Complaints

• Initial Complaint

  22/08/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  We are being retaliated against by a lawyer because this lawyer has shown nothing but incompetence over the past 16 months and it's really affecting our family. This lawyer was always provided whatever was required but would miss so much work and fall behind and then end up looking like a fool in front of the judge. This has happened so many times and the lawyer takes it out on us. The lawyer called yesterday, freaking out about missing information when in fact the lawyer was sent the info months ago, she then hung up on us once hearing this. The lawyer also said she will continue to do things even after being fired so that she can run up the billables and make sure we dont get our retainer back. The lawyer was sent $ 3500.00 since June 14 2024 and has not had any court or calls or emails since then but is now saying the $3500.00 is all used up and she needs $1200.00 to close out the bill. That is $4700.00 in billables for a period of time where we didnt ever hear from this lawyer. This lawyer is retaliating by taking our money, she is furious that she got fired and she even said right out to us that she will do what she can to ensure the retainer is all used up.

  Business response

  17/09/2024

  ***** ******** is not a client of **** *********. 

  His wife was a client of **** *********. Mr. ******** became upset on the morning of a court application when he decided he wanted to leave the jurisdiction with his wife and a child, whom his wife was currently having a custody dispute with her ex over. It was explained to Mr. ******** that they could not leave until the custody dispute was resolved, as the court would not permit the child to leave the jurisdiction as the other parent who resided in the jurisdiction still had rights to have access to the child. Mr. ******** then decided that he was going to sell the matrimonial home in any event and leave his wife and her child behind. He became irate when it was explained to him that his wife owned half of the house by virtue of the fact that they were married and he could not sell the home. 

  That same day Ms. ******* attempted to discuss things with Ms. Learning, but Mr. ******** would not let her speak to Ms. ******* and hung up on her twice. Mr. ******** had fired Ms. ******* but he would not allow Ms. ******* to confirm same with his wife, who was actually the client. 

  It should also be noted that the Learnings had no issues with Ms. ******* up until this day, which again was the day of a court hearing. They had given directions the week before that they understood they could not move and would not attempt to move until after Christmas.  It seems that Mr. ******** changed his mind over the weekend and then became irate that he could not get his own way. It should also be noted that the Learnings had also hired another lawyer at the firm to handle a Peacebond for them two months before the breakdown in relationship. Obviously by virtue of the fact they hired another lawyer at the firm they were not dissatisfied with the service they received up until that point. 

   

  Ms. ******* did miss one court date due to a medical emergency, which another lawyer at the firm attended in her stead. There was no consequence to this for the Learnings as the court merely postponed the Application for a few weeks. No filing dates were missed and the judge commented when Ms. ******* removed herself from the file that she had done an excellent job moving the file forward and commented on the quality of the legal brief. Ms. ******* also never hung up on the Learnings in any phone conversation and did not say she would continue to run up the bill after she was fired to drain the retainer. 

   

  Not all of the money the Learnings sent the law firm was used by Ms. *******. Some of the money was used in relation to their peace bond file. Additionally, there were over 40 emails and phone calls between June 14 and August 19 the date of the breakdown. It is true that he was not called but he was not the client. The correspondence was between Ms. Learning, the actual client and Ms. *******. 

   

  It was also explained to Mr. ******** that the Law Society has a process in place for billing disputes, which his wife can avail of and we will cooperate with. However, since he is not actually the client, he cannot enter this process unless his wife decides its in her own interest. 

   

  We would respectively ask that the complaint be dismissed. 

   

  ******* ***

   

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩