Tully Rinckey Law Firm Reviews (19)
View Photos
Tully Rinckey Law Firm Rating
Address: 441 New Karner Road, Albany, New York, United States, 12205
Phone: |
Show more...
|
Web: |
|
Add contact information for Tully Rinckey Law Firm
Add new contacts
We are sorry to learn that the firm’s prior response does not resolve this complaint However, much of what the client says is mere reiteration of her previous complaint, to which the firm has already respondedThe firm invoiced the client consistently throughout the course of its representation However, contemporaneous with this response, we have provided the client with a full and complete account statement that should satisfy her requirements in this regardWe note that the client does not reiterate her demand for a fee refund of $10,but now requests $2,she believes is left in her account However, that figure is incorrect, a fact that should have been evident to the client from the most recent invoice she receivedThe firm is in the process of refunding to the client the correct credit balance in her account, including the credits noted below Previously, we have responded to the client’s assertion that the firm “failed to take any action on the case” and that “nothing was achieved” and stand by that response As for mediation, the client’s employer flatly refused to engage in mediation during time of the firm’s representation This is not indicative of a failing on the part of the firm We cannot force a party to mediate The fact that new counsel supposedly “moved the situation into mediation” may well be the result of work that this firm previously performed Moreover, moving a situation to mediation is not the same as accomplishing something, unless the case actually settles as the result of the mediationThe client makes a number of vague assertions about “having documents” supporting one or another of her claims, but does not produce those documents In the absence of anything further from the client, the firm can only reiterate its previous statement that, far from making mere “grammatical edits,” it performed significant work on the client’s case Likewise, the firm has already responded to the complaint that the firm did not send documents to the client’s employer All necessary and appropriate documents were sent except for the last document that the firm drafted, which would have been submitted by the firm within the required deadline except for the fact that the client grew impatient and submitted the document on her own Notwithstanding, the firm will credit the client with work done on that document without its knowledge that the client had already submitted itThe firm’s prior response does not state that “management doesn’t provide a client with updates on matters relating to one’s case.” This is a total mischaracterization of the firm’s prior reply and, in a word, false The firm prides itself on keeping clients fully up-to-date on all developments in their cases The firm stands by its statement that the client did not ask to meet with an attorney in person and that, had she asked, the request would have been granted It is neither common courtesy nor a best business practices to require unnecessarily that a client transact all business in person In many if not most instances, it is inconvenient for the client and inefficient as well However, the firm always honors requests from clients, consistent with the attorney’s already-scheduled engagementsThe firm also stands behind its practice, in the interest of most effectively using the client’s resources, of having junior attorneys handle as much work as they are competent to handle and periodically consulting with senior attorneys to ensure that the matter is proceeding properly There is no question that this method of staffing the client’s case achieved significant savings for herThe client accuses the firm of having “sabotaged” her cases The dictionary definition of “sabotage” is to deliberately destroy or damage something The client offers no evidence in support of this reckless claim and the firm rejects it in the strongest termsIn closing, the firm reiterates its belief that the services rendered to this client were consistent with the highest standards of the legal profession
I am a partner at Tully Rinckey PLLC (the Finn)On behalf of the Firm, I hereby timelyrespond to your May 28, letter regarding the above-referenced complaintThe Firm takesseriously its obligations both to provide professional service to its clients and to make a goodfaith effort to resolve any complaints a client may have regarding that service.The client contests a number of charges on the Firm's May 22, invoice to himAs apreliminary matter, I wish to note that the client also contested a number of charges on theFirm's April 24, 2015, invoice in the amount of $The Firm conceded that a charge in theamount of $should have been "no-charged"As to three (3) other charges totaling I$147.50, the Firm did not agree that the charges were improper but nonetheless credited them tothe client as a means of resolving the disputeOn or about May 22, 2015, a credit was issued tothe client's account in the amount of $Regarding the May 22, invoice, on that same day, the client sent an email listing thecharges he contestsThose charges are almost identical to the ones he lists in his Revdex.com .complaintOn May 27, 2015, I emailed client with a point-by-point response to his complaint,and declined to give him any further creditFor the reasons set forth below, the Firm is unwilling to offer any further credit in ithismatter.ComplaintOn March 27, 2015, my case was transferred from an Associate to [redacted] , a partner.On April 1, 2015, during a discussion with Mr [redacted] , I indicated to him I was concernedabout my case being assigned to a partner and his billable rateOn April 6, 2015, I e-mailed Mr[redacted] to express my desire to have an associate assigned to the caseAfter not hearing backon this issue, on April 8, at am, I contacted [redacted] , who oversees the TullyRinckey Client Relations Department, via e-mailOn April 8, at 3:05pm, Mr [redacted] responded to me, via-email, and indicated that he has " at least two associates that couldattend" or " ••• a new attorney who is Of Counsel to the firm who might be a great fit." Iresponded on April 8, at 3:38pm, via e-mail, and indicated I would be fine with eitheroptionAs a result, [redacted] assigned [redacted] to my caseIn reviewing mybill dated May 22, 2015, I was charged the same rate for both Ms [redacted] and Mr [redacted] I feel Tully was deceptive in assigning an employee with the same billable rate asMr [redacted] when I made it clear I was concerned about a partner being assigned to my caseon a full-time basisHere, Tully did not adhere to my request to assign a less expensiveemployee to my case and if I had known that the billable rate was the same, I would haveremained with the partnerTherefore, these adjustments reflect the difference between the ratecharged for Ms [redacted] ($per hour) less the lowest cost of an associate per myretainer agreement ($per hour)When I raised this concern to the firm, I was told thatMr [redacted] 's rate is below the partner rate, as listed on my retainer agreementHowever, Idisagree as this was not what was communicated to me when I spoke with Mr [redacted] onApril 1,ResponseThe associate attorney initially assigned to the case billed at $210/hrUpon that associate'sdeparture from the Firm, the case was reassigned, to Mr [redacted] , a partner, who has a substantially higher billing rateAs a matter of fairness, the Firm billed Mr [redacted] 's time atthe reduced rate of $215/hrThis rate was reflected on the client's April 24, invoice copyattached)The Client made no complaint regarding Mr [redacted] 's billing rate.It was clear that $215/hrwas an associate's rate, not a partner's, as the RepresentationAgreement signed by the client reflects that the Firm had no partners who billed as low as$215/hrMs [redacted] was brought into the case as a matter of economy to the client, as hewas located in New York City, where the mediation in the client's case was to take place, asopposed to Mr [redacted] 's location in AlbanyMs [redacted] time was also billed at $215/hr., even though her rate is $300/hrAccordingly, both attorneys who substantiallyworked on the client's case after the initial associate's departure did so at significantly reducedrates, consistent with those of an associate, not a partnerThis arrangement substantially benefitted the client economicallyThe client had no entitlement to, and the Firm did not agreeto assign its lowest billing attorney to the caseIn fact, such an arrangement would have beendetrimental to the client, as that attorney would have charged the client for travel time andexpenses from the Firm's Albany office to New York City to attend the mediation, as well asreturn travelThe Firm believes that the client was fairly charged in this regard and does notbelieve any further adjustment of the billing rates is appropriate or necessary.Complaint4/22/ [redacted] Confer with [redacted] regarding EDNY filings $43.00These fees represent charges for services I did not ask the Firm to perform me, nor representcharges in which I authorized the Firm to conductThe fees on EDNY and Pacer pertain to anunrelated Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case.ResponseMs [redacted] needed to be prepared at the mediation for an agency demand for a globalsettlementAccordingly, she needed to be familiar with other matters that the client hadpending, including his FOIA caseThe Firm believes this charge is proper.Complaint4/22/ [redacted] Review file, client page complaint and [redacted] to prepare for client phoneconference pre hearing$The firm indicated that this work was needed to " ••• prepare for client phone conference pre hearing." However, as of the date this was billed, there was no pre-hearing scheduledIn fact, itwas not until May 4, 2015, when the Firm reached out to opposing Counsel to determinepotential dates for a pre hearingResponse The Firm's May 22, 2015, invoice (copy attached) reflects two entries for 4/22/15, the one setforth by the client, above, and a second entry by Ms [redacted] , also for one hour: "Meetingwith client via teleconference to prepare for hearing April 30, 2015." As the Firm has previouslynotified the client, due to a processing error in the Billing Dept, he was charged for the one houra file review and no-charged for the teleconference, when it should have been the other wayaroundThe end result was that this mistake had no economic impact on the clientOne hourwas charged, one hour was no-charged, as we believe should be the caseThe Firm does not agree with any claim by the client that this teleconference was not authorizedor otherwise not chargeableIt was not part of the transition from the associate but rather part ofthe preparation for the mediation, which the client obviously authorized, as Ms [redacted] attended it on his behalf.The Firm believes that the client's argument regarding the "pre hearing" is a misinterpretation ofthe factsMs [redacted] 's time entry specifically refers to the date of April 30, As reflected on the invoice, this was the date of the mediationThe client was billed for servicesrelating to the upcoming mediation, not for an unscheduled pre-hearing conference.Complaint4/29/ [redacted] Prepare - review client's excel spreadsheets re: damages & re promotionshistory $21.504/29/IS [redacted] Prepare - review client's excel spreadsheets re: damages & re promotionshistory $86.00These fees are duplicative.ResponseThese are not duplicate entriesThey reflect a continuation of work on the same task, i.e., reviewof the spreadsheet in preparation for the mediationThe Firm considers this file review to be partof the preparation for mediation, not part of the transition from the associate attorneyComplaint4/30/ [redacted] Travel to mediation in Harlem- Columbia Law School $387.00In addition to Note (A) above, I dispute hours of this charge because Ms [redacted] was inan auto-accidentMs [redacted] previously indicated to me that she was waiting for the policedepartment to arrive; however, after waiting, the driver that hit her automobile took offMs[redacted] and I were supposed to meet at 9:30am; however, she did not arrive until Iapproximately 10:00amMoreover, this amount would be consistent with the return travel timeof hoursResponseMs [redacted] advises that the police were not called, the delay was minutes, not 30, and thatthis waiting time was deducted before she entered her travel time into the Firm's billing system.The difference in travel time to and from the mediation is accounted for by differing traffic conditions between the morning rush hour travel to the mediation and the afternoon non-rushhour return from the mediationThe Firm does not believe that any credit is due with respect tothis itemComplaint5/2/ [redacted] Review and respond to [redacted] 's inquiries regardingclient questions.This is being disputed principally because of the rationale indicated in Note (A) aboveThat is,I would not have incurred this charge if Mr [redacted] explicitly told me that the person he wasassigning to the case had the same billable rate that he chargedIf he did, I would haverequested that he remain on the case or that a less expensive associate be assigned to the case.ResponseThe issue regarding the billing rate has already been addressedIn addition, had Mr [redacted] not assigned Ms [redacted] to attend the mediation, Mr [redacted] would have had to addressthe client's questions himself, resulting in the same amount of time billedIt is also noted thatMs [redacted] did not bill regarding these questionsTherefore, the situation had no impact onclient and the Firm sees no reason to reverse this chargeComplaint5/4/ [redacted] Correspondence with IRS regarding dates for status conference and reviewof mediation order $21.50I would not have incurred this fee if the Firm scheduled the dates immediately at the conclusionof the mediation, as the judge's order explicitly indicatedResponseThe client's interpretation of the Judge's order is erroneousAt the mediation, the clientraised the issue of potential dates for the folltelephone conference with the Judge and themediator responded that he is not involved in that issueMs [redacted] thereupon informed theclient that, consistent with the Judges' Order, the issue would be handled in the usual mannerbetween counsel subsequent to the mediationThe Firm sees no basis for issuing a client a creditfor this charge Conclusion After a thorough view of the circumstances, the Firm believes that it met all of its commitmentsto the Client; that it provided him with professional service and that he received full and fairvalue for the amount chargedTherefore, the Firm does not agree to the Client's request for afurther refund.Very truly yours, [redacted]
Attached is correspondence sent to Mr [redacted] today, including return of the copies of documents he left with our office I trust this adequately responds to your inquiry Please let me know if you require anything further Jennifer [redacted] , Esq
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Our Firm has reviewed the above-referenced Complaint.
Upon review of the matter, we have agreed to refund to the client the $
retainer payment he made, and write off in full the outstanding balance
due. I have also communicated
this determination directly to the client’s
representative, who also filed the complaint with your office. I believe
that this resolves their concerns in full. If you require anything
further, please do not hesitate to contact me
*** ***, Esq
Partner
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
The Firm provides a plethora of explanations pertaining to the disputed charges; however, they are unavailing. For example, the Firm states that it needed to review *** information to determine a global settlement. However, I provided the Firm with my settlement terms. Moreover, the Mediation was never part of my initial retainer agreement; therefore, if this was an activity that the Firm felt it needed to undertake in connection with its Representation of me, they should have notified me prior to that effect. Moreover, the Firm doesn't take into consideration that the previous attorney was provided access to these documents and in most cases, I was charged fees relating to the review. Secondly, Mr*** indicates I never raised concerns about Mr***'s billable rate. This is incorrect. I raised these concerns directly to Mr*** AND to the the Firms Client Relations' Department. After I raised these concerns, they assigned *** *** who has the same rate.The fact of the matter is I was charged for items that I did not agree to. Regards,
*** ***
Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
I requested your (Revdex.com) assistance to help me to retrieve
money that was taken from me by Tully Rinckey for service never provided as
evidenced by: What was the basis for charged records review (they weren’t used
for court, to speak to the facility, doctor, judge or anyone) and where did the
records come from that were allegedly reviewed the military refused to release
them
-Mr*** acknowledges he spoke with the psychologist at
*** Medical Facility in May and initially had not spoken to my son ever
prior to this timeAgain, I am speaking to the charges prior to this time in
March and April
-Mr*** further continually acknowledges I was never
charged for a trial/court/defense preparationMy concern is then what were the
charges related to if they weren’t in preparation for the court martial or my
son’s caseMr*** was never available prior to his departure according to
*** (recently) the end of April
-Mr*** is also acknowledged as never have spoken to the
doctor at all during his brief role of representation in the same documentation
supporting Mr*** wasn’t involved until May which is again noted as
being after the March & April charges were made
-Mr*** acknowledges not having any involvement with my
son’s case prior to May However, the charges in question on the April 27th
statement occurred prior to his acknowledged involvement or even speaking to
the doctor, my son and/or anyone else involved with the caseAgain, the
charges were already made prior to his involvement
-I am unsure of how, where, and when the documents Mr***
reviewed were obtained because my son was declared mentally incompetent 12/
and failed to sign a power of attorney prior to this time allowing access to
his records for which the military refused to release (as his guardians and
because he was assigned military attorneys to protect his interest)It is
evidenced that the military refused to turn records over to Gavin ***, by the
email sent to me by Gavin *** on March 17th explaining “he was not
going to be allowed access to your son’s records through the military because
he had been declared mentally incompetent.” Note, charges had already begun for
review of records while acknowledging no records had been released from the
military, see bill dated April 27th
-MR*** HAS ACKNOWLEDGED that I received a bill every
30-days, and this is untrue as evidenced by billing for the $began March
15, and the first statement reflecting over $7,in charges was dated
April 27, 2016, after the alleged departure of Gavin ***, and much greater
than 30-days
-Mr*** insist the charges were not for the preparation
of the court martial/trial and I agree they were not in preparation for
anything (as evidenced by no response or representation from Tully Rinckey for
an extended period between March/April during a period charges were accruingAlthough
no calls, emails, messages and etcwere returned they continued billing for
unreceived servicesThe doctor stated in submitted documents she never spoke
to Mr*** and finally heard from *** in MayAgain the charges in
question is in March/AprilMy question is what was the purpose/rationale for
the records review if Mr*** was terminally ill to the point of resignation?
He never spoke to anyone or provided a legal defense or services related to the
documents he allegedly reviewedWhat was the rationalization for the records
that the charges were related to? There is no evidence this information existed
or was used to benefit my son or his case in any way, or services were provided
as a result
-How and from whom were these records obtained? Because I
have submitted evidence that the military refused to release them and that he
never spoke to the doctor or anyone else at my son’s facilityAgain, I say
there is no record or evidence that any service was provided prior to Mr
***’s involvement in May
Regards,
*** *** ***
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As you know, this matter was resolved on or about 7/2/by our Firm refunding to our client the $retainer payment he made and writing off any outstanding balance dueIt is my understanding that there was an error in our billing department, and the outstanding charges did not get written off prior to generation of the client’s most recent billing statement, resulting in him receiving a past due invoice subsequent to resolution of this matterOur apologies for that errorWe have now written off the outstanding charges and show the client with a $balance dueI trust that this resolves the matter, and again our apologies for the confusion and inconvenience
*** ** *** *** ***
Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Please have the firm to provide a detailed billing report In addition, I have since released the firm from the EEO matter, yet it has not turned over all files as requested nor has the firm returned any of the $that was remaining on the account Finally, after releasing Tully Rickney from the case, I hired another attorney who has moved the situation into mediation Tully Rickney failed to take any action on the case I have documents to demonstrate only grammatical edits were made and how I prepared all documents In the last episode I asked the lawyer handling my case to send documents to the agency and I was given the round aroundOn several occasions in was told the document would be sent on that day, yet it was ever sent; then I was told the document was under review at the senior level and then I was told it was under review by a team before being sent out, yet it was never sent Emails requesting status were ignored and blatant disregarded I have documents to prove my position To state that management doesn't provide a client with updates on matters relating to one's case is a cop out In addition, the firm ran up expenses yet nothing was achieved As for my having to request to meet someone in person is total untrue When I first hired the firm I asked to meet in person and was given a lame excuse as to why Since looking for a replacement, I have met with two separate lawyers in person It's called common courtesy and best business practices. Please assist me in obtaining any costs of work completed amongst Tully Rickney staff coded as "consultation with senior attorneys" as well as all monies from the $that remained on the account- this reimbursement for any cost of a Motion to Amend, especially since I had to send the document myself This firm sabotaged my cases.Regards,*** ***
Thank you for informing us of this Customer Problem and providing us with the opportunity to respond. The firm handles thousands of cases a year and the percentage of dissatisfied clients is very low. On those occasions when problems do arise, every effort is made to reach a satisfactory
resolution through dialogue between the client and a firm managerSuch a process was employed in successfully resolving a billing concern previously expressed by this client. Unfortunately, no such opportunity was provided to the firm with respect to the current problemRegarding the specifics of the stated problem, firm records show that the client has not paid more than $15,in fees, as claimed. Client confidentially concerns preclude the firm from stating the exact amount on a public forum, but it is significantly less than $15,As for having not having met a lawyer in person, the firm conducts most of its client contact electronically or telephonically as a convenience to the clients, the majority of whom are not interested in traveling to the D.Coffice or reside at too great a distance to do so. The attorney who handled this case advises that the client never requested an in-person meeting but, had she done so, her request would have been accommodated promptlyRegarding the billing for consultation among lawyers, to the extent possible, the firm pushes work down to attorneys with lower billing rates as a means of conserving the client’s resources. However, that system requires that a more senior attorney review the progress of the case and/or answer questions from the junior attorney from time to time in order to ensure that the case is proceeding as necessary. In this case, the bulk of the billing was done by attorneys having billing rates that were one-third or more lower than a supervising attorney, resulting in significant savings to the client. To say that communication between lawyers was “the only work [] being done” is a gross exaggeration. In fact, only about 8% of the billing was for communications between firm attorneys, some of which was credited back to the client after her prior expression of concernThe firm likewise denies the client’s claim that no “strategy from those consultations [was] shared with me.” That strategy was implemented by the attorney primarily responsible for the case. The fact that the responsible attorney may not have told the client specifically that the strategy was a result of communications with a senior attorney had no impact on the quality of the representation that the client receivedThe client’s professed belief that “the firm is working with the agency” has no basis in factTo say that the firm did nothing “but correct simple grammar and spelling” is a total mischaracterization. The firm developed a strategy for addressing the client’s issues and implemented that strategy by reviewing and preparing multiple legal documents and in general performing the services that were agreed to in the representation agreements between the client and the firm, no more and no lessThe client did not “have” to file anything herself, nor was she “forced” to do so. No filing deadlines in the client’s case were missed, nor was there ever any legitimate reason for concern that such a deadline would be missed. It is true that the client was frustrated with the pace in which her matter proceeded. However, this is not within the firm’s control At the moment, we have been waiting in excess of six (6) months for the Administrative Judge to re-engage subsequent to some procedural developments in the client’s caseOur efforts to re-start the process have thus far been unsuccessful and we, too, have been frustrated, by this delayAs to the client’s assertion that “they said they were experts in the field,” the attorney who handled this client’s initial consultation, who is one of the firm’s Managing Partners, states that he does not use that term in talking to prospective clients because of its vague meaning Rather, he tells prospective clients that the firm has significant experience in matters such as the client’s, a statement that is objectively verifiableIn conclusion, the firm submits that all work performed on the client’s case was consistent with the highest standards of the profession The firm respectfully rejects the client’s concluding claims that “I completed all the work” and “nothing has ever been shared.” Therefore, it declines the client’s demand for a fee refund in the amount of $10,Thank you for processing this response
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.From: *** ** ***Re: Complaint ID#: *** This complaint was supposedly resolved on 7/2/15. There were two conditions; 1) Tully Rinckey PLLC would refund $to me, 2) Tully Rinckey would write off in full the outstanding balance due.The first condition has been met; I have been credited the $500.The second condition has not been met. My principal contacted me on Monday, 7/21/15, to tell me that he received yet another Past Due invoice dated 7/16/15, in the amount of $569.78.This is a result of either incompetence or further harassment on the part of Tully Rinckey. I would like to add this information as an addendum to my original complaint. How do I proceed? Please advise.Thank you,*** ** ***
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
Regards,
Frederick Wozniak
I am a partner at Tully Rinckey PLLC (the Finn). On behalf of the Firm, I hereby timelyrespond to your May 28, 2015 letter regarding the above-referenced complaint. The Firm takesseriously its obligations both to provide professional service to its clients and to make a goodfaith effort to resolve...
any complaints a client may have regarding that service.The client contests a number of charges on the Firm's May 22, 2015 invoice to him. As apreliminary matter, I wish to note that the client also contested a number of charges on theFirm's April 24, 2015, invoice in the amount of $276.65. The Firm conceded that a charge in theamount of $86.00 should have been "no-charged". As to three (3) other charges totaling I$147.50, the Firm did not agree that the charges were improper but nonetheless credited them tothe client as a means of resolving the dispute. On or about May 22, 2015, a credit was issued tothe client's account in the amount of $233.50. Regarding the May 22, 2015 invoice, on that same day, the client sent an email listing thecharges he contests. Those charges are almost identical to the ones he lists in his Revdex.com .complaint. On May 27, 2015, I emailed client with a point-by-point response to his complaint,and declined to give him any further credit. For the reasons set forth below, the Firm is unwilling to offer any further credit in ithismatter.ComplaintOn March 27, 2015, my case was transferred from an Associate to [redacted], a partner.On April 1, 2015, during a discussion with Mr. [redacted], I indicated to him I was concernedabout my case being assigned to a partner and his billable rate. On April 6, 2015, I e-mailed Mr.[redacted] to express my desire to have an associate assigned to the case. After not hearing backon this issue, on April 8, 2015 at 11 am, I contacted [redacted], who oversees the TullyRinckey Client Relations Department, via e-mail. On April 8, 2015 at 3:05pm, Mr. [redacted]responded to me, via-email, and indicated that he has " ... at least two associates ... that couldattend" or " ••• a new attorney who is Of Counsel to the firm ... who might be a great fit." Iresponded on April 8, 2015 at 3:38pm, via e-mail, and indicated I would be fine with eitheroption. As a result, [redacted] assigned [redacted] to my case. In reviewing mybill dated May 22, 2015, I was charged the same rate for both Ms. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted]. I feel Tully was deceptive in assigning an employee with the same billable rate asMr. [redacted] when I made it clear I was concerned about a partner being assigned to my caseon a full-time basis. Here, Tully did not adhere to my request to assign a less expensiveemployee to my case and if I had known that the billable rate was the same, I would haveremained with the partner. Therefore, these adjustments reflect the difference between the ratecharged for Ms. [redacted] ($215.00 per hour) less the lowest cost of an associate per myretainer agreement ($175.00 per hour). When I raised this concern to the firm, I was told thatMr. [redacted]'s rate is below the partner rate, as listed on my retainer agreement. However, Idisagree as this was not what was communicated to me when I spoke with Mr. [redacted] onApril 1,2015. ResponseThe associate attorney initially assigned to the case billed at $210/hr. Upon that associate'sdeparture from the Firm, the case was reassigned, to Mr. [redacted], a partner, who has a substantially higher billing rate. As a matter of fairness, the Firm billed Mr. [redacted]'s time atthe reduced rate of $215/hr. This rate was reflected on the client's April 24, 2015 invoice copyattached). The Client made no complaint regarding Mr. [redacted]'s billing rate.It was clear that $215/hr. was an associate's rate, not a partner's, as the RepresentationAgreement signed by the client reflects that the Firm had no partners who billed as low as$215/hr. Ms. [redacted] was brought into the case as a matter of economy to the client, as hewas located in New York City, where the mediation in the client's case was to take place, asopposed to Mr. [redacted]'s location in Albany. Ms. [redacted] time was also billed at $215/hr., even though her normal rate is $300/hr. Accordingly, both attorneys who substantiallyworked on the client's case after the initial associate's departure did so at significantly reducedrates, consistent with those of an associate, not a partner. This arrangement substantially benefitted the client economically. The client had no entitlement to, and the Firm did not agreeto assign its lowest billing attorney to the case. In fact, such an arrangement would have beendetrimental to the client, as that attorney would have charged the client for travel time andexpenses from the Firm's Albany office to New York City to attend the mediation, as well asreturn travel. The Firm believes that the client was fairly charged in this regard and does notbelieve any further adjustment of the billing rates is appropriate or necessary.Complaint4/22/2015 [redacted] Confer with [redacted] regarding EDNY filings 0.20 $43.00These fees represent charges for services I did not ask the Firm to perform me, nor representcharges in which I authorized the Firm to conduct. The fees on EDNY and Pacer pertain to anunrelated Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case.ResponseMs. [redacted] needed to be prepared at the mediation for an agency demand for a globalsettlement. Accordingly, she needed to be familiar with other matters that the client hadpending, including his FOIA case. The Firm believes this charge is proper.Complaint4/22/2015 [redacted] Review file, client 17 page complaint and [redacted] to prepare for client phoneconference pre hearing. 1.00 $215.00 The firm indicated that this work was needed to " ••• prepare for client phone conference pre hearing." However, as of the date this was billed, there was no pre-hearing scheduled. In fact, itwas not until May 4, 2015, when the Firm reached out to opposing Counsel to determinepotential dates for a pre hearing. Response The Firm's May 22, 2015, invoice (copy attached) reflects two entries for 4/22/15, the one setforth by the client, above, and a second entry by Ms. [redacted], also for one hour: "Meetingwith client via teleconference to prepare for hearing April 30, 2015." As the Firm has previouslynotified the client, due to a processing error in the Billing Dept, he was charged for the one houra file review and no-charged for the teleconference, when it should have been the other wayaround. The end result was that this mistake had no economic impact on the client. One hourwas charged, one hour was no-charged, as we believe should be the case. The Firm does not agree with any claim by the client that this teleconference was not authorizedor otherwise not chargeable. It was not part of the transition from the associate but rather part ofthe preparation for the mediation, which the client obviously authorized, as Ms. [redacted]attended it on his behalf.The Firm believes that the client's argument regarding the "pre hearing" is a misinterpretation ofthe facts. Ms. [redacted]'s time entry specifically refers to the date of April 30, 2015. As reflected on the invoice, this was the date of the mediation. The client was billed for servicesrelating to the upcoming mediation, not for an unscheduled pre-hearing conference.Complaint4/29/2015 [redacted] Prepare - review client's excel spreadsheets re: damages & re promotionshistory 0.10 $21.504/29/20 IS [redacted] Prepare - review client's excel spreadsheets re: damages & re promotionshistory 0.40 $86.00These fees are duplicative.ResponseThese are not duplicate entries. They reflect a continuation of work on the same task, i.e., reviewof the spreadsheet in preparation for the mediation. The Firm considers this file review to be partof the preparation for mediation, not part of the transition from the associate attorney. Complaint4/30/2015 [redacted] Travel to mediation in Harlem- Columbia Law School 1.80 $387.00In addition to Note (A) above, I dispute 0.5 hours of this charge because Ms. [redacted] was inan auto-accident. Ms. [redacted] previously indicated to me that she was waiting for the policedepartment to arrive; however, after waiting, the driver that hit her automobile took off. Ms.[redacted] and I were supposed to meet at 9:30am; however, she did not arrive until Iapproximately 10:00am. Moreover, this amount would be consistent with the return travel timeof 1.3 hours. ResponseMs. [redacted] advises that the police were not called, the delay was 10 minutes, not 30, and thatthis waiting time was deducted before she entered her travel time into the Firm's billing system.The difference in travel time to and from the mediation is accounted for by differing traffic conditions between the morning rush hour travel to the mediation and the afternoon non-rushhour return from the mediation. The Firm does not believe that any credit is due with respect tothis item. Complaint5/2/15 [redacted] Review and respond to [redacted]'s inquiries regardingclient questions.This is being disputed principally because of the rationale indicated in Note (A) above. That is,I would not have incurred this charge if Mr. [redacted] explicitly told me that the person he wasassigning to the case had the same billable rate that he charged. If he did, I would haverequested that he remain on the case or that a less expensive associate be assigned to the case.ResponseThe issue regarding the billing rate has already been addressed. In addition, had Mr. [redacted]not assigned Ms. [redacted] to attend the mediation, Mr. [redacted] would have had to addressthe client's questions himself, resulting in the same amount of time billed. It is also noted thatMs. [redacted] did not bill regarding these questions. Therefore, the situation had no impact onclient and the Firm sees no reason to reverse this charge. Complaint5/4/2015 [redacted] Correspondence with IRS regarding dates for status conference and reviewof mediation order 0.10 $21.50I would not have incurred this fee if the Firm scheduled the dates immediately at the conclusionof the mediation, as the judge's order explicitly indicated. ResponseThe client's interpretation of the Judge's order is erroneous. At the mediation, the clientraised the issue of potential dates for the follow-up telephone conference with the Judge and themediator responded that he is not involved in that issue. Ms. [redacted] thereupon informed theclient that, consistent with the Judges' Order, the issue would be handled in the usual mannerbetween counsel subsequent to the mediation. The Firm sees no basis for issuing a client a creditfor this charge Conclusion After a thorough view of the circumstances, the Firm believes that it met all of its commitmentsto the Client; that it provided him with professional service and that he received full and fairvalue for the amount charged. Therefore, the Firm does not agree to the Client's request for afurther refund. .Very truly yours,[redacted]
Attached is correspondence sent to Mr. [redacted] today, including return of the copies of documents he left with our office. I trust this adequately responds to your inquiry. Please let me know if you require anything further. Jennifer [redacted], Esq.
Revdex.com: Please accept this further response in reference to complaint ID [redacted]. Tully Rinckey PLLC communicated clearly to Ms. [redacted] that Attorney Greg [redacted] was assuming responsibility on her son's case after Mr. [redacted] left the firm. Tully Rinckey PLLC was not in the position to notify Ms. [redacted] of Mr. [redacted]'s whereabouts. Mr. [redacted] did talk to Dr. [redacted], and it is true that he spoke to her prior to talking with Ms. [redacted]'s son. He had to schedule the appointment to speak with her son, after he spoke to the treating physician. The case record also shows that Mr. [redacted] previously spoke to her son. Contrary to the allegations, the case record does not show that Mr. [redacted] billed the case for a "trial" preparation. Tully Rinckey PLLC was retained to assist the client in an ongoing legal proceeding associated with military criminal charges, and there is clear proof that Mr. [redacted] actively worked on her son's case. The undersigned attorney reached out to Ms. [redacted] within a reasonable time. Mr. [redacted] is licensed to practice in military courts and administrative matters, so he was indeed qualified to handle her son's matters. Finally, Tully Rinckey PLLC provided Ms. [redacted] with billing statements in a timely manner, and Mr. [redacted] personally provided her with a full billing history in response to her specific request. Tully Rinckey PLLC is concerned that Ms. [redacted] is disappointed, but her specific allegations are contradicted by the records of the case.
Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.List this complaint appropriately as a dissatisfied customer. Keep an eye on future complaints, this firm is operating with unlawful business practices especially exhortation of monies. If they defended my case as well as they defending their trumped up charges, the case would have been closed. Regards,[redacted]
We are sorry to learn that the firm’s prior response does not resolve this complaint. However, much of what the client says is mere reiteration of her previous complaint, to which the firm has already responded. The firm invoiced the client consistently throughout the course of its representation. However, contemporaneous with this response, we have provided the client with a full and complete account statement that should satisfy her requirements in this regard. We note that the client does not reiterate her demand for a fee refund of $10,000 but now requests $2,500 she believes is left in her account. However, that figure is incorrect, a fact that should have been evident to the client from the most recent invoice she received. The firm is in the process of refunding to the client the correct credit balance in her account, including the credits noted below. Previously, we have responded to the client’s assertion that the firm “failed to take any action on the case” and that “nothing was achieved” and stand by that response. As for mediation, the client’s employer flatly refused to engage in mediation during time of the firm’s representation. This is not indicative of a failing on the part of the firm. We cannot force a party to mediate. The fact that new counsel supposedly “moved the situation into mediation” may well be the result of work that this firm previously performed. Moreover, moving a situation to mediation is not the same as accomplishing something, unless the case actually settles as the result of the mediation. The client makes a number of vague assertions about “having documents” supporting one or another of her claims, but does not produce those documents. In the absence of anything further from the client, the firm can only reiterate its previous statement that, far from making mere “grammatical edits,” it performed significant work on the client’s case. Likewise, the firm has already responded to the complaint that the firm did not send documents to the client’s employer. All necessary and appropriate documents were sent except for the last document that the firm drafted, which would have been submitted by the firm within the required deadline except for the fact that the client grew impatient and submitted the document on her own. Notwithstanding, the firm will credit the client with work done on that document without its knowledge that the client had already submitted it. The firm’s prior response does not state that “management doesn’t provide a client with updates on matters relating to one’s case.” This is a total mischaracterization of the firm’s prior reply and, in a word, false. The firm prides itself on keeping clients fully up-to-date on all developments in their cases. The firm stands by its statement that the client did not ask to meet with an attorney in person and that, had she asked, the request would have been granted. It is neither common courtesy nor a best business practices to require unnecessarily that a client transact all business in person. In many if not most instances, it is inconvenient for the client and inefficient as well. However, the firm always honors requests from clients, consistent with the attorney’s already-scheduled engagements. The firm also stands behind its practice, in the interest of most effectively using the client’s resources, of having junior attorneys handle as much work as they are competent to handle and periodically consulting with senior attorneys to ensure that the matter is proceeding properly. There is no question that this method of staffing the client’s case achieved significant savings for her. The client accuses the firm of having “sabotaged” her cases. The dictionary definition of “sabotage” is to deliberately destroy or damage something. The client offers no evidence in support of this reckless claim and the firm rejects it in the strongest terms. In closing, the firm reiterates its belief that the services rendered to this client were consistent with the highest standards of the legal profession.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.I am disappointed in the response from Tully Rinckney1. This is the first I've heard of Mr. [redacted] resignation from the organization, as evidenced by the multiple emails from me requesting to know his whereabouts long after the month of May.2. Why would the [redacted] psychologist Dr. [redacted] gave a sworn statement, "that she has never spoken to Mr. [redacted] and upon her initial conversation with Mr. [redacted] he told her he had never spoken to my son prior to speaking with her on May 2016." Please see the attached copy of Dr. [redacted] sworn statement.3. Hence, if Mr. [redacted] had resigned on April 27th -why would he bill me for trial prep when no trial date had been set-he knew he was not going to be there due to the resignation -there's no evidence he actively participated in my sons case prior to his departure as evidenced by the doctor reaching out along with my many emails & phone calls attempting to get him to respond.4. Mr. [redacted] never reached out to me until I sent a statement to the main office in New York and by the way he does not have practice privileges in my son's jurisdiction and is why he was not originally assigned to the case.-I received my initial statement from this company that is dated April 27th (at least 45 days from March 15th)after almost all the $8500 retainer was charged and Mr. [redacted] had disappeared and never responded to me or anyone else regarding my son case. I did not receive statements monthly as stated by Mr. [redacted] as evidenced by email requesting a payment from me for which I responded "as soon as I get a statement" Mr. [redacted] then told his assistant to send me a statement. How could he state I have received statements every 30 days when I didn’t receive a initial statement until not less than 45 days later and after Mr. Gavin [redacted] was gone. -Mr. [redacted] alleged I was never billed for a trial that did not occur by his organization please see the attached receipt date for services through Mr. [redacted] departure. I personally think this company charged these charges against my retainer realizing Mr. [redacted] was no longer there to represent me and didn't want to refund my money. As a direct result created fictitious charges in his absence that he wouldn't know about since he no longer works there. It was an unprofessional move and it's deeply disappointing to me as a consumer. If I was aware of Mr. [redacted] departure why would I keep making references and request to speak to him. further, emails dated April 29, 2016 made no mention of Mr. [redacted] departure and may 4 email from Mr. [redacted] states he's his supervisor as if he was still onboard in May 2016, it is what he implied. I have nothing showing I was informed he was gone. I received no statements unless I requested them.this is the reason I asked for assistance... Mr. [redacted] isn't licensed to practice in the area where my son's legal problems occurred. Please see the bottom of his emails explaining the state he is licensed in. he only got involved after all these fictitious charges were made. Regards,[redacted]
September 16, 2016 Revdex.com RE: Response...
To Whom it may Concern: Please accept this response to the customer experience reported by [redacted]. We respectfully deny her assertions, and state that all legal services provided to Ms. [redacted] were appropriate and timely, and we are sincerely disappointed that she is not satisfied. Ms. [redacted] retained Tully [redacted] PLLC on March 15, 2016, to assist with her son's pending Court-Martial action. Prior to hiring our firm, her son's military defense attorneys requested a competency evaluation. Therefore, at the time she retained our firm; Ms. [redacted]'s son was the defendant in a military Court-Martial action and was being medically evaluated at the Federal Correctional Complex in [redacted]. Her son had been deemed to be temporarily unable to stand trial due to mental competency issues. This is a very rare and extremely complex type of criminal case that requires the review of hundreds of pages of medical records. The firm assigned attorneys Greg [redacted] and Gavin [redacted] to assist with the matters associated with the criminal competency evaluation. Ms. [redacted] alleges that Gavin [redacted] billed her for fictitious charges, and that her emails and calls went unreturned. Tully [redacted] PLLC denies these allegations. While Mr. [redacted] worked on the case, he billed for time reviewing the laws, medical records and important case documents associated with her son's competency evaluation and the underlying criminal case. He also had several communications with Ms. [redacted], the military attorneys involved with the case and the associated healthcare professionals. When I began working the case, I immediately began communicating with the medical professionals at correctional center at [redacted] I also routinely communicated with Ms. [redacted] and the associated military attorneys. On April 27, 2016, Mr. [redacted] resigned the law firm because of personal family matters. However, our office contacted Ms. [redacted] within two days after his departure, and I personally began communicating with her on May 4. Ms. [redacted] was not billed for my review of any materials previously reviewed by Mr. [redacted]. Our communications remained consistent until she ceased communications. Ms. [redacted] was never billed for a trial that did not occur, and our office provided Ms. [redacted] with a detailed outline of all of the services provided on a monthly basis and upon her specific request. After further inquiry, it is my understanding that her son has now been deemed competent to participate in the Court-Martial, and trial will now commence. We regret that Ms. [redacted] is not satisfied with our representation, and respectfully state that our firm is willing to continue further representation upon her request. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at [redacted]. Sincerely, Gregory [redacted], Esq. Partner