for services rendered on her behalfThis would include my office incurring substantial costs and expenses ($660.79) to obtain information that the client "demanded" be obtained based upon her perceived belief that Mr [redacted] was "hiding" money and for which Ms [redacted] has thus far refused to reimburse my office for these efforts that Ms [redacted] demanded be accomplishediii) As to Ms [redacted] 's argument that Ms [redacted] was "young and inexperienced in the family law arena", Ms [redacted] has extensive background in assisting a civil litigation attorney prepare for a civil jury trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court and again in San Diego County Superior CourtBoth family law and civil litigation law have the same requirements for submission of documents, witnesses and all related mattersMs [redacted] was fully aware of how to get evidence into the record and how to examine witnessesHowever, since Ms [redacted] had self-represented herself prior to my offices representation, it became more than apparent through the process that Ms [redacted] continued to believe that she possessed superior knowledge on how evidence would be entered, what questions should be or should have been asked, and when or where witnesses should have been utilizediv) As to the witness that Ms [redacted] is now claiming she should not have to pay for a witness to appear in courtThis cost amounted to less than $period, as the first trial date was cancelled due to the judicial officer being called to jury duty, and during this time MsLitters had contact with this witness who was determined to be extremely hostile and would have created more issues than were necessary to argue the factsThe decision was made thereafter to usethe written evidence, have Mr [redacted] testify to the knowledge thereof and have it entered into evidenceSince Ms [redacted] had retained my office as her counsel, this was a decision that I had to make based upon an understanding of what would make the most impact for the court and for the benefit of the client and not upon what Ms [redacted] believed may or may not be in her best interestTherefore, Ms [redacted] was NOT billed for a witness to "appear in court" but was billed for the travel costs associated with the one appearance that the witness made when the judicial officer was otherwise detainedMs [redacted] 's belief that "because the witness was not present in court, the case resulted in a permanent monthly financial hardship for me." Although Ms [redacted] is now trying to base her belief that she was somehow harmed by the fact that one witness was not present, but refuses to accept that a whole host of written information was presented proving up Ms [redacted] 's argument that Mr [redacted] was cohabitating with another and the court took this into consideration in making its final determination, Ms [redacted] in fact received an extremely favorable outcome following her trialMs [redacted] had a 2/3rd's reduction in her monthly obligation to Mr, [redacted] i.e.: originally $down to $per month until remarriage, death or further order of the court (based upon this being a long term marriage), (NOTE: Ms [redacted] continues to put double the funds into her California State Teachers Retirement Account despite that not being necessary), NO payment of the other party's attorney fees (that had been repeatedly requested by the opposing party/counsel in all of the negotiations and even at trial) and although Ms [redacted] had argued that she had overpaid for temporary support, the court did not find that Ms [redacted] had done soMs [redacted] now wants to claim that, based upon the above facts, that Ms [redacted] 's perceived lack of knowledge and expertise has somehow cost Ms [redacted] financiallyWhat Ms [redacted] fails to comprehend and/or has refused to comprehend despite having been told is the following; a) Ms [redacted] could have been ordered to pay at least $8,in attorney fees for Mr [redacted] 's benefit (the minimum stun that they were seeking); b) Ms [redacted] could have been ordered to pay at least $in permanent spousal support based upon the calculation that the court could have considered, This was a long term marriage and Ms [redacted] far out-earned Mr [redacted] at all timesHowever, the court DID take into consideration the fact that Mr [redacted] was now cohabitating with another and reduced the amount to be paid by Ms [redacted] to Mr, [redacted] in half, a huge savings to Ms [redacted] At NO time would the court have considered Mr [redacted] NOT receiving any spousal support from Ms [redacted] due to the disparity in income, no retirement funds to Mr [redacted] only that coming from Social Security and the standard of the living of the marriage, No matter how it was argued, the court would not have made a zero order for spousal support, PERIODSecondly, Ms [redacted] fails to note that the amount of time that went by before trial was actually to Ms [redacted] 's benefitWhen Ms [redacted] first retained my office, Mr [redacted] was NOT cohabitating with anotherIf the trial had occurred at that point in time, Ms [redacted] 's permanent spousal support would have been at least $per month and I can almost assure Ms [redacted] that she would have paid for one-half of Mr [redacted] 's 'attorney feesAgain, Ms [redacted] only wanted to be relieved of any further spousal support payments to Mr [redacted] and to not have to pay any more for her to be represented by effective counsel, even if Ms [redacted] did not believe that was occurring 2) It would be wise to note at this point the following facts: a) Ms [redacted] had represented herself prior to my office's involvement; b) Ms [redacted] was referred to my office by the Fresno County Bar Association; c) Ms [redacted] completely refused to pay any more than $per month after her retainer was exhausted repeatedly stating that she did not have any money; d) Ms [redacted] repeatedly advised myself and my office staff that she was responsible for providing funds to her disabled sister; e) Ms [redacted] 's pay stubs and income and expense declarations repeatedly showed that Ms [redacted] had more income in her possession than what she was leading anyone to believe she had nor could she explain to myself, the paralegal or Ms [redacted] where the extra funds were being spent despite repeated claims that "I am going to have to file for bankruptcy" to which I never responded that bankruptcy would "not clear off my (presumably meaning my offices) attorney costs as I am fully aware that her filing for bankruptcy would have released Ms [redacted] from being responsible to my office,for the attorney fees she has incurred - however, I am sure that I did state that if she filed bankruptcy and she was ordered to pay some of Mr [redacted] s' attorney fees and costs, that a bankruptcy would not relieve her of any of the court's orders for those attorney fees and costs and f) Ms [redacted] continued to put into her retirement account double the amount despite having the knowledge that she was incurring a substantial bill for legal fees incurred at her request/demands 3) Ms [redacted] 's needs and concerns were addressed immediatelyIn fact, Ms [redacted] would repeatedly appear at my office without any advance notice, request to meet with myself or my staff right then, and either myself or my staff would clear everything or do our best to accommodate Ms [redacted] 's needsAt no time was there ever a lack of communication as noted above, nor was there "poor decision making" as a substantial amount of information was obtained that provided Ms [redacted] with the knowledge that no other retirement/monies existed as to Mr [redacted] and the only decision that Ms [redacted] perceives as being a "poor decision" is her claim of not using the witness, of whom I had determined by both a personal interaction with Ms [redacted] and my telephone interaction with this witness, that this witness was not suitable to providing the court with proof of the relationship that was in existenceIn fact, this witness could very well have gone against what we did accomplish in proving the more than roommate relationship as to Mr [redacted] Again, if paying $per month has made and has a negative impact on my day-to-day life, when Ms [redacted] 's income is far superior as noted above, then I am really puzzled by this claim, Therefore, the only basis that I can perceive with Ms [redacted] 's claim is her continued and complete unwillingness to pay the outstanding sum owed to my officeMs [redacted] 's billing statements prove that Ms [redacted] 's needs were more than addressed, that Ms [redacted] had full access to either myself or my staff at all times, that Ms [redacted] did NOT want to pay permanent spousal support and since that perceived need was not meant or accomplished by my office which Ms [redacted] now tries to blame on my purported lack of professional representation and failing to practice "CBA legal protocol" - I am unsure as to what Ms, [redacted] is referencing with this statement , now Ms [redacted] believes that she should not have to pay for any attorney fees involved in her caseAdditionally, as noted above, Ms [redacted] refuses to accept that she actually came out on the positive Send of this legal battle ie.: a very small amount for permanent spousal support, NO attorney fees to pay to the other party's attorney and moving on with her life including keeping the majority of her CalSTRS retirement benefits and no payout of her unused vacation time (which Mr [redacted] could have also asked for) Accordingly, since I have yet to have Ms [redacted] actually provide evidence of her "hardships" as I noted above in that Ms, [redacted] has extra income at the end of each month, I am not willing to reduce m attorney fees to zero since just my legal hours alone in Ms [redacted] 's case equaled to $10,This did not include the costs that I incurred on Ms [redacted] 's behalf in the amount of $Therefore, since I am fully aware that Ms [redacted] does have the capability of paying additional attorney fees to my office, l am requesting that Ms [redacted] pay the sum of $6,which equals to the difference between what has been previously tendered to my office by Ms [redacted] of $4,900.00, subtracted from the $10,of just my time in the case, plus the costs incurred and paid by my office on Ms [redacted] 's behalf and demandsIf Ms [redacted] will agree to pay this sum versus the current balance of $17, 437.19, I will forgive the remainder balance of $10, Sincerely, [redacted] * [redacted] Attorney at Law Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 8, 2015/08/06) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) To: Revdex.com Thank you for providing the reply informationAfter a great deal of thought and consideration, my response to the above from Hemb Law Group, is that in the interest of all parties involved, this matter should be assigned for arbitrationHopefully, a great deal could be discussed and settled by doing this as soon as possibleIf not through the Revdex.com, then with the local CBA affiliate and if necessary, to the state levelThank you in advance for your assistance Sincerely, [redacted]

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/11/19) */
Dear Revdex.com:
I am responding to your letter dated November 10, 2014 in regards to the above referenced client that my office previously represented in his ongoing dissolution of marriage, child custody/visitation,...

child/spousal support and property division in the Fresno County Superior Court.
In order to assist the Revdex.com in handling this matter, 1 will lay out the time line, legal issues and Mr. [redacted]'s responses andior lack thereof to my repeated requests:
1) June 12, 2014 - Initial meeting with Mr. [redacted] 2) June 13, 2014 - Mr. [redacted] paid his retainer fee 3) June 16 and thereafter, my office commenced with the review of what Mr. [redacted] had previously filed with the court as his disclosures, i.e.: documents setting forth to the court and to his estranged spouse what the parties had purchased during marriage, where bank account(s) were located, vehicle(s), and what all remained at the date of separation,
Commencing on .tune 16, 2014 and thereafter, my office and 1 discovered several discrepancies as follows: a) Bank account(s) that were on Mr. [redacted]'s original Schedule of Assets and Debts that, when inquired as to the status of the account(s) by my office of Mr. [redacted], both myself and my office received numerous conflicting statements as to the account(s) along with the funds contained therein. This issue became extremely large when the estranged spouse of Mr. [redacted] started really pushing at my office to have proof of what occurred with this particular account, and was now commencing with the filing of documents before the court stating that this account actually had funds in it to pay for the estranged wife's attorney fees. However, after approximately 6 email exchanges with Mr. [redacted] and conflicting answers to the same question, I finally advised Mr. [redacted] via telephone that I would be sending out a subpoena to the bank named in his and Ms. [redacted]'s documents to verify that purportedly this account either did or did. not exist. This telephone conversation occurred just before the last court hearing and Mr. [redacted] was not pleased with my version of the situation as Mr. [redacted] wanted to have total control and I was just to believe what he said; b) Retirement Account(s): my office and myself discovered that Mr. [redacted] was selling and/or attempting to force his estranged wife to sign off on community property assets with Mr. [redacted] continuing to maintain control over the community property assets. This issue, when my office finally obtained all of the documents from Mr. [redacted], required that my office join the remaining retirement accounts to avoid Mr. [redacted] being held in contempt of court for continuing to violate the Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders. However, this issue remains before the court in. that NIT. [redacted] and my office made every attempt to assure that all parties, including the court, knew how Mr. [redacted] had spent the community property asset i,e.: retirement funds. This was not fully completed when Mr. [redacted] decided he did not want my office to represent him.
Following these discoveries, the following events then took place: a) Mr. [redacted] had been working with his estranged spouse through another attorney who was a friend of Mr. [redacted]'s estranged wife, After several conversations and emails, I made the decision to not have this other attorney involved in the case as it was clearly a conflict of interest, During the discussions that arose between that attorney and myself, I was asked if there were any attorneys that I could recommend who understood how to address issues pertaining to the special needs of the minor child of Mr. and Mrs. [redacted]. I provided some names of attorneys that I knew had some experience in this area besides myself and this attorney then provided those to Mr. [redacted]'s estranged spouse, Mr. [redacted]'s estranged spouse then chose an attorney to meet with, sent me an email asking that I obtain Mr. [redacted]'s cooperation in paying for the consult fee to meet with the attorney of her choosing and I responded accordingly and cc'd Mr. [redacted] on these email exchanges, as the estranged spouse was representing herself in Pro Per; b) I drafted and prepared a proposal for settlement to Ms. [redacted], which I sent via email to Mr. [redacted] to review, and there were several email exchanges as to this matter before I mailed it out to Ms. [redacted]; c) Ms, [redacted] responded very negatively. Ms. [redacted] then provided me with her version of the assets and debts of the parties and again, bank account(s), properties and retirement(s) came to light. This was followed by more emails to Mr. [redacted] seeking answers to these as all of the prior documents provided by Mr. [redacted] never referenced the account(s) that Ms. [redacted] was now becoming upset about; d) I drafted and prepared a Request for Order to Bifurcate the marital status to at least resolve that issue. That was filed, served and set for hearing by my office; e) At the hearing date, which was able to get on calendar very quickly, to have the marital status bifurcated, unbeknownst to myself, Judge [redacted] recused himself from the case ( it had been assigned to his courtroom for all purposes) as Judge [redacted] knew the attorney that Ms. [redacted] was seeking to have represent her and Judge [redacted] did not hear any cases in which that attorney would be representing litigants. That occurred at approximately 11:10 a.m. and we were then reassigned to another courtroom. The new judicial officer, when she took the bench, advised the parties that she had not had time to read the file at all as she had just received it. During this time, Ms. [redacted] attempted to make all types of arguments including her request for attorney fees, the fact that Mr. [redacted] was not paying her any funds and so forth. The court again made it VERY CLEAR that this judge would NOT make any rulings at this time as she had not had time to review the file and that it would be prejudicial to Mr. [redacted] if she did make a ruling without having reviewed the file. We were then set for hearing on another date. Following that hearing, Ms. [redacted] asked to speak with me about the issues and I agreed, since she was representing herself in Pro Per and that is standard procedure for the court. Following my brief discussion with Ms. [redacted], I advised Mr. [redacted] of what had been discussed, that I had no control over the judge recusing himself and that we would have to wait for the next court date to get his marital status dissolved. Although Mr. [redacted] was disappointed, he seemed to understand the process; 1) During my time in court on this matter, my office staff had prepared and served the Subpoena for the bank account in question that Mr. [redacted] had refused to provide any documentation thereon; g) That same afternoon, my office staff received a panicked phone call from Ms, [redacted] advising my office that Mr. [redacted] had unilaterally turned off her PG&E, her landline telephone, her cabldinternet, and had text messaged her that she needed to obtain a new cell phone provider. (NOTE: This is all a direct violation of the Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders issued along with the Petition for Dissolution.) At approximately the same time, Mr. [redacted] emailed my office stating that he was invoking a clause in the attorney fee contract and that I was no longer his attorney of record, My office staff, in the meantime, had called Mr. [redacted] and advised him that he could NOT turn off these items at the residence of Ms. [redacted] as it affected not only Ms. [redacted] but their minor special needs child. Mr. [redacted] refused to listen and a letter was written by my office to Mr. [redacted] advising him of the consequences of his actions, should he continue.; h) The following day, Mr. [redacted] came into my office and signed the Substitution of Attorney which was filed by my office with the Fresno County Superior Court,
Following all of these issues, Mr. [redacted] has now argued on many different levels that he should not have to pay for services rendered on his behalf. The first level was that somehow 1 had caused his estranged spouse to choose an attorney that had messed up his case. The second level was that somehow I was unable to argue his case in court, but that his estranged spouse came very prepared and argued her case before the court. As I reminded him, the second judge REFUSED to hear her argument as the judge had riot read the case, and would not make any orders until she had read the case file. The third level was that somehow I had communicated with him too much i.e.: massive amounts of emails which were only there to "churn" money. As I repeatedly reminded him, if Mr. [redacted] had answered me truthfully and with the exact documents that I had requested and not documents that were "similar" the first time, the amount of emails would have been much less. However, that was not the case, as noted above. The fourth level was that somehow I was no longer on his side, that I was asking for documents that had no bearing on his case, despite the fact that California Family Code requires that these documents be disclosed, and that somehow I did not know what I was doing. Mr. [redacted] has now written 2 separate letters to me in. regards to this matter and I have responded, in great detail, to each of these letters. I would note that Mr, [redacted] has not provided either of those letters to you, nor has he disclosed the fact that he mailed those letters using his employers' envelopes and stamps. Mr. [redacted] each time refuses to accept his part in the reason that his legal fees were beyond the $4,000.00 retainer asked for by my office. Instead, Mr. [redacted] only wants some money returned based upon theories and claims that are unfounded. In fact, all funds were rightfully earned by my office in representing Mr. [redacted]'s interests and attempting to assure that Mr. [redacted] did not get slapped with a civil contempt motion by Ms. [redacted] and/or sanctions by the court for his repeated actions that violated the Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders. I will note the following has occurred for Mr. [redacted]: a) The court will most likely grant his request for Bifurcation at the next hearing in December, 2014; b) All of Mr. [redacted]'s final disclosure documents have been completed with the exception of the one bank account he refused to provide documents for and an investment scheme he was involved therein. I will note that apparently, before I came into the case, Mr. [redacted] refused to comply with the court's prior order that he file his "preliminary" declarations of disclosures, and this held up Mr. [redacted]'s Request for Bifurcation from being granted at the continued hearing date after I came out of the case. I then. sent Mr. [redacted], in my second reply letter, the one page document that he needed to file with the court and advised him of where he had failed to comply with the court's orders; c) MI retirement account(s) were joined to the action so that Mr. [redacted] could obtain a Status Only dissolution of marriage; and d) A global settlement proposal was drafted, reviewed, revised, reviewed and finally sent to Ms. [redacted] who responded. However, my office was unable to get any additional orders in place thereafter as Mr. [redacted] refused to cooperate.
Accordingly, I am not willing to refund any monies to Mr. [redacted] based upon the extensive amount of work involved in his case in making sure that Mr. [redacted] complied with the provisions of California Family Code, However, I may be willing to consider that the remaining amount due to my office, which is in excess of $2,XXX XX, will be reduced to $750.00, due and payable immediately by Mr. [redacted].
Thank you in advance for your courtesy and assistance in this matter. Should you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to give my office a call.
[redacted] A. [redacted] Attorney at Law
SAH
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/11/25) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I am completely unsatisfied with this attorney's services and the $4000 retainer I still feel was unearned, excessive and my mistake to not agree to an hourly basis.
If emails were NOT working for us, why did [redacted] continue to churn them out? We could have done it all in office one time. I will not pay ANY MORE to this Attorney. I am still struggling with this case and now in the same position as I was before except without 4K that I need to help me in this difficult time. The fact that [redacted] is willing to now reduce fees of $2600 to $750 shows that we are working with unearned fees and someone fishing for any fees.
I expect good faith fiduciary duty and did not receive it. [redacted] should have given me a list of what she needed one time, called me in office to discuss one time. Instead she churned tens and tens of emails for me to only to find out they were up to $250 a pop until she used ALL of my retainer and ultimately got her goal of more fees.
I will pay her NOTHING more. I know with her position of Power in the court I do not have a change to even a portion of my retainer back with her one sided contract she made me sign...so I will call that a loss and lesson learned - Bad attorney, I should have been more careful.
Business Response /* (1000, 15, 2014/12/10) */
Dear Revdex.com: I am responding to the letter which arrived at my office on or about December 1, 2014, with the request that I respond by no later than December 6, 2014 of which I was unable to comply with due to my court schedule, relative to the response that you received from the above referenced person. I will answer the letter as follows:
Steps to Resolve the Issue:
1. My law firm will release [redacted] from any further payment of legal fees rendered on Mr. [redacted]'s behalf by my law firm. The amount being released is $2,600.00.
2. Mr. [redacted] will acknowledge that this release by my office will settle any outstanding issues/concerns by Mr, [redacted] as to either prior legal fees incurred and/or payment of any past due legal fees owed to my law firm.
3. Mr. [redacted] will close his file with the Revdex.com as to this case.
Thank you in advance for your courtesy and assistance in this matter. Should you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to give my office a call.
SAH
Sincerely, [redacted] emb Attorney at Law

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/07/28) */
This letter is in response to the complaint filed by my former family law client, [redacted], Fresno County Superior Court Case No.: [redacted] vs. Bob Eudale [redacted].
The facts are as follows:
1) Lack of...

professional representation - this case had a minimum of 39 hours of legal hours by just myself as the lead attorney at $275.00 per hour (not including all work performed by the 2 paralegals and [redacted] E. [redacted], associate attorney, in preparation for trial) due to clients repeated requests that information be produced via subpoenas based upon. the client's belief that Mr. [redacted] was purportedly hiding assets earned during and after the date of separation. Ms. [redacted] has paid the total sum to my office to date of $4,900.00, PERIOD. At all times I was involved in all aspects of Ms. [redacted]'s case and no time was Ms. [redacted]'s issues and/or case handled with neglect or undue delay. In fact, I personally prepared the multiple settlement conference statements, the trial brief and all related documents. i) As to my associate attorney, [redacted] E. [redacted], Ms. [redacted] (as one of my clients - please note that all of my family law clients were advised simultaneously) was advised via written communication on or about August 20, 2014, that Ms. [redacted] was my new associate attorney and that I would be asking Ms. [redacted] to handle certain matters that were to be determined at my discretion and that if any one of my clients had an issue with the new associate attorney handling any part of their matter, that the client retained the right to elect not to have my associate attorney involved in their case. I would further note that out of all of my clients, only THREE notified me in writing that they did not wish to have my new associate attorney handle their case.
ii) Ms. [redacted] was NOT one of my clients who notified me either in writing or otherwise that she did not wish to have my new associate attorney, [redacted], handle any part of her case. In fact, Ms. [redacted] repeatedly new about Ms. [redacted]'s involvement in her case, had repeated telephone conversations with Ms. [redacted], repeated email and written conversations with Ms. [redacted] and was fully aware that Ms, [redacted] would be litigating the final two issues in her case i.e,: attorney fees and permanent spousal support. In fact, Ms. [redacted] was the attorney who prepared Ms. [redacted] for trial and spent several hours in this process. To now state that Ms. [redacted] "didn't know this attorney" is extremely disingenuous at best. Therefore, Ms. [redacted]'s case was not "assigned...to another attorney, unbeknown to me (Ms. [redacted])" nor was Ms. [redacted] "unknown" to Ms. [redacted]. Furthermore, as the lead attorney, I have the duty of preparing (NOT TRAINING) Ms. [redacted] for trial and preparing the client for trial -which is what I did as the lead attorney and of which Ms. [redacted] was fully aware of at all time and only now chooses to argue this matter when Ms. [redacted] does not want to pay for services rendered on her behalf. This would include my office incurring substantial costs and expenses ($660.79) to obtain information that the client "demanded" be obtained based upon her perceived belief that Mr. [redacted] was "hiding" money and for which Ms. [redacted] has thus far refused to reimburse my office for these efforts that Ms. [redacted] demanded be accomplished. iii) As to Ms. [redacted]'s argument that Ms. [redacted] was "young and inexperienced in the family law arena", Ms. [redacted] has extensive background in assisting a civil litigation attorney prepare for a civil jury trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court and again in San Diego County Superior Court. Both family law and civil litigation law have the same requirements for submission of documents, witnesses and all related matters. Ms. [redacted] was fully aware of how to get evidence into the record and how to examine witnesses. However, since Ms. [redacted] had self-represented herself prior to my offices representation, it became more than apparent through the process that Ms. [redacted] continued to believe that she possessed superior knowledge on how evidence would be entered, what questions should be or should have been asked, and when or where witnesses should have been utilized. iv) As to the witness that Ms. [redacted] is now claiming she should not have to pay for a witness to appear in court. This cost amounted to less than $30.00 period, as the first trial date was cancelled due to the judicial officer being called to jury duty, and during this time Ms. Litters had contact with this witness who was determined to be extremely hostile and would have created more issues than were necessary to argue the facts. The decision was made thereafter to use. the written evidence, have Mr. [redacted] testify to the knowledge thereof and have it entered into
evidence. Since Ms. [redacted] had retained my office as her counsel, this was a decision that I had to make based upon an understanding of what would make the most impact for the court and for the benefit of the client and not upon what Ms. [redacted] believed may or may not be in her best interest. Therefore, Ms. [redacted] was NOT billed for a witness to "appear in court" but was billed for the travel costs associated with the one appearance that the witness made when the judicial officer was otherwise detained. Ms. [redacted]'s belief that "because the witness was not present in court, the case resulted in a permanent monthly financial hardship for me." Although Ms. [redacted] is now trying to base her belief that she was somehow harmed by the fact that one witness was not present, but refuses to accept that a whole host of written information was presented proving up Ms. [redacted]'s argument that Mr. [redacted] was cohabitating with another and the court took this into consideration in making its final determination, Ms. [redacted] in fact received an extremely favorable outcome following her trial. Ms. [redacted] had a 2/3rd's reduction in her monthly obligation to Mr, [redacted] i.e.: originally $840 down to $250.00 per month until remarriage, death or further order of the court (based upon this being a long term marriage), (NOTE: Ms. [redacted] continues to put double the funds into her California State Teachers Retirement Account despite that not being necessary), NO payment of the other party's attorney fees (that had been repeatedly requested by the opposing party/counsel in all of the negotiations and even at trial) and although Ms. [redacted] had argued that she had overpaid for temporary support, the court did not find that Ms. [redacted] had done so. Ms. [redacted] now wants to claim that, based upon the above facts, that Ms. [redacted]'s perceived lack of knowledge and expertise has somehow cost Ms. [redacted] financially. What Ms. [redacted] fails to comprehend and/or has refused to comprehend despite having been told is the following; a) Ms. [redacted] could have been ordered to pay at least $8,500.00 in attorney fees for Mr. [redacted]'s benefit (the minimum stun that they were seeking); b) Ms. [redacted] could have been ordered to pay at least $500.00 in permanent spousal support based upon the calculation that the court could have considered, This was a long term marriage and Ms. [redacted] far out-earned Mr. [redacted] at all times. However, the court DID take into consideration the fact that Mr. [redacted] was now cohabitating with another and reduced the amount to be paid by Ms. [redacted] to Mr, [redacted] in half, a huge savings to Ms. [redacted]. At NO time would the court have considered Mr. [redacted] NOT receiving any spousal support from Ms. [redacted] due to the disparity in income, no retirement funds to Mr. [redacted] only that coming from Social Security and the standard of the living of the marriage, No matter how it was argued, the court would not have made a zero order for
spousal support, PERIOD. Secondly, Ms. [redacted] fails to note that the amount of time that went by before trial was actually to Ms. [redacted]'s benefit. When Ms. [redacted] first retained my office, Mr. [redacted] was NOT cohabitating with another. If the trial had occurred at that point in time, Ms. [redacted]'s permanent spousal support would have been at least $500.00 per month and I can almost assure Ms. [redacted] that she would have paid for one-half of Mr. [redacted]'s 'attorney fees. Again, Ms. [redacted] only wanted to be relieved of any further spousal support payments to Mr. [redacted] and to not have to pay any more for her to be represented by effective counsel, even if Ms. [redacted] did not believe that was occurring.
2) It would be wise to note at this point the following facts: a) Ms. [redacted] had represented herself prior to my office's involvement; b) Ms. [redacted] was referred to my office by the Fresno County Bar Association; c) Ms. [redacted] completely refused to pay any more than $100.00 per month after her retainer was exhausted repeatedly stating that she did not have any money; d) Ms. [redacted] repeatedly advised myself and my office staff that she was responsible for providing funds to her disabled sister; e) Ms. [redacted]'s pay stubs and income and expense declarations repeatedly showed that Ms. [redacted] had more income in her possession than what she was leading anyone to believe she had nor could she explain to myself, the paralegal or Ms. [redacted] where the extra funds were being spent despite repeated claims that "I am going to have to file for bankruptcy" to which I never responded that bankruptcy would "not clear off my (presumably meaning my offices) attorney costs as I am fully aware that her filing for bankruptcy would have released Ms. [redacted] from being responsible to my office,for the attorney fees she has incurred - however, I am sure that I did state that if she filed bankruptcy and she was ordered to pay some of Mr. [redacted]s' attorney fees and costs, that a bankruptcy would not relieve her of any of the court's orders for those attorney fees and costs and f) Ms. [redacted] continued to put into her retirement account double the normal amount despite having the knowledge that she was incurring a substantial bill for legal fees incurred at her request/demands.
3) Ms. [redacted]'s needs and concerns were addressed immediately. In fact, Ms. [redacted] would repeatedly appear at my office without any advance notice, request to meet with myself or my staff right then, and either myself or my staff would clear everything or do our best to accommodate Ms. [redacted]'s needs. At no time was there ever a lack of communication as noted above, nor was there "poor decision making" as a substantial amount of information was obtained that provided Ms. [redacted] with the knowledge that no other retirement/monies existed as to Mr. [redacted] and the only decision that Ms. [redacted] perceives as being a "poor decision" is her claim of not using the witness, of whom I had determined by both a personal interaction with Ms. [redacted] and my telephone interaction with this witness, that this witness was not suitable to providing the court with proof of the relationship that was in existence. In
fact, this witness could very well have gone against what we did accomplish in proving the more than roommate relationship as to Mr. [redacted]. Again, if paying $250.00 per month has made and has a negative impact on my day-to-day life, when Ms. [redacted]'s income is far superior as noted above, then I am really puzzled by this claim,
Therefore, the only basis that I can perceive with Ms. [redacted]'s claim is her continued and complete unwillingness to pay the outstanding sum owed to my office. Ms. [redacted]'s billing statements prove that Ms. [redacted]'s needs were more than addressed, that Ms. [redacted] had full access to either myself or my staff at all times, that Ms. [redacted] did NOT want to pay permanent spousal support and since that perceived need was not meant or accomplished by my office which Ms. [redacted] now tries to blame on my purported lack of professional representation and failing to practice "CBA legal protocol" - I am unsure as to what Ms, [redacted] is referencing with this statement , now Ms. [redacted] believes that she should not have to pay for any attorney fees involved in her case. Additionally, as noted above, Ms. [redacted] refuses to accept that she actually came out on the positive Send of this legal battle ie.: a very small amount for permanent spousal support, NO attorney fees to pay to the other party's attorney and moving on with her life including keeping the majority of her CalSTRS retirement benefits and no payout of her unused vacation time (which Mr. [redacted] could have also asked for).
. Accordingly, since I have yet to have Ms. [redacted] actually provide evidence of her "hardships" as I noted above in that Ms, [redacted] has extra income at the end of each month, I am not willing to reduce m attorney fees to zero since just my legal hours alone in Ms. [redacted]'s case equaled to $10,725.00. This did not include the costs that I incurred on Ms. [redacted]'s behalf in the amount of $660.79. Therefore, since I am fully aware that Ms. [redacted] does have the capability of paying additional attorney fees to my office, l am requesting that Ms. [redacted] pay the sum of $6,485.79 which equals to the difference between what has been previously tendered to my office by Ms. [redacted] of $4,900.00, subtracted from the $10,725.00 of just my time in the case, plus the costs incurred and paid by my office on Ms. [redacted]'s behalf and demands. If Ms. [redacted] will agree to pay this sum versus the current balance of $17, 437.19, I will forgive the remainder balance of $10,951.40.
Sincerely,
[redacted] Attorney at Law
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2015/08/06) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
To: Revdex.com
Thank you for providing the reply information. After a great deal of thought and consideration, my response to the above from Hemb Law Group, is that in the interest of all parties involved, this matter should be assigned for arbitration. Hopefully, a great deal could be discussed and settled by doing this as soon as possible. If not through the Revdex.com, then with the local CBA affiliate and if necessary, to the state level. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Sincerely,
[redacted]