Complaints

• Initial Complaint

  06/09/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  June 8, 2023, Relevant Law was supposed to refund me my retainer weeks ago but they refused. They send me my refund June 8, 2023 and had spent $194.50 additional of my retainer when my lawyer had already left the firm. When I contacted **** **** about the issue of not getting my refund, he was rude and bashed my attorney. When I tried to leave the firm weeks ago he tried to make me feel bad and bashed the attorney I was going with. I think the bill was for service of process which should have been $12.00 through the sheriff, but was $113.00. Relevant always had $12 for each process service through the sheriff. They used someone else for this without my approval. They provided me every invoice I had ever had there. The most recent bill had the $113.00, plus $51.00 to get my own file. That is unethical as my file is my property. They also charged me to review an Order from an attorney support, and it was an Order my attorney already had and had viewed. My services with them were terminated yet they continued to charge me against my wishes. They need to do better for the public and not harm other people's reputations either. The emails they sent me about ***** ********* were rude and harmful to her character. Acting in character assassination is not ok. I want that $194.50 returned to me asap.

  Business response

  06/20/2023

  We appreciate the opportunity to address the concerns raised by this client. At Relevant Law - Lynchburg, we strive to uphold the highest levels of professionalism and ethical conduct and treat all complaints with the seriousness they deserve. The decision to sever our client's relationship with our firm was processed in line with our established procedures. These protocols, clearly outlined in our service agreement, cover all aspects from settling outstanding balances to transferring client files. Our staff members explained these processes in detail to the client.Regarding the service of process fees, it appears the client's contention is rooted in a lack of understanding of her specific obligations. While the cost of sheriff's service may be lower, and we have used this service in the past, the choice of process server is a legal decision based on several factors, including efficiency and expediency. These factors are requested by the attorney and legal support staff and are clearly outlined in our service agreement, which the client agreed to at the outset of our professional relationship. We further clarified these points in communications between the client and her attorney and legal support staff. It's important to note that sheriff’s service isn't merely $12; the additional costs for time and preparation by firm team members were not factored in by the client, despite our explanations.Given these circumstances, we firmly believe that our firm has acted in line with our established procedures and the service agreement. The refund of $194.50 that the client demands is not consistent with our policy, as these costs were reasonably incurred in the course of providing legal services to the client.We regret any misunderstandings that have arisen from this situation. However, our commitment to providing excellent legal services remains unwavering. Relevant Law - ********* is dedicated to upholding the highest level of service for our clients and maintaining transparency in our communications.Client SupportRelevant Law  

  Customer response

  06/21/2023

  I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed There was no offer of resolution just them saying they provide exceptional service. They reference this was a decision made that was agreed to by me and was expedient service. It was slow service and failed my needs, all without consulting me. I never agreed to more expensive service and this whole place is a joke with what they charge. There is a lot of money I’d love back, but I am only asking for this through the BBB. They need to pay me back this. This is corruption and stealing  Regards, **** ******

• Initial Complaint

  03/07/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Unanswered

  More info

  I hired ***** ********* at Relevant Law to amend my child support due to legal change in custody. Ms. ********* was not prepared for court and ultimately had our case dismissed. This was a very simple process that should have been an easy win. The judge actually recommended that we seek new representation for the appeal because Ms. ********* was so incompetent. Ms. ********* also appeared to be under the influence of something as she frequently was spaced out and I had to repeat myself often when having one on one discussions with her and my wife. Another reason for my complaint today is the unethical behavior of the owners of Relevant Law, **** and ****** ****. When I explained to Mr. **** the multiple ways Ms. ********* was negligent, and provided evidence to support it, they not only refused to refund the $7400 paid for legal services but altered the new invoice to contradict everything I reported to them in my complaint. And they wiped my account clean without explaining where the remaining funds went ($1,888). I am attaching both invoices so you can see what I am referring to. They edited the comments to appear as though Ms. ********* researched information we provided to her and then provided feedback to me stating the information was unclear. Please ask her for this correspondence because there is none. I, on the other hand, have multiple emails from her stating the information provided to her was "great!" and "super useful". Turns out, since I am not a certified accountant, all information I provided would have been inadmissible. Something any lawyer would know. Ms. ********* did NOTHING for my case and I want my money back. They are all liars, unethical and negligent.

*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. ↩