|
|
Review 6/16/2010
|
I hired this law firm early 2009, for a loan modification. Our business relationship ended unfavorably in October, 2009. I located the firm on the Internet; phoned for information and fees, and decided to hire them to handle my home loan modification, which consisted of a 1st and a 2nd loan. A paralegal and a "modification specialist" handled my file during the 7 months it took to complete the "1st" loan. I regularly contacted the firm regarding the status of my file and was assured that things were moving along. I was offered a modification approximately six months later. It was not what I asked for, but at this point, I needed to accept it. I was informed when I first began working with the firm (and during the process) that they would begin work on my 2nd loan when the first was completed. This never happened. I received an email from Attorney Roberts on a Friday night(his first communication during the 7 months) stating that they would need more money by Monday morning to continue working on my 2nd loan. I was unable to pay more money and ended our relationship. Two weeks later, I received paperwork directly from the 1st loan company and several things had been changed--the Roberts law firm never reviewed the final paperwork from on first, thus allowing the loan company to change what was discussed.
They forwarded my file to me, which was in disarray; account numbers were mixed up, information was incorrect, etc. I complained about the condition of the files (as they wanted me to take over what they had started), and Attorney Roberts emailed me apologizing; he also informed me that he terminated the "modification specialist". However, they never offered to make things right with me, their client. I have now hired another attorney, and am out-of-pocket several more thousand dollars to have this handled. I trusted that this firm was honorable, and would perform the service as promised in the beginning. I hope in the future they will learn not to make verbal promises (telling their clients that the contract is just a formality), then change what was said; I hope they will work to the best of their ability to perform the services that they were hired for; and last but not least, realize that the client is the reason they are in business. Firing an employee solves none of the above.
|
|
|
|
Business's response - by joseph r.on 6/17/2010
|
|
Summary:
Consumer blatantly lies about the facts and the terms of her signed contract for legal services.
The firm will release all client records to the BBB with the consumer's consent.
Consumer is strongly urged to release a copy of her signed retainer, correspondence and billing statements,
and to correct the misrepresentations made about the firm.
Consumer received and accepted a trial loan modification on her first mortgage negotiated by the firm.
Consumer received and rejected a trial loan modification on her second mortgage negotiated by the firm.
Consumer agreed to pay law firm on an HOURLY basis, not a flat fee basis and was provided an itemized accounting of all time expended.
Consumer exhausted her $2,500 retainer before receiving the second loan modification offer.
Consumer was given an additional $576.68 in free legal services as the firm continue to work on the second modification.
Consumer elected to not renew representation after using up her retainer plus the additional $576.68 in free legal services and declining to accept the second modification offer.
The Facts:
On April 1, 2009 the consumer signed a written retainer to hire the law firm to pursue a loan modification on her first and second mortgage.
The consumer misrepresents the terms of the agreement. The firm did not agree to pursue the loan modification on a FLAT FEE basis as alleged.
Consumer agreed to pay the firm on an HOURLY basis and has excluded this fact.
The written contract proves that the consumer signed an agreement to hire the firm at an hourly rate of $390 for the attorney and $130 for staff.
Consumer paid $2000 in advance to pursue the first and $500 to pursue the second modification. Results were not guaranteed and fees were not contingent on any specific result. Consumer hired firm for a predetermined block of time, not unlimited legal services.
The firm worked diligently to pursue a modification on the first mortgage from April 1 until ab
|
|
|
|
|
|