Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: it misstates the factsAs [redacted] would know if he works as an expert witness on litigation matters as he claimed, law firms hire experts on behalf of their clientsIn this case, as previously disclosed, [redacted] (a large law firm that is based in Denver) hired [redacted] to serve as an expert witness in a lawsuit [redacted] is handling for *** [redacted] paid the $10,retainer and would have paid any expert witness fees if ***a's engagement had not been terminatedAttached is a copy of the retainer check paid by [redacted] to [redacted] and cashed by [redacted] .Also attached is the email chain between [redacted] attorneys and [redacted] demonstrating that [redacted] also tried to obtain repayment of the retainer and also failedThe email chain also discusses the fact that ***a did not perform any work under the engagement since the sole purpose of the engagement was to have ***a review particular softwareThis software was never provided to ***a.***a and [redacted] claim they are willing to resolve this but offer no such resolutionTo date, [redacted] has not received a return of its retainer, either addressed to itself or addressed to the law firm representing it, [redacted] ***This email should have two attachments: a copy of the check [redacted] wrote to [redacted] (which ***a cashed) and the email chain between [redacted] and [redacted] ***, with two emails from [redacted] in the chainIf these both do not come through, please let me know Regards, [redacted]
*** is a 30+ year old firm that has successfully provided its professional services to hundreds of clients and, today, is a well-recognized expert in the software industry*** *** is the founder and still residing CEO of ***, an original founding member of Austin's now
burgeoning software/technology industryTo our knowledge, *** has never had a Revdex.com complaint levied against the finn in all that timeWe respectfully provide the following information in response to this unfortunate and dubious complaint.As an initial matter, *** *** *** *** ("***") and *** *** *** would like to point out that the nature of the alleged complaint, "Billing or Collection Issues" is one of the types of complaints that is listed as "beyond the purview of the Revdex.com." On the Central Texas Revdex.com website, *** *** ***, complaints "regarding the collection of a debt" is specifically listed as not meeting the Revdex.com National Complaint Acceptance GuidelinesAs such, *** and *** *** would request that this alleged complaint be closed without further consideration or response being required, and without any details being published .Additionally, the Complaint grossly misstates a number of material facts that also weigh in favor of this alleged complaint being closed without further consideration or response being required, and without any such incorrect details being publishedUnfortunately, due to potential confidentiality restrictions relevant to this situation, *** does not feel comfortable disclosing many of the relevant facts that support its position at this time.Most importantly, there is no agreement whatsoever, in writing or otherwise, between the alleged "Customer", *** *** ***, nor her listed business, ***, IncNeither *** *** nor *** have engaged or retained *** or *** *** and in the absence of the production of some fonn of agreement between Sprole/*** and *** and/or *** ***, this complaint is without standing or basis and should be closed without further consideration or response being required, and without any details being published*** *** is apparently attempting to "collect" based on a written agreement between *** and another party We are very confident in our performance under this agreementInterestingly, public records show that *** *** is apparently an outside contractor working as an agent of *** for this unfounded collection effort based on a third party agreement. Prior to these collection efforts, *** had no communication with *** *** or ***.*** would like to apprise the Revdex.com that *** ***'s careless misrepresentation of the true facts of the situation and inaccurate position that *** has conducted no work and demand that *** return the entire $10, retainer is consistent with how she has conducted herself throughout this entire situation - she even threatened "legal action" against *** and *** *** in her very first "out of nowhere" communication via email *** has not been unwilling to discuss a potential reasonable resolution involving appropriate releases and conflict waivers, but the real parties involved have communicated no interest in pursuing anything other than unfounded demands and baseless accusations
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: Eureka’s position is certainly perplexing. It is clear that [redacted] paid the retainer. I expect if we have [redacted] take over this complaint, Eureka will say that [redacted] isn’t the entity that paid the retainer. What is clear is that Eureka did not earn the $10,000 they kept and that they are refusing to return it. The email chain clearly demonstrates this. As for my position, I have my own firm ([redacted]) and [redacted] contracts with my firm to manage its litigation. Of course, all of that is irrelevant to the fact that [redacted] paid the $10,000 retainer, Eureka performed no work in connection with this matter, and Eureka has refused to return the retainer after we terminated the engagement. As I previously said, any expert witness knows that it contracts with a law firm to perform services for the firm’s client. In fact, Eureka should have run a conflict check to make sure it did not have a conflict serving as an expert for [redacted] in this matter, so it was well aware of who its ultimate client was.We continue to await Eureka’s return of the $10,000 retainer.[redacted]
Regards,
[redacted]
Response to Revdex.com complaint ID [redacted] Given [redacted]'s clear admission that she and [redacted] are not party to a contract with [redacted] believes it is unnecessary and inappropriate to respond further to allegations at this time without involvement of the actual party with whom [redacted] contracted. [redacted] disputes [redacted]'s and [redacted]'s allegations and she has offered nothing more than proof that she is basically attempting to collect on behalf of another party. She has shown no proof that she or [redacted] had any contract with [redacted] and in fact expressly admits that [redacted] hired [redacted], not her or [redacted]. It also seems relevant that public records indicate that [redacted] is actually employed by [redacted] and thus appears to be a contractor for [redacted] involved in these collection efforts. [redacted] has no business relationship with [redacted], or [redacted] continues to maintain that the Revdex.com's own rules preclude their involvement in a collection matter, which the nature of [redacted]'s claim, and hereby requests that this matter be dismissed as outside the scope of the Revdex.com's purview.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: it misstates the facts. As [redacted] would know if he works as an expert witness on litigation matters as he claimed, law firms hire experts on behalf of their clients. In this case, as previously disclosed, [redacted] (a large law firm that is based in Denver) hired [redacted] to serve as an expert witness in a lawsuit [redacted] is handling for [redacted] paid the $10,000 retainer and would have paid any expert witness fees if [redacted]a's engagement had not been terminated. Attached is a copy of the retainer check paid by [redacted] to [redacted] and cashed by [redacted].Also attached is the email chain between [redacted] attorneys and [redacted] demonstrating that [redacted] also tried to obtain repayment of the retainer and also failed. The email chain also discusses the fact that [redacted]a did not perform any work under the engagement since the sole purpose of the engagement was to have [redacted]a review particular software. This software was never provided to [redacted]a and [redacted] claim they are willing to resolve this but offer no such resolution. To date, [redacted] has not received a return of its retainer, either addressed to itself or addressed to the law firm representing it, [redacted]. This email should have two attachments: a copy of the check [redacted] wrote to [redacted] (which [redacted]a cashed) and the email chain between [redacted] and [redacted], with two emails from [redacted] in the chain. If these both do not come through, please let me know.
Regards,
[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: it misstates the factsAs [redacted] would know if he works as an expert witness on litigation matters as he claimed, law firms hire experts on behalf of their clientsIn this case, as previously disclosed, [redacted] (a large law firm that is based in Denver) hired [redacted] to serve as an expert witness in a lawsuit [redacted] is handling for *** [redacted] paid the $10,retainer and would have paid any expert witness fees if ***a's engagement had not been terminatedAttached is a copy of the retainer check paid by [redacted] to [redacted] and cashed by [redacted] .Also attached is the email chain between [redacted] attorneys and [redacted] demonstrating that [redacted] also tried to obtain repayment of the retainer and also failedThe email chain also discusses the fact that ***a did not perform any work under the engagement since the sole purpose of the engagement was to have ***a review particular softwareThis software was never provided to ***a.***a and [redacted] claim they are willing to resolve this but offer no such resolutionTo date, [redacted] has not received a return of its retainer, either addressed to itself or addressed to the law firm representing it, [redacted] ***This email should have two attachments: a copy of the check [redacted] wrote to [redacted] (which ***a cashed) and the email chain between [redacted] and [redacted] ***, with two emails from [redacted] in the chainIf these both do not come through, please let me know Regards, [redacted]
*** is a 30+ year old firm that has successfully provided its professional services to hundreds of clients and, today, is a well-recognized expert in the software industry*** *** is the founder and still residing CEO of ***, an original founding member of Austin's now
burgeoning software/technology industryTo our knowledge, *** has never had a Revdex.com complaint levied against the finn in all that timeWe respectfully provide the following information in response to this unfortunate and dubious complaint.As an initial matter, *** *** *** *** ("***") and *** *** *** would like to point out that the nature of the alleged complaint, "Billing or Collection Issues" is one of the types of complaints that is listed as "beyond the purview of the Revdex.com." On the Central Texas Revdex.com website, *** *** ***, complaints "regarding the collection of a debt" is specifically listed as not meeting the Revdex.com National Complaint Acceptance GuidelinesAs such, *** and *** *** would request that this alleged complaint be closed without further consideration or response being required, and without any details being published .Additionally, the Complaint grossly misstates a number of material facts that also weigh in favor of this alleged complaint being closed without further consideration or response being required, and without any such incorrect details being publishedUnfortunately, due to potential confidentiality restrictions relevant to this situation, *** does not feel comfortable disclosing many of the relevant facts that support its position at this time.Most importantly, there is no agreement whatsoever, in writing or otherwise, between the alleged "Customer", *** *** ***, nor her listed business, ***, IncNeither *** *** nor *** have engaged or retained *** or *** *** and in the absence of the production of some fonn of agreement between Sprole/*** and *** and/or *** ***, this complaint is without standing or basis and should be closed without further consideration or response being required, and without any details being published*** *** is apparently attempting to "collect" based on a written agreement between *** and another party We are very confident in our performance under this agreementInterestingly, public records show that *** *** is apparently an outside contractor working as an agent of *** for this unfounded collection effort based on a third party agreement. Prior to these collection efforts, *** had no communication with *** *** or ***.*** would like to apprise the Revdex.com that *** ***'s careless misrepresentation of the true facts of the situation and inaccurate position that *** has conducted no work and demand that *** return the entire $10, retainer is consistent with how she has conducted herself throughout this entire situation - she even threatened "legal action" against *** and *** *** in her very first "out of nowhere" communication via email *** has not been unwilling to discuss a potential reasonable resolution involving appropriate releases and conflict waivers, but the real parties involved have communicated no interest in pursuing anything other than unfounded demands and baseless accusations
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: Eureka’s position is certainly perplexing. It is clear that [redacted] paid the retainer. I expect if we have [redacted] take over this complaint, Eureka will say that [redacted] isn’t the entity that paid the retainer. What is clear is that Eureka did not earn the $10,000 they kept and that they are refusing to return it. The email chain clearly demonstrates this. As for my position, I have my own firm ([redacted]) and [redacted] contracts with my firm to manage its litigation. Of course, all of that is irrelevant to the fact that [redacted] paid the $10,000 retainer, Eureka performed no work in connection with this matter, and Eureka has refused to return the retainer after we terminated the engagement. As I previously said, any expert witness knows that it contracts with a law firm to perform services for the firm’s client. In fact, Eureka should have run a conflict check to make sure it did not have a conflict serving as an expert for [redacted] in this matter, so it was well aware of who its ultimate client was.We continue to await Eureka’s return of the $10,000 retainer.[redacted]
Regards,
[redacted]
Response to Revdex.com complaint ID [redacted] Given [redacted]'s clear admission that she and [redacted] are not party to a contract with [redacted] believes it is unnecessary and inappropriate to respond further to allegations at this time without involvement of the actual party with whom [redacted] contracted. [redacted] disputes [redacted]'s and [redacted]'s allegations and she has offered nothing more than proof that she is basically attempting to collect on behalf of another party. She has shown no proof that she or [redacted] had any contract with [redacted] and in fact expressly admits that [redacted] hired [redacted], not her or [redacted]. It also seems relevant that public records indicate that [redacted] is actually employed by [redacted] and thus appears to be a contractor for [redacted] involved in these collection efforts. [redacted] has no business relationship with [redacted], or [redacted] continues to maintain that the Revdex.com's own rules preclude their involvement in a collection matter, which the nature of [redacted]'s claim, and hereby requests that this matter be dismissed as outside the scope of the Revdex.com's purview.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: it misstates the facts. As [redacted] would know if he works as an expert witness on litigation matters as he claimed, law firms hire experts on behalf of their clients. In this case, as previously disclosed, [redacted] (a large law firm that is based in Denver) hired [redacted] to serve as an expert witness in a lawsuit [redacted] is handling for [redacted] paid the $10,000 retainer and would have paid any expert witness fees if [redacted]a's engagement had not been terminated. Attached is a copy of the retainer check paid by [redacted] to [redacted] and cashed by [redacted].Also attached is the email chain between [redacted] attorneys and [redacted] demonstrating that [redacted] also tried to obtain repayment of the retainer and also failed. The email chain also discusses the fact that [redacted]a did not perform any work under the engagement since the sole purpose of the engagement was to have [redacted]a review particular software. This software was never provided to [redacted]a and [redacted] claim they are willing to resolve this but offer no such resolution. To date, [redacted] has not received a return of its retainer, either addressed to itself or addressed to the law firm representing it, [redacted]. This email should have two attachments: a copy of the check [redacted] wrote to [redacted] (which [redacted]a cashed) and the email chain between [redacted] and [redacted], with two emails from [redacted] in the chain. If these both do not come through, please let me know.
Regards,
[redacted]