To: Revdex.comFrom: Grady and Associates, Associates at LawRe: Response to Complaint # [redacted] Date: March 17, 2015Our law firm has been a member of the Revdex.com for 22+ years, and is a Revdex.com accreditedbusiness with an A+ ratingLike many online complaints about businesses, this complaint is notonly misleading, but grossly soIt is defamatory and warrants legal action against the formerclient who posted it (hereinafter "the poster").Specializing in employment law, the law firm of Grady and Associates has existed forover yearsOver that period of time, this Revdex.com A+ rated law firm has had over FOURTHOUSAND clients, and the number of complaints has been tiny, infinitesimal when this fact isconsideredThe firm currently has employees including attorneysThe attorneys of the firmhave well over years of combined legal experienceThe attorneys of the firm haveprofessional affiliations with the Labor and Employment Law Sections of the California StateBar Association and the San Diego County Bar Association; the California Employment LawyersAssociation; the National Employment Lawyers Association; and the Consumer (Trial) Attorneysof San DiegoIn addition, attorneys at the firm are admitted to practice before all of theCalifornia State Courts, all of the United States District Courts of California, the Federal NinthCircuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.The firm offers excellent, efficient legal services from highly experienced attorneys atvery reasonable hourly rates.We note that the poster who made the Revdex.com complaint does not object to our firmcontinuing to represent him, for he wants us to do so, but on a contingency basisWhat hiscomplaint is about is that he objects to paying for our legal services provided.The facts are that the poster retained us on July 16th for his federal employmentEEO matterHe provided a $5,initial retainer, and the attorney-client agreement which hesigned at the time stated on page that each time the retainer fell below $1,500, he would need toreplenish it back to $5,The agreement specified, and he agreed, that the attorney hourly rateswould be $155-$per hourOver the next 6-months, he incurred only approximately $infeesGiven this fact, we obviously were not inclined to simply use up his retainer as fast aspossibleThat is NEVER our motivation for cases that we handleIn fact, our motivation is tohandle cases for clients the least expensive way possible, consistent with excellent legal services.That is why we have been so successful over the past + years and have had over 4,clients,as well as having a Revdex.com A+ rating.In January 2015, a need arose to address certain issues regarding the poster's caseAs hisattorneys, we were of course obligated to do soDoing so involved us reviewing and analyzingover 2,pages of PDF files which the poster had provided to us and several hundred additionalpages from additional documents he had provided to usThe legal work we did for the posterin January was necessary and done efficientlyHad our legal work been spread out over theseven months we represented him, he likely would have had no complaint about the costSowhat he is really complaining about is the concentration of the legal work in one month, sixmonths after he retained usNo basis whatsoever exists for the poster's complaint
The poster's attached documentation is our law firm's billing to him for the month of January 2015, showing the necessary legal work we performed for him that month Again, during the prior six months, he incurred only approximately $in attorneys fees Given this fact, we obviously were not inclined to simply use up his retainer as fast as possible That is NEVER our motivation for cases that we handle In fact, our motivation is to handle cases for clients the least expensive way possible, consistent with excellent legal services That is why we have been so successful over the past 22+ years and have had over 4,clients, as well as having a Revdex.com A+ rating No basis what so ever exists for the poster's defamatory complaint
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.It is an insult for a Revdex.com member like MrGrady to officially refer to a business consumer as "the poster." With MrGrady's arrogant responses to this Revdex.com complaint, what MrGrady fails to realize is that I hired him and his law firm to represent me before the EEOC As a consequence, MrGrady worked for me; I didn't work for him Regardless of that fact, the basis for my complaint is that MrGrady took my $5000, most all of it during the month of January alone, yet provided insufficient service for which I hired his law firm to do This includes over the course of several months from July to December 2014, the siphoning of my $down some $for a few phone calls, a couple of letters, and more "case review" of little to no consequence. What was the "necessary legal work" performed for the month of January 2015? This wasn't some landmark, precedent setting legal case before the Supreme Court of the United States; it was an EEO issue Did the EEOC in Los Angeles make contact with Grady & Associates to schedule a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge? I don't think so That's why I want Grady & Associates to return my money and then MrGrady can muster up all of any inherent integrity and honesty he might have inside of him and explain to the Revdex.com what the necessary legal work was in the month of January that he felt justified enough to separate *** ** *** from his money.
Regards,
*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
What "need" suddenly arose in January for Grady and Associates to liquidate the large bulk of my $retainer? I have received little to no product or service for the $I paid to Grady and Associates and would like the money returned or else evidence of $worth of product or service be provided other than a matrix of charges for case review and telephone calls mailed to my home, thank you
Regards,
*** ***
To: Revdex.comFrom: Grady and Associates, Associates at LawRe: Response to Complaint # [redacted]Date: March 17, 2015Our law firm has been a member of the Revdex.com for 22+ years, and is a Revdex.com accreditedbusiness with an A+ rating. Like many online complaints about businesses,...
this complaint is notonly misleading, but grossly so. It is defamatory and warrants legal action against the formerclient who posted it (hereinafter "the poster").Specializing in employment law, the law firm of Grady and Associates has existed forover 22 years. Over that period of time, this Revdex.com A+ rated law firm has had over FOURTHOUSAND clients, and the number of complaints has been tiny, infinitesimal when this fact isconsidered. The firm currently has 13 employees including 7 attorneys. The attorneys of the firmhave well over 1 00 years of combined legal experience. The attorneys of the firm haveprofessional affiliations with the Labor and Employment Law Sections of the California StateBar Association and the San Diego County Bar Association; the California Employment LawyersAssociation; the National Employment Lawyers Association; and the Consumer (Trial) Attorneysof San Diego. In addition, attorneys at the firm are admitted to practice before all of theCalifornia State Courts, all of the United States District Courts of California, the Federal NinthCircuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.The firm offers excellent, efficient legal services from highly experienced attorneys atvery reasonable hourly rates.We note that the poster who made the Revdex.com complaint does not object to our firmcontinuing to represent him, for he wants us to do so, but on a contingency basis. What hiscomplaint is about is that he objects to paying for our legal services provided.The facts are that the poster retained us on July 16th 2014 for his federal employmentEEO matter. He provided a $5,000 initial retainer, and the attorney-client agreement which hesigned at the time stated on page 1 that each time the retainer fell below $1,500, he would need toreplenish it back to $5,000. The agreement specified, and he agreed, that the attorney hourly rateswould be $155-$185 per hour. Over the next 6-months, he incurred only approximately $800 infees. Given this fact, we obviously were not inclined to simply use up his retainer as fast aspossible. That is NEVER our motivation for cases that we handle. In fact, our motivation is tohandle cases for clients the least expensive way possible, consistent with excellent legal services.That is why we have been so successful over the past 22 + years and have had over 4,000 clients,as well as having a Revdex.com A+ rating.In January 2015, a need arose to address certain issues regarding the poster's case. As hisattorneys, we were of course obligated to do so. Doing so involved us reviewing and analyzingover 2,500 pages of PDF files which the poster had provided to us and several hundred additionalpages from 30 additional documents he had provided to us. The legal work we did for the posterin January 2015 was necessary and done efficiently. Had our legal work been spread out over theseven months we represented him, he likely would have had no complaint about the cost. Sowhat he is really complaining about is the concentration of the legal work in one month, sixmonths after he retained us. No basis whatsoever exists for the poster's complaint.
The poster's attached documentation is our law firm's billing to him for the month of January 2015, showing the necessary legal work we performed for him that month. Again, during the prior six months, he incurred only approximately $800 in attorneys fees. Given this fact, we obviously were not inclined to simply use up his retainer as fast as possible. That is NEVER our motivation for cases that we handle. In fact, our motivation is to handle cases for clients the least expensive way possible, consistent with excellent legal services. That is why we have been so successful over the past 22+ years and have had over 4,000 clients, as well as having a Revdex.com A+ rating. No basis what so ever exists for the poster's defamatory complaint.
To: Revdex.comFrom: Grady and Associates, Associates at LawRe: Response to Complaint # [redacted] Date: March 17, 2015Our law firm has been a member of the Revdex.com for 22+ years, and is a Revdex.com accreditedbusiness with an A+ ratingLike many online complaints about businesses, this complaint is notonly misleading, but grossly soIt is defamatory and warrants legal action against the formerclient who posted it (hereinafter "the poster").Specializing in employment law, the law firm of Grady and Associates has existed forover yearsOver that period of time, this Revdex.com A+ rated law firm has had over FOURTHOUSAND clients, and the number of complaints has been tiny, infinitesimal when this fact isconsideredThe firm currently has employees including attorneysThe attorneys of the firmhave well over years of combined legal experienceThe attorneys of the firm haveprofessional affiliations with the Labor and Employment Law Sections of the California StateBar Association and the San Diego County Bar Association; the California Employment LawyersAssociation; the National Employment Lawyers Association; and the Consumer (Trial) Attorneysof San DiegoIn addition, attorneys at the firm are admitted to practice before all of theCalifornia State Courts, all of the United States District Courts of California, the Federal NinthCircuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.The firm offers excellent, efficient legal services from highly experienced attorneys atvery reasonable hourly rates.We note that the poster who made the Revdex.com complaint does not object to our firmcontinuing to represent him, for he wants us to do so, but on a contingency basisWhat hiscomplaint is about is that he objects to paying for our legal services provided.The facts are that the poster retained us on July 16th for his federal employmentEEO matterHe provided a $5,initial retainer, and the attorney-client agreement which hesigned at the time stated on page that each time the retainer fell below $1,500, he would need toreplenish it back to $5,The agreement specified, and he agreed, that the attorney hourly rateswould be $155-$per hourOver the next 6-months, he incurred only approximately $infeesGiven this fact, we obviously were not inclined to simply use up his retainer as fast aspossibleThat is NEVER our motivation for cases that we handleIn fact, our motivation is tohandle cases for clients the least expensive way possible, consistent with excellent legal services.That is why we have been so successful over the past + years and have had over 4,clients,as well as having a Revdex.com A+ rating.In January 2015, a need arose to address certain issues regarding the poster's caseAs hisattorneys, we were of course obligated to do soDoing so involved us reviewing and analyzingover 2,pages of PDF files which the poster had provided to us and several hundred additionalpages from additional documents he had provided to usThe legal work we did for the posterin January was necessary and done efficientlyHad our legal work been spread out over theseven months we represented him, he likely would have had no complaint about the costSowhat he is really complaining about is the concentration of the legal work in one month, sixmonths after he retained usNo basis whatsoever exists for the poster's complaint
The poster's attached documentation is our law firm's billing to him for the month of January 2015, showing the necessary legal work we performed for him that month Again, during the prior six months, he incurred only approximately $in attorneys fees Given this fact, we obviously were not inclined to simply use up his retainer as fast as possible That is NEVER our motivation for cases that we handle In fact, our motivation is to handle cases for clients the least expensive way possible, consistent with excellent legal services That is why we have been so successful over the past 22+ years and have had over 4,clients, as well as having a Revdex.com A+ rating No basis what so ever exists for the poster's defamatory complaint
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.It is an insult for a Revdex.com member like MrGrady to officially refer to a business consumer as "the poster." With MrGrady's arrogant responses to this Revdex.com complaint, what MrGrady fails to realize is that I hired him and his law firm to represent me before the EEOC As a consequence, MrGrady worked for me; I didn't work for him Regardless of that fact, the basis for my complaint is that MrGrady took my $5000, most all of it during the month of January alone, yet provided insufficient service for which I hired his law firm to do This includes over the course of several months from July to December 2014, the siphoning of my $down some $for a few phone calls, a couple of letters, and more "case review" of little to no consequence. What was the "necessary legal work" performed for the month of January 2015? This wasn't some landmark, precedent setting legal case before the Supreme Court of the United States; it was an EEO issue Did the EEOC in Los Angeles make contact with Grady & Associates to schedule a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge? I don't think so That's why I want Grady & Associates to return my money and then MrGrady can muster up all of any inherent integrity and honesty he might have inside of him and explain to the Revdex.com what the necessary legal work was in the month of January that he felt justified enough to separate *** ** *** from his money.
Regards,
*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
What "need" suddenly arose in January for Grady and Associates to liquidate the large bulk of my $retainer? I have received little to no product or service for the $I paid to Grady and Associates and would like the money returned or else evidence of $worth of product or service be provided other than a matrix of charges for case review and telephone calls mailed to my home, thank you
Regards,
*** ***
To: Revdex.comFrom: Grady and Associates, Associates at LawRe: Response to Complaint # [redacted]Date: March 17, 2015Our law firm has been a member of the Revdex.com for 22+ years, and is a Revdex.com accreditedbusiness with an A+ rating. Like many online complaints about businesses,...
this complaint is notonly misleading, but grossly so. It is defamatory and warrants legal action against the formerclient who posted it (hereinafter "the poster").Specializing in employment law, the law firm of Grady and Associates has existed forover 22 years. Over that period of time, this Revdex.com A+ rated law firm has had over FOURTHOUSAND clients, and the number of complaints has been tiny, infinitesimal when this fact isconsidered. The firm currently has 13 employees including 7 attorneys. The attorneys of the firmhave well over 1 00 years of combined legal experience. The attorneys of the firm haveprofessional affiliations with the Labor and Employment Law Sections of the California StateBar Association and the San Diego County Bar Association; the California Employment LawyersAssociation; the National Employment Lawyers Association; and the Consumer (Trial) Attorneysof San Diego. In addition, attorneys at the firm are admitted to practice before all of theCalifornia State Courts, all of the United States District Courts of California, the Federal NinthCircuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.The firm offers excellent, efficient legal services from highly experienced attorneys atvery reasonable hourly rates.We note that the poster who made the Revdex.com complaint does not object to our firmcontinuing to represent him, for he wants us to do so, but on a contingency basis. What hiscomplaint is about is that he objects to paying for our legal services provided.The facts are that the poster retained us on July 16th 2014 for his federal employmentEEO matter. He provided a $5,000 initial retainer, and the attorney-client agreement which hesigned at the time stated on page 1 that each time the retainer fell below $1,500, he would need toreplenish it back to $5,000. The agreement specified, and he agreed, that the attorney hourly rateswould be $155-$185 per hour. Over the next 6-months, he incurred only approximately $800 infees. Given this fact, we obviously were not inclined to simply use up his retainer as fast aspossible. That is NEVER our motivation for cases that we handle. In fact, our motivation is tohandle cases for clients the least expensive way possible, consistent with excellent legal services.That is why we have been so successful over the past 22 + years and have had over 4,000 clients,as well as having a Revdex.com A+ rating.In January 2015, a need arose to address certain issues regarding the poster's case. As hisattorneys, we were of course obligated to do so. Doing so involved us reviewing and analyzingover 2,500 pages of PDF files which the poster had provided to us and several hundred additionalpages from 30 additional documents he had provided to us. The legal work we did for the posterin January 2015 was necessary and done efficiently. Had our legal work been spread out over theseven months we represented him, he likely would have had no complaint about the cost. Sowhat he is really complaining about is the concentration of the legal work in one month, sixmonths after he retained us. No basis whatsoever exists for the poster's complaint.
The poster's attached documentation is our law firm's billing to him for the month of January 2015, showing the necessary legal work we performed for him that month. Again, during the prior six months, he incurred only approximately $800 in attorneys fees. Given this fact, we obviously were not inclined to simply use up his retainer as fast as possible. That is NEVER our motivation for cases that we handle. In fact, our motivation is to handle cases for clients the least expensive way possible, consistent with excellent legal services. That is why we have been so successful over the past 22+ years and have had over 4,000 clients, as well as having a Revdex.com A+ rating. No basis what so ever exists for the poster's defamatory complaint.