To whom it may concern:
The attorney primarily in charge of this case is the firm's managing associate, *** ***, who is off this week and scheduled to return on Tuesday, May 27, (Monday is Memorial Day)
I am aware of this case, although I was not primarily
involved. As I recall, the client's situation on consulting with us was that she had been recently deprived of any custody rights by the Court. She wanted custody and the right to move out of the county. The case was quite challenging, but ultimately successful
I recognize that prompt response is expected of us, and I regret that the person most qualified to give that response is not available for a few days. I know that Ms*** has written extensive explanations to the client regarding the circumstances surrounding the client's case and account, and I know that Ms*** would be able to respond to this complaint with facility and clarity
I ask that we be granted sufficient time for Ms*** to adequately respond to the complaint, and I hope the unfortunate timing of this complaint during the rare week that Ms*** has off won't be held against us
Kindest regards,
*** ***
[redacted] Family Law Center received notice from the Revdex.com on May 20, 2014 that Complaint ID [redacted] had been submitted. The May 20th notice requested that we respond within 3 days. At the time the notice was received, I was out of the office until May 27th. I was the primary attorney on this client’s matter. Mr. [redacted] responded to the Revdex.com notice and requested that we be able to submit a full response to the complaint upon my return. The following is my response to the complaint.
Complainant’s sister retained our law firm on June 10, 2013. At the time of retention, the client had been served with initial documents in a parentage action. Client had also received notice that the father of her child and his counsel would be appearing in court the next day (ex parte) to request sole custody and that client have only supervised access with her child. The child was already with father at that time.
At the time of retention, client was quoted a retainer of $4450. Client was unable to pay the entire amount of the retainer at date of hire, and agreed to pay in two parts, which she did. Client signed a written fee agreement, which explained the retainer. Client’s sister (complainant) also signed the fee agreement as a co-signer. At no time, did we represent to client or her co-signer that the retainer would cover all the costs of the representation, or that we would stay within a budget based on having only one court appearance. At the time of retention, there were already two hearings scheduled in the matter: the ex parte hearing the next day, and father’s Request for Order Hearing scheduled some months later.
Although client hired the day before the first hearing, our firm was able to successfully prepare for this hearing such that father’s ex parte requests for custody were denied, and the parties were ordered to share custody and access time as we requested.
The parties attended mandatory family court services counseling and reached an agreement, which could have led to the immediate settlement of the entire matter; however, shortly thereafter, client informed us of her intent to move to a county several hundred miles away, thereby disrupting any possible settlement of the case at that time and reneging on the agreement she had reached with the father.
Our office was not originally retained for a move-away. Aware that our client had limited resources, we included the client’s request to move-away in her response to father’s Request for Order. At the Request for Order Hearing, the court correctly set the matter for an evidentiary hearing on the move-away request. Although client’s sister has continually stated (in other venues besides Revdex.com) that there would have been a different outcome had we filed a separate Request for Order for move-away, that is simply not the case. We were able to bring the move-away before the court, without having to prepare a separate move-away Request for Order, thereby reducing fees incurred by the client. The matter would have been set for an evidentiary hearing regardless. We also successfully obtained an order allowing client to temporarily relocate pending the evidentiary hearing.
Subsequently, father’s counsel conducted written discovery as well as noticed the deposition of our client. Despite complainant’s statements to the contrary, the client did not answer discovery by herself. There was much back and forth communication with the client and with opposing counsel regarding the location of the deposition. Client insisted that the deposition take place within 75 miles of her new residence; opposing counsel insisted that the deposition take place locally. Client was advised that it was within her rights to request that the deposition take place within 75 miles of her residence, but that opposing counsel could bring a motion to request that the deposition be held locally, and if the court granted the motion that monetary sanctions could be ordered against client. Client ultimately opted that the deposition be held locally under certain terms and conditions that opposing counsel ultimately agreed to.
Ultimately the matter settled on the eve of trial (after all trial preparation had been completed); however, all parties and their attorneys were present in court on the trial date so that the terms of the settlement could be reduced to writing.
Each month, our firm would send client an invoice showing all work done in the prior month. The invoice states that if the client has any questions regarding the bill, the client should schedule an appointment to discuss same with the attorney. All appointments regarding a client’s bill are no charge.
At the initiation of the firm, a billing appointment was held with client on June 27, 2013 to discuss the fact that client’s abrupt move would inevitably increase the costs of her case. Client and co-signer had many subsequent billing appointments as the case progressed to keep them apprised of what was happening and to discuss how the account would be paid. Client and co-signer entered into several payment arrangements on the balance due. Based on these arrangements, the firm continued to work. Neither client nor her co-signer disputed the actual work shown on the invoice until the case was completed.
Client and co-signer have failed to keep their payment arrangement, and have made no payment on the balance due since December 17, 2013. Client and co-signer requested that the bill be discounted approximately $3,500. As a show of good faith and in an effort to maintain client relations, our firm offered a courtesy discount of $2,500 that was rejected.
On March 10, 2014, our firm advised the client and her cosigner that if they failed to resume making payment on the account, that we would have no choice but to pursue legal proceedings for the collection of this debt. We advised them that such proceedings could affect their credit and their wages. We also advised them of their right to arbitration and provided the mandatory Notice of Client’s Right to Fee Arbitration. On April 9, 2014, client contacted our office and stated that she was not in agreement with the amount due and wanted to go to arbitration. She also stated that she needed more time to initiate the arbitration. We agreed that she have more time to do so.
Neither client nor co-signer have made payment on the account since December 17, 2013, and we have received no notice of initiation of arbitration of the fee dispute. Proper resolution of this matter would be through the process of arbitration should client initiate same.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Asking for more time when the time frame has expired does not resolve my complaint. I feel [redacted] Family Law had more than enough time to respond.
Regards,
[redacted]
To whom it may concern:
The attorney primarily in charge of this case is the firm's managing associate, *** ***, who is off this week and scheduled to return on Tuesday, May 27, (Monday is Memorial Day)
I am aware of this case, although I was not primarily
involved. As I recall, the client's situation on consulting with us was that she had been recently deprived of any custody rights by the Court. She wanted custody and the right to move out of the county. The case was quite challenging, but ultimately successful
I recognize that prompt response is expected of us, and I regret that the person most qualified to give that response is not available for a few days. I know that Ms*** has written extensive explanations to the client regarding the circumstances surrounding the client's case and account, and I know that Ms*** would be able to respond to this complaint with facility and clarity
I ask that we be granted sufficient time for Ms*** to adequately respond to the complaint, and I hope the unfortunate timing of this complaint during the rare week that Ms*** has off won't be held against us
Kindest regards,
*** ***
[redacted] Family Law Center received notice from the Revdex.com on May 20, 2014 that Complaint ID [redacted] had been submitted. The May 20th notice requested that we respond within 3 days. At the time the notice was received, I was out of the office until May 27th. I was the primary attorney on this client’s matter. Mr. [redacted] responded to the Revdex.com notice and requested that we be able to submit a full response to the complaint upon my return. The following is my response to the complaint.
Complainant’s sister retained our law firm on June 10, 2013. At the time of retention, the client had been served with initial documents in a parentage action. Client had also received notice that the father of her child and his counsel would be appearing in court the next day (ex parte) to request sole custody and that client have only supervised access with her child. The child was already with father at that time.
At the time of retention, client was quoted a retainer of $4450. Client was unable to pay the entire amount of the retainer at date of hire, and agreed to pay in two parts, which she did. Client signed a written fee agreement, which explained the retainer. Client’s sister (complainant) also signed the fee agreement as a co-signer. At no time, did we represent to client or her co-signer that the retainer would cover all the costs of the representation, or that we would stay within a budget based on having only one court appearance. At the time of retention, there were already two hearings scheduled in the matter: the ex parte hearing the next day, and father’s Request for Order Hearing scheduled some months later.
Although client hired the day before the first hearing, our firm was able to successfully prepare for this hearing such that father’s ex parte requests for custody were denied, and the parties were ordered to share custody and access time as we requested.
The parties attended mandatory family court services counseling and reached an agreement, which could have led to the immediate settlement of the entire matter; however, shortly thereafter, client informed us of her intent to move to a county several hundred miles away, thereby disrupting any possible settlement of the case at that time and reneging on the agreement she had reached with the father.
Our office was not originally retained for a move-away. Aware that our client had limited resources, we included the client’s request to move-away in her response to father’s Request for Order. At the Request for Order Hearing, the court correctly set the matter for an evidentiary hearing on the move-away request. Although client’s sister has continually stated (in other venues besides Revdex.com) that there would have been a different outcome had we filed a separate Request for Order for move-away, that is simply not the case. We were able to bring the move-away before the court, without having to prepare a separate move-away Request for Order, thereby reducing fees incurred by the client. The matter would have been set for an evidentiary hearing regardless. We also successfully obtained an order allowing client to temporarily relocate pending the evidentiary hearing.
Subsequently, father’s counsel conducted written discovery as well as noticed the deposition of our client. Despite complainant’s statements to the contrary, the client did not answer discovery by herself. There was much back and forth communication with the client and with opposing counsel regarding the location of the deposition. Client insisted that the deposition take place within 75 miles of her new residence; opposing counsel insisted that the deposition take place locally. Client was advised that it was within her rights to request that the deposition take place within 75 miles of her residence, but that opposing counsel could bring a motion to request that the deposition be held locally, and if the court granted the motion that monetary sanctions could be ordered against client. Client ultimately opted that the deposition be held locally under certain terms and conditions that opposing counsel ultimately agreed to.
Ultimately the matter settled on the eve of trial (after all trial preparation had been completed); however, all parties and their attorneys were present in court on the trial date so that the terms of the settlement could be reduced to writing.
Each month, our firm would send client an invoice showing all work done in the prior month. The invoice states that if the client has any questions regarding the bill, the client should schedule an appointment to discuss same with the attorney. All appointments regarding a client’s bill are no charge.
At the initiation of the firm, a billing appointment was held with client on June 27, 2013 to discuss the fact that client’s abrupt move would inevitably increase the costs of her case. Client and co-signer had many subsequent billing appointments as the case progressed to keep them apprised of what was happening and to discuss how the account would be paid. Client and co-signer entered into several payment arrangements on the balance due. Based on these arrangements, the firm continued to work. Neither client nor her co-signer disputed the actual work shown on the invoice until the case was completed.
Client and co-signer have failed to keep their payment arrangement, and have made no payment on the balance due since December 17, 2013. Client and co-signer requested that the bill be discounted approximately $3,500. As a show of good faith and in an effort to maintain client relations, our firm offered a courtesy discount of $2,500 that was rejected.
On March 10, 2014, our firm advised the client and her cosigner that if they failed to resume making payment on the account, that we would have no choice but to pursue legal proceedings for the collection of this debt. We advised them that such proceedings could affect their credit and their wages. We also advised them of their right to arbitration and provided the mandatory Notice of Client’s Right to Fee Arbitration. On April 9, 2014, client contacted our office and stated that she was not in agreement with the amount due and wanted to go to arbitration. She also stated that she needed more time to initiate the arbitration. We agreed that she have more time to do so.
Neither client nor co-signer have made payment on the account since December 17, 2013, and we have received no notice of initiation of arbitration of the fee dispute. Proper resolution of this matter would be through the process of arbitration should client initiate same.
Respectfully,
[redacted], CFLS
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Asking for more time when the time frame has expired does not resolve my complaint. I feel [redacted] Family Law had more than enough time to respond.
Regards,
[redacted]